We're at rethink it with at least some new voices on the DTB. Adding to the thought that we want a premium on the price (I don't agree with John Galt on all things but his share valuation looks pretty accurate) and aren't offering any degree of control, we are trying to sell shares in a company regularly making significant losses.

OI, any potential future Nick Robertson type? I assume those who say 'there is nobody' would have said the same prior to Nick Robertson. He might even know someone (just pure speculation but yes, he might). Of course the 30% equity wouldn't solve the bond issue unless that equity was sold but 1. vote it through and we might find a stewardship investor or 2. block it and we definitely won't find one. We are at option 2 now.

Will Angus be by his chalkboard tonight?

Who would be bargaining with if it had passed Hash? The DTB say there is no current interest and our offer seems to be overpriced shares with zero control in return, so some doubt the uptake will be significant. It is, done correctly, a useful tool in thr box but it doesn't solve the bond problem in itself.

If someone like Ivor gets on the board and campaigns for it then it would get through easily. Ultimately this DTB probably had the right 'big ideas' but were a complete clusterfuck in execution having bitten off more than they can chew. Most clearly shown by leaving everything to the last minute (e.g. when did we get that strategy paper? a few days before the vote closed despite having around a year warning of when the vote would be or what about the proposed amendments to the Members Resolutions.. Never completed with a distraction circulated a day or so before the meeting).

SW - i expect people who are against 50%+1 to take the lead in discussions about alternative means of raising up to £3.3M by 2027 and another £3M by 2030. If their answer is 'cut the playing budget and go back to the conference / CS', i doubt it will be popular.

Slough, there was a olan to pay it back by using player selling fees and one-off cup income. They couldn't deliver because a large amount of that went in shoring up our operational running costs after two (almost certainly three) years of financial losses circa £1-£2m

SW - great summary, spot on IMO.

What this vote and results have shown is:- 1) Although the Bonds solved an issue and the high interest return was a big carrot clearly there wasn't a plan on how to pay them back and not like the various boards of past 3/4 years not had time. 2) While I agree ST holders should be DT members was this the right time to implement it and surely it should of been via an opt in rather than opt out? 3) Why was Resolution 1 ever on the table it, imo, confused the vote and seems members voted for that to protect the 50.01% vote. 4) Is it part of the process/rules to send out the 2nd vote emails so soon as surely members will again vote For as they feel that is what is required as been no real communication from the DTB on their views around this and as they needed 50.01 to pass surely this will end any hope of another vote happening? 5) Would be good to hear from the DTB Chair on what the Plan B is now going forward as at present we seem to have a ticking time bomb to 2027 and considering they had years to plan to pay the Bonds it's not looking great? 8) What this now shows is how hard it is to move forward on the current ownership model as have so many differing voices of opinions and why before going to members a clear plan needs to be in place before going to members and really needs a Board of differing views too so every angle is discussed fully before being communicated to members otherwise nothing will move forward

KD - a revamped DT Board after some suitable consultation and adjustment could bring it back and I'd almost guarantee it would pass. The only downside of that is if we are being told lies about there not being any immediate buyers and the delay puts them off. But I'm sure it is true that we don't have folk lined up.

I remember it now - thanks Nicander & Hash. I thought at the time that Foxy had intended to let it through otherwise why claim he was reading the room? Maybe someone nobbled him ...

$6m/OI et al - Well, we’ll know who to blame if the DT defaults on Plough Lane Bonds redemptions having been unable to sell more equity 😉

Russ - LOL

Will the revised constitution now need 90% approval to be implemented?

don't forget the hour or so lost on being told repeatedly that no one votes before the meeting only to find that the people who had expressed their voting right, by handing it to the DTB chair, BEFORE THE MEETING, did in fact control the voting.

But I think the implication one could draw from that is: even relatively mild proposals from outside the tent, even when they come from a group of mainly ex-DTB members inc a club founder, even when 80-90% of members expressing a view were in favour, won't be accepted and can be stopped.

Red kite, it was just procedural stuff - not allowing voting until after a meeting, not allowing DTB to recommend how people should vote were two that spring to mind.

RK - some pretty innocuous governance changes around the way voting works; how recommendations from the board work; making it easier for motions put forward by members to succeed; wanting all meetings to be properly hybrid

Can someone remind me what the vote was for at the earlier SGM where the Chair's proxies won the day despite his "reading of the room"

I didn't vote against 50%+1, even when that looked a sensible option for delay, because I'm in favour of it, just with a sensible process and safeguards, not the ridiculous Super RAs. But it is kind of KD to psychoanalyse me, I'm sure he has all the relevant talents for it.

Redeeming my bonds next year, don't want to leave to club while being run by the present DTB. Never have been a diehard fan ownership supporter. Hopefully some clear thinking comes to the fore very soon.

I was one of those that waited until the last day and them voted no to both resolutions when it became clear the threshold was going to be reached. The super RA is going to be the nail in our coffin. The 50% + 1 felt like a way to delay the inevitable, rather than a fix. The amount of interest that would be saved repaying bonds out of whatever could be raised from paying off the bonds is trivial in comparison to our underlying trading losses. We simply do not have people at the club able or willing to balance the books. There are three options. 1. Cut our cloth accordingly now and see where we end up with income (reduced crowds) and lower costs. 2. Wait for administration when we cannot pay our creditors and get sued. 3. Sell out completely.

The odd thing is that most of the issues in the SGM were pretty minor in the scheme of things - had the DTB agreed to go with the actual votes of the members (rather than ignoring the votes and swamping them with Chairman's proxies) this would have created a lot of goodwill and trust and probably the 50%+1 would have passed, as it was pretty close anyway

TSO - I was on the same panel as you with Kevin Rye et al and I didn’t get the sense you were particularly in favour of 50%+1, let alone outright sale. This ‘I would’ve voted 50%+1 with a different DTB’ is a cop-out. We’ve bottled it.

OI- is this yet another example of real-world stuff being distorted by (poor use of) technology ?