Silk. Lurker says not to worry. It won't have an impact on the wage bill or squad for another 2 yrs at least.

Not dead but certainly in the ICU. A £3m commercial loan to fund 2027 bond repayments will probably cost close to £0.5m pa

It's up to the Dons Trust board to provide a clear enough vision to get past the threshold required. I'm not voting for any board resolution until they provide an adequate level of assurance and a 20 page fluff piece 'strategy overview' doesn't cut it. They received 71% votes in favour. Provide greater assurance - including the release of the full strategy - and I'm sure they'd clear 75%.

RK - atm the moment we are within three years of bankruptcy. How much closer do you want it to get? If we keep on making these losses without any ability to pay off the second round of bonds it will be even quicker. Yet people are still more interested in fighting their civil war with members of the DTB than what is best for the club.

Surely not Postie - apart from today's drizzle, it's been pretty dry ...

Wandale is a bit high are we safe tonight

Strong words Silk but i dobthink it was disingenious to vote no. The "we're not ready" bit questions how close do you want to be a potential bankrupcy?

Hash has it right - the people who voted against 50+1 should put their balls where their mouth is and come up with an alternative way of funding the club. Without the means of clearing the stadium we are dead. We may be no better after we have paid the debt off but at least we have a fighting chance.

Good point Nick W. This board is a cluster. An absolute cluster.

Maverick, it's something that sadly will define this board, how sad is that. The next tranche of DTB members will have a population of restarting or returning members, hopefully with some new blood. The moment anybody says from the former groups, this is how we always do it, somebody give that person a slap. If ever there's a time for new elected members to look towards a different direction it's now. New board, new chair, new vision, new direction and Renewed emphasis at change being a force for good.

Another aspect of information being withheld is the fact that the 2024 accounts have not yet been issued- no proper company would expect shareholders to vote on a significant financial proposal in a situation where the most recent available accounts are nearly 17 months old.

Alan - It was what happened with that proxy vote that persuaded me to stand in the election.

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