Do the DTB not realise that if this gets into the national press, they would be a laughing stock? And it would follow that AFCW would be tainted by this. Is that really the purpose of the DTB? I would like to think not - we shall see!

Good to know that the DTB are arrogant enough to not care about causing another rift with voters just as they atr about to ask us to vote on 50+1 again.

That purported rule 10 reads like adiktat from the Kremlin. Anyone Putin does nit approve of may not run for president. If they demur - off to the gulags. If they still demur - polonium time!

Cheers for outing me Bert 😆 Seriously though, I reached out and made it clear that this community couldn't die so he offered it to me with technical support available. The admin portal is so confusing but I think I'll make a go of it. Going forward some folk on here are going to have to moderate how they post or we'll do it for them. Today's events are proof of that. Be careful of how you mention the DTB. Criticism is okay, unfounded accusations are not.

My response: “ I would suggest it’s up to the ESG to prove that the rule they have used to remove members’ rights to vote on a candidate should be fully justified to have been created and approved correctly by the ESG. Therefore I repeat my request to see proof that the board approved the rule. Multiple board members I have spoken with directly have never heard of the rule. If the board has approved it then they will have their own questions to answer. Thanks for confirming about your ticket that is equally concerning and I’m surprised you took it up given your role on the ESG. I appreciate it’s a highly prized ticket. Very valuable.”

When asking the ESG for proof that the Board approved rule 10 I have had the following response : “ it is up to the DTB to answer the evidence point as they approved them and the details are in their minutes.”

“The ESG believes that going forward, any candidate who breaches the VCoC should be disqualified from the election (this may be extended to past behaviour, subject to agreement of a process to allow for "rehabilitation"). A prudent approach may be to send all prospective candidates a copy of the VCoC and the EFL "Owners and Directors" criteria. Prior to the ballot being finalized we should ensure each nominee formally agrees to abide by the former and provides assurance they will pass the latter.“

No he won’t Shane, cos they’ll throw the volunteers code of conduct at him cos of his post on X today. He has dared to speak out against them , I expect he’ll be barred. Hope I’m wrong.

Surely even if suspended from the board (for “conduct that is detrimental to the society’s interests”!) a member should still be able to stand for election.

Ferret, I fear Shane is right, the delay is likely because they are discussing right now whether to ban/suspend Hoody .

Exactly OI. It’s purely subjective and comes down to individual preference for candidates. It shouldn’t be a rule and if the board have approved it then they need to be held accountable.

Rule 10 in it's historic part is interesting. Someone could be ruled out by it this year and a different make up of ESG could allow them to stand the next year. That means the personal opinions of ESG members come into play and as they are not elected, that seems a significant problem.

Where are the manifestos? I presume they’ve not been published yet.

lol @ Bad Egg

I made the front entrance stairs (and then the bar!) at the last home game and hope to do the same this weekend.

Aideen - rule 69 you can’t sack the fucking board

Still no manifestos … :-(

Sack the fucking board.

6mdm I think rule 10 was created by someone who is neither a Dons Trust Board member nor a member of the ESG.

Good stuff Bert. I’d cross you but no way am I crossing Meadow 😉

Shane - I have no objection, but I have taken a step back, Meadow is in charge.

Never mind what the breach was. We should be told who wrote this mystical ruie 10, when and who approved it on behalf of the members.

And that Rule 10 - shouldn't they at least make clear exactly what breach has been committed?

Alan - I agree. It's just nuts. Let him stand. He may not even get elected. What is it they are worried about?

One thing that strikes me as wrong, is haven't they learnt anything from last year? The members general view was that he, Shane should be allowed to run, even if many see him as a marmite [YUK] candidate.