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 ?

TSO, without question you are spot on. I can't think of anybody watching and voting in the SGM, them members led one, that felt that's a win-win. All I saw and felt that the DTB, not just Angus, had went balls to the wall, to defend the status quo, rather than try and be amenable and say "we have a problem and must make it work" they didn't, and despite the mood music, the implication of the proxy vote was incendiary. I don't believe they recovered from that, nor can they.

I can't watch the SGM on Zoom as that would constitute me voting. We are definitely through the looking glass, way past down the rabbit hole.

KD, I’m not one of those you refer to as PTSD (which given the damage I’ve seen this cause I wouldn't mind if you didn’t use so flippantly). I voted no because I have zero trust in this board. I’d be quite happy to see a full sale on the table but only with the right people in charge. While it’s true the DTB ran consultations, the issue isn’t just about whether panels and reports happened—it’s about the quality of the engagement and how balanced the communication was. If members feel the process was one-sided, that reflects a failure to build trust and properly educate the membership on the options. Blaming individual groups or specific members doesn’t address the systemic issues: a lack of unified messaging, poor leadership, and an inability to ensure a high turnout or clear mandate. The reality is that fewer than 59% of members even voted! The two ticks campaign had an 87% turnout so if we’d matched this maybe the 1000 you refer to wouldn’t even matter. Without rebuilding trust and addressing these failings, any second vote on 50+1% is likely to face the same problems. The focus now must be on engaging the membership properly, not just rehashing past frustrations.

Why would anyone want to give more money to those that think it's their devine right to run the club their way. And they can't make progress on losses after 4 years in an expensive stadium we can't afford.

Tom Sw19, the moths were keeping guard inside their wallets....

anyone else noticed bluewomble hasn't been on here for a couple of months?

KD - I don't think that's true at all, and I think you're doing a large % of those people a disservice.

In the end, Nicander, we have about 1k fans who still haven’t accepted that Wimbledon FC did actually move to Milton Keynes in 2002 and are forever fighting that battle in their heads.

KD - I'm sure there will be a temptation from those on the boards to blame the members' SGM, but I would suggest all that did was demonstrate that our governance is poor. Lots of opportunities for the boards to take a different path - on the issues raised there, on their approach to this vote, on their transparency and realism on future strategy.

Mouths!!

Those of us who are deemed to be "owners" are the ones who put their hands in their pockets after Eric's speech in Wimbledon Theatre back in 2002. We did it to get the club going. There were many at that meeting who wanted things to happen but were unwilling to put their money where their moths were.

People forget the DTB consulted quite extensively on 50+1% and other finance options, with membership panels and a report. Unfortunately, a combination of the PTSDs needing to piss their knickers with a member-led SGM distraction + poor DTB leadership from the useless Angus Fox et al meant it didn’t quite make it. I don’t hold much hope for a second vote on it by the new DTB, and so we have the prospect of first team cloth being cut to an uncompetitive level.

Marc white is the manager and owner. They have a CEO Jonathan Bines and investors.

Angus is just their pit bull- Cerberus at the gates.

I think Marc White has his hands full at Dorking, Kitey. I believe he's the manager there as well as everything else.