Wouldn't the trust be one of the major creditors if the club went into administration? Just thinking of the previous process of the trust lending the club money then converting the debt into shares, but maybe that's no longer done?

OI- I think that your projection of when we will lose control unless something changes is pretty accurate

Lurker - If you think we can continue you as we are in a modern sport that is completely fucked, you too are incredibly deluded. The sport's changed, we simply have to adapt to that.

Lurker - it does indeed depend on the exact ownership structure and which company goes into administration but even if the ground is saved that company is presumably responsible for the upkeep of the stadium and could be 'starved' into giving up ownership by the club's new owners.

Going to make sure I vote for people who are in favour of 50%+1 in the board elections.

Morning all. Given that over 70% voted for being able to go down to 50+1, and that it fell short by less than a couple of hundred votes, it does suggest that with some proper backing behind it in future* it will pass. Even with the restricted actions.

following my train of thought anyone buying the club will have to show ability to cover the club's debts. So again very rich wanting a football club plaything or no one would seem the most likely. (Again doesn't actually seem less than 50.01 as currently proposed).

Thanks, Hash

ravabelli - then selling out control is the only option. We aren't going to up the number or pay of off-field staff significantly under fan ownership so quality is unlikely to improve. On current trends I think losing overall control will happen through administration around 2030.

Har Don you are being asked to confirm if we want to go ahead and impose a super restricted action (requiring 90% of the vote) for: Sale of any freehold interest in Plough Lane Any ground relocation from Plough Lane Name of the Club including nickname, or its status with the FA

Didn't vote yesterday due to my lack of total understanding of the issues. But I might well vote for the board members - who would folk on here recommend and why?

* who was pushing

Nicander - "Or at least certainly not in the same voting process as something you're actively campaigning for and trying to boost turnout on. They were essentially driving people to vote yes on SRAs." - Succinct and so spot on. Huge mistake. I still don't really know how was pushing for it and why. If it was added as a sweetner to encourage those with enshriner tendancies to vote for 50+1, then I'm totally lost for words.

If the DT board are having second thoughts on the super RA vote then, even if they can't "pull" that vote (and, as nicander says, I think that they can't) then they could simply not push the vote with reminders etc and hope that the turnout is below the required threshold if people aren't actively chased to vote.

If I remember correctly the football club and the stadium are owned by 2 different entities. Meaning that if the football club goes into administration, the only thing available to buy is the football club. So we won't get a good or a bad deal, we will just get whatever someone is willing to pay for the club. Meaning, since there's no ability to squirrel away the ground, whoever buys it is likely to be someone looking to buy and own an actual football club. Which is most likely to be either someone rich enough to run it properly or no one. The chances of someone with no money buying it and running it down to non league and ceasing to exist is low.

I just about lost the will to live reading everything before voting last time

Can someone please explain in brief, clear English, what this email is about that I'm being asked to vote yes or no on.

OI - Aware of that, but I don't think the best we can get is good enough. That's the big worry here.

Perversely having no chairman proxies may increase the chance of Super RA's passing. Based on the Members SGM figures, I'd suspect many would prefer the chairman decided. I get the impression the DTB aren't in favour, so MAYBE Angus would have voted against.

Or at least certainly not in the same voting process as something you're actively campaigning for and trying to boost turnout on. They were essentially driving people to vote yes on SRAs.

DD - I don't think you can pull the Super RA vote given the overwhelming majority in favour of it. It should never have been put forward.

RK, looking at things in the glasses he wears in his PB photo, which have definitely rose coloured lenses...FACT!

All of these are good conversations, and all of them should have been had as part of this process. The biggest gap for me (apart from all the governance stuff) was the lack of a financial plan beyond 50.01, the impact of which, as others have said, would have been limited and backed us into a corner. I don't like being told something will safeguard fan ownership when it would obviously make it harder to safeguard. I would conversely be happy to have a conversation about whether fan ownership is viable and how we can make it so - with realism, humility and openness to other ideas. Would love to know the breakdown of votes between "old" DT members and the ones the boards enthusiastically handed membership to - I suspect they may have been hoisted by their own bad ideas.

Anyway, Dons 0-2 Accy

Saying that staying fan ownership is non-negotiable is indeed meaningless as ultimately the choice will be taken out of our hands. That sort of stance is really saying that we won't sell when we have any choice in the matter but will only do so when it is forced on us and we therefore get a terrible deal.