RK: Yes, they have a broker lined up to try and find a similarly structured deal from others. But it would be starting from scratch and we would likely hit a rocky position before we got there.

I agree with RK. This is being portrayed as a binary choice - SSC now or administration at end of the season or thereabouts. If the other 19 proposals were all so woefully inferior to SSC - fine - but given the importance of this decision, I think we should at least know what the, say, next two best (in the DTB's view). Don't need names - just terms - so not a commercial confidentiality issue.

I don't know if it's in this Pack, but there should be some plan on what action the DT would take in tje event of a NO vote. Obvioua option would be to go for the "next best" but doing that would need to understand why SSC were rejected and what Option delivers that SCC doesn"t ...and so on

well said, hash and Trigs, i agree - my comment based on what is in the packs. Meadow, the email had very little info, it jsut poitned to this site really [Link]

Oxford - he's always been Omar Mir afaik, but he has changed the middle names used on directors registers.

Since Freddie, sorry that should be Omar, is The Much Honoured Baron of Thorntoun (Omar Michael Thomas Mir, Baron of Thorntoun) in Scotland, do we need to get international clearance…?

Can someone forward the last couple of emails from the club regarding the vote as I'm not getting anything? Obviously the voting link won't work for me but I'd like to see what else is available.

Trigs is correct. Ultimately we wont know until we know and maybe it will all end in tears but as it stands currently i haven't seen a better option for us than this.

From a top line view it’s not obviously a bad deal and with all an available information it seems a good deal. As I said before, we’ll only know what it is some way down the line.

I'm no financial expert but as far as I can see this is Hobson's Choice.

Thanks TF

There is some info on that in Sections 7 and 10 RK but they're listed from the point of view that this deal is recommended by the author(s) so you can decide for yourself whether all risks are covered and to what extent each is or isn't mitigated.

Does this pack outline risks and risk management ?

Same Russ and that's where I think there could be a point of weakness (not that I think SSC dominating the board is much better tbh) in that if they're sat there with their investment chequebook and the board keeps voting against them it's not a happy relationship.

6MDM you have done an excellent job breaking it down, and I agree with all of you analysis. Ultimately, as you say, SSC are the owners. We shouldn't forget the reason for all this though - we have no cash left, as you say the alternative is administration. Bear in mind, if we sold the club, whatever anyone promises there are very few safeguards that can be implemented, or secured in ownards sale chains. A lot of leverage is lsot. In that light, I think the DT have got a great deal - the club is being sold, dont think it any different, but we have a lot more safeguards to protect key assets (the ground, etc) than if we sold the club outright. And for a fair chunk of investment commitment, with a claw back mechanism if it doesn't materialise. in the circumstances, i think its the best deal possible, and better than I was expecting, truth be told.

I think pitch owners was looked at but only through the lens of replicating the Chelsea pitch owners set up rather than taking the concept and seeing how we could adapt it to our own circumstances. I think Chelsea’s has different people with different levels of stakes and a few other mechanisms that we wouldn’t necessarily need, we could just put it all under the DT as a subsidiary. However I see in the investment deck they can’t transfer the stadium as a whole to the DT as it would create a £6m tax bill. So maybe there are some financial barriers to it as well? We weren’t given much more detail beyond a short report dismissing the model.

an option and even not ever!

There is always on option NickD. Remember that ever Hammam was a hero until he wasn't! The balance of the deal on the table is very much in our favour if we assume that Omar isn't Hammam and his investment makes us turn out more like Wrexham than Bury.

It's not quite the only model Hash as a full sale would achieve the same result and the whole ground being sold out from under us is unlikely to happen again. But I do agree that we simply can't carry on as we are (though i do harbour a concern that the shadier side of SSC may cause friction with the IFR/EFL) so while I am content to scrutinise this to the nth degree I also hope that it passes the vote (it will) and works out in the medium term (impossible to say either way.)

Hash - and that is exactly where we’re at. We can’t sustain L1 long term. We can’t sustain PL in non-league. So a perfect storm that leaves us with no option.

Ultimately if we want to be a L1+ club, or even a L2+ club playing at Plough Lane then this is the only model that will make that feasible and its the closest we will get to being 'fan owned', owning the stadium etc. If we want to be conference minus then fine reject it but Plough Lane probably isn't a feasible stadium in non league so consider that too.

On the pitch owners thing, IRC - we were told it was looked at but not feasible to replicate what Chelsea have. Does anyone know why?

Yes re pitchowners. That's something we could do to protect younger fans coming after us from some of what we went through.

If we get the 16 million it keeps us struggling along for the foreseeable future. I'm dubious we'll get anything further but 16 million is more than I expected. If it falls apart before we get that then we are screwed anyway.

Agreed Nick - it would be good if our representatives on the trust board started moving towards a pitch ownership situation so that the inevitable full sale can go ahead with mitigated risk.