Spit: I don't know if you were there/listened in, but the boards certainly weren't saying things are rosy.

Working capital tends to be a very commonly misused term of art, extending beyond its narrow meaning of current assets minus current liabilities. If providing working capital means replacing current liabilities with long-term liabilities on a like-for-like basis, then it's kicking the can down the road. If it's subsidising the operating budget, that's not kicking down the road. It will be interesting to see what the proposals are - quite possibly something between the two.

The fact ST are going on sell so early. Wanting fans to roll over bonds, very low players budget compared to others, I agree everything is looking a lot rosey. 👀

Reassuring that the attitude to retaining 'fan ownership' appears to be pragmatic, not dogmatic, but agree it would be a turn up for the books if there is an investor willing to take a minority stake and cover losses on an ongoing basis. Delighted to be proven wrong, but what happens if they then run out of cash or lose interest in providing 'working capital'.

The goalkeeper is hilarious in OTD. It looks like he's holding a mannequin.

I think that Hash’s summary below is accurate and I also agree that the speakers last night were good (with one exception) - I am still amazed at the idea that someone will take a stake of 23.6% and at the same time agree to provide “working capital” (which seems to be the accepted code for “bail out our ongoing losses”). The existence of this sort of investor seems to be how the DTB are attempting to square the circle of remaining both viable and fan-owned, so let’s hope that they exist. At the same time, it was made clear that, if push came to shove and it was a between selling below 50% and administration, we would choose the former rather than the latter. The idea of cutting costs to be solvent (described as “rightsizing”) seems to have been rejected, as we would need to drop to NL South level, and then wouldn’t be viable given the costs of the ground

Because of the 13% increase on season tickets, will that mean the ability to pay via direct debit apply? Not a ST holders but wasn't there an issue surrounding DD payments last season?

Yeah I was impressed with all the speakers last night. Think it helped that they were being a bit more candid and transparent

Thanks DunDonald and yes, forgot to mention the ST increase and sales starting imminently which is obviously to give us some cash

Karen: I think it will be interesting to see how the 13% will be structured. I'm guessing that the increases for the premium seats will be higher.

Good write-up, Hash. I thought it was a good meeting, set the scene well and got the tone right. With a different format, Angus was not being both master of ceremonies and spokesperson all at the same time, and I thought he came across well. I think our problems are structural rather than to do with the quality of our boards. Some of them do look as though they could do with a good night's sleep, though, and they're clearly working hard on our behalf.

I’m concerned how many season tickets we may lose with a rise of 13% and going on sale end of this month. One of our tickets won’t be renewed as it’s not used that often so unless the club manages to sell that seat next season they will lose on the S/T money plus the donated resell

Thanks Doobs. Key things for me were : 1. Rumours that we have told players they are not being re-signed are not true. 2. Our budget is 23rd and £1.5 million behind 20th. 3. Revenue is up pretty much across the board but so are costs. 4. There has been some improvement (8%) in no shows / empty seats. 5. Our profit from player sales has covered our operational loss over the last 5 years. 6. We are still due to run out of cash in summer 2026. 7. We have a £1 million loan available to get us through this if needed (the rumour about a £2 million loan from Ian NcNai already being used obviously was a play on this and not true). 8. We are in talks with multiple consortiums about investment. This may or may not include a consortium that includes a former Wimbledon player. NDAs have been signed. 9. The investors want more equity c. 25%. It wouldn't be 'kicking the can' because they won't just be making a one off payment but providing ongoing funds. They may want a place or two on the board in return. 10. 50%+1 vote will start in w/c 23rd March. There will be meetings before then. We have 23.6% equity available to sell so if an investor wants 25% they will need to buy some of an existing shareholder(s). 11. Vote for 50%+1. 12. Vote for 50%+1. 13. You will still get to vote on the individual investor even if 50%+1 goes through so vote for it.

Bye 👋,

I’ve tried to document what happened tonight fairly verbatim but it’s on Twitter and I have no idea how to unroll it. [Link]

Apologies - been out this evening. Can someone give a brief summary of what was said at meet?

Thank you to Doobs and whoever is running the Same Old Wombles X account. A very comprehensive coverage of the meeting.

Is there an update on Sam Hutchinson? Would make a difference to us in the run-in, if fit

If we can get an investor who will bail out our losses without want control then that is all well and good. If we can’t then the only alternatives would be to give up control or go into administration- the meeting tonight was pretty clear (albeit not stated explicitly) that we would choose the former rather than the latter and that “cutting costs and dropping back to NL South” wasn’t an alternative that we were going to look at

OI - just think of the warm fuzzy feeling the investor would get for doing something good

Silk - there is no clear path as to how anyone could gain control so we can't currently be valued at that level. There can't be any sort of under the table agreement because it has to go to the membership. At the moment we are valued as someone securing a stake not greater than 25% and possibly with commitments to pump money in as working capital year on year. The big question is what would you demand as quid pro quo for that?

The whole point that someone would buy a minority stake and provide “working capital” (aka bail out our losses) seems very odd to me, but if we can get someone to do that that would be great. Of course, in that case, whoever is providing the funding would in practice control the club, irrespective of their % shareholding, by simply threatening to cut off the funding if we didn’t do what they wanted.

SwinDon thrown out of the Vertu cup. Luton replace.

OI - you only need to buy 51% of the club to have control - so we could sell approx 25% now and still sell a controlling stake afterwards. The only limiting factor would be if the buyer wanted a higher stake to sell on later.

WW - You will find a lot of people who think the 30 million is more than the club is worth. However as they point out people want to buy English football clubs which ups the value but maybe only if they get control.