The ST membership was introduced when they were building up to wanting to get 50%+1 through so either there was confidence you could get the turnout (they did, if failed on % voting yes) or they were very stupid.

6MDM - I know we haven't removed anything yet. I hear what you say but just don't think we should differentiate between East and West stands premium seats if we got to that situation. You are right that everyone would need to have a place to sit/ move to. I would say that a reasonably large proportion of West Stand seats in all blocks are concessions. It would be interesting to know how much extra revenue removing premium seats concessions would raise.

Didn’t Shergy stand on a sell ticket?

Giving DT membership away was a con trick which ensured that the magical 75% can never be reached.

And I will also add that selling the club completely is way off at the moment. I strongly believe that 50.1 will be done first and then maybe a PLB3 and other funding models before we even get close to selling out will be an option considered.

We also have to remember that nobody has stood on a sell 100% of the club manifesto for the DTB. Most of the manifestos that have been submitted have fan-ownership being a must and they will ensure it continues.

Do we need to know who these investors are before we vote for 50+1 ? Or wouid that be classed as commercially sensitive information?

And have it endorsed by the likes of Nick Robertson, John Green and maybe Craig Cope rather than just the DTB!

We did get over the turnout threshold with the first go at 50+1 and easily with the concurrent really stupid proposal of super restricted rights after the ST people were added. A short sharp campaign vote now and in 1 month for this or you'll lose the club would probably hit the mark.

Wombled - at the moment we haven't removed anything. The west stand premium seats are the most expensive so that seems to me like a logical place to start. I don't know what the demographic of our season ticket holders and regular attendees is, but you want to make sure (unless we have a waiting list for tickets that I am unaware of) that there is somewhere everyone can sit if they do not want to pay full adult prices for the central west stand seats. If this works then look at other areas but I fully expect the club not to even test this idea.

Maybe the voting threshold should be of those who voted not total membership. You don't vote you cannot prevent an action happening.

When talking about removing concession discounts why do people only ever refer to premium seats in the West Stand? Why not also the East Stand premium seats?

OI - but any change is now all but impossible given how many disinterested DT members there are and how high the voting threshold is for restricted actions. Back in two ticks was a struggle and DT membership now 3(?) times greater.

If most of us can see the problems, then the people that are having serious discussions about investing can also see the problems and they have far greater leverage than us in forcing at least a serious attempt at change.

SB - sorry you said same as me but more succinctly!

Free DT membership for all ST holders all but guarantees that we will go into administration, as the chances of reaching the voting threshold for a selling out motion are effectively zero.

"So you get ridiculously poor responses both as percentages of turnouts and the ability of changing things" - exactly what the DTB wanted?

*aren't interested enough to vote the changes through

First thing to go in my view is the auto-membership all it does is put a head count on ticket holders. What is point if those said holders " just wanna watch football...e.g. 90% of them. DT membership through enlistment rather than enrolment through wanting to, serves no one. If the "club" want to have participants for marketing, that shouldn't be offered as being part of an ownership scheme. Like it or not, those who aren't intvested in the DT, dilute the level of involvement in which tangible and measured interest occurs. So you get ridiculously poor responses both as percentages of turnouts and the ability of changing things as unobtainable membership of voters are interested enough to vote the changes through.

23% of members vote in an election! Surveys are pretty useless because of course the question is "Do you want to stay fan owned?" not "Are you willing to pay hundreds of pounds extra a year so we can stay fan owned?"

We cannot have it all. We have to give up something that is the least unpleasant. Some want to remain fan owned, have a competitive League One squad, keep ticket prices and discounts as they are, and stay solvent. It ain't happening chaps. Sorry to break it to you.

Those who vote will be predisposed to fan ownership or nothing, especially the way the question is asked. If you ask do you want to remain fan owned, without setting out the implications of that, good and bad, members will keep saying yes. They don't ask anything about how much they are prepared to commit financially to remain fan owned and competitive. If they did, we'd get a different answer as I doubt many would accept huge ticket price rises (with most of it falling on adults to subsidence our ever growing categories of concessions). I doubt many would be happy to make donations on an ongoing basis to fund the shortfall.

No idea Kerry, but it has always been near unanimous to remain fan-owned.

Just what percentage of those surveyed actually actually vote?

Yeah could that Laurence. Not sure if that would increase traffic through the club shop which is very busy at certain times. You would need more security along the way to block off certain areas.