Bob - OI is correct. I was on the DTB at the time the McA proposal was brought to the table, so I know this is true.

I think it was later DO, to keep us in League 1 because that would make it easier to raise finance.

Particularly as the vote has been given to every T, D & H many of whom probably have no interest in the club other than as somewhere fairly local where they can go to watch a game

The season we over-spent on the team - that was the season we went up via the Plymouth play-off?

McA withdrew when he was told the hoops he'd have had to jump through and the unlikelihood of him succeeding. At that time he'd have been overwhelmingly rejected by the membership, as Koppel and co. were still on everyone's mind. The last survey the DT did still put fan ownership as the key issue and I expect with the correct wording, they could probably get the same result again.

"Beginning to think that we should have just taken D-Mac's offer all those years ago" - IIRC, we didn't even get the chance to say Yay or Nay to that.

Sutton fans seem to think is was P’boro

Naz, it wasn't misconduct because he asked the board if he could do it and the board said okay (not specifically about Appiah). It honestly wasn't quite as lunatic as it seemed in retrospect, but it did leave not enough financial wiggle room in the event of things going wrong (and then they went wrong).

After all his marvellous philanthropic work for the club, Erik (allegedly) moving NPL money to Nil to (allegedly) buy Appiah (how great he turned out) in my view was serious misconduct. I have no idea what financial and governance systems were in place but the stadium money should've been ring fenced.

Wonder which league one team wanted the sutton united manager?

..or for older fans - the Three Stooges!

I seem to recall a group known as the 3 amigos trying to wheedle their way in, not so long ago.

Is that because you feel the lunatics have taken over the asylum?

and I still prefer "Fun Boy Three" to "3 Wise Men"

If my memory is correct it was around the time (may be the exact the time) that the club told members that it had overspent on the playing budget by using funds set aside for New Plough Lane. I think that at the same time they announced that there was a consortium who wanted to invest in or buy the club to plug the finance gap. But they never said who the people were. I can't remember whether they actually expected members to vote on a deal without that information. Can't quite remember how it ended but I seem to remember that it was when the chaps started the Plough Lane Bond as the only viable alternative to having to sell the club.

Mostly they were going to buy shares to pprovide cash to finish the NPL build. The big downside was that they were seeking the right to issue more shares to themselves at some future point, which would have removed fan ownership without any vote.

Sandy it was pre the first bond when we were up shit creek without a paddle and three anons (one we later discovered was Nick Robertson) offered to buy 30% of the club for £7.5 million to cover the shortfall. However we weren't told anything about them, who they were, what their plans were, what protections would be in place to stop them buying us out completely and demolishing Plough Lane and replacing it with a casino etc It ended without even a vote and then the bond happened

Can someone remind what the "3 wise men" proposal was? I seem to have completely blocked it from my memory!

Yeah and it's not just proxygate and election shenanigans and multiple board members resigning it goes right back to the 3 wise men proposal which was handled badly. People need to see this one being communicated well and in a balanced manner. Feel like we're already on the wrong foot but hoping the investors themselves do a professional job of presenting their plans to members - and answering their questions.

Trigger agreed, it seems to me that a few people involved somewhat blotted their copy book by not reading the room in the past

I feel like most people want this to be the right move and to go well but also that many are wary of anything proposed by the boards because of historic events. Personally I'd rather this works out than the alternative options but it does need proper stress testing in terms of the protections based around any deal for all future scenarios.

Hash, good points. Its not unusual to have an inward look and sit on a decision that you don't need to make straight away. I'd advise all to do this. If you want to vote yes, or no sit on it and vote yes or no a few days on. Quite often new stuff appears/leaks that may or may not change your view, but do allow that info appear before committing oneself to something you may regret no past the close of polling

Totally agree Aideen (I also agree with Hash and wonder if the 3rd group is enough to steer a vote towards whatever the 'right' result should be). Deep scrutiny is crucial but can only go so far if members are fed a positive story which doesn't match the ensuing reality. So for me safeguarding is more crucial - what happens if this just doesn't work either for the fans or for investors? Can we roll things back without financial armageddon? Can they change their minds and take their money back, or leave us with contracts that we can no longer afford without their investment?

Aideen i suspect the three types of voter...1. Will vote yes regardless 2. Will vote no regardless and 3. Will wait to hear all the information. Those in the third group won't rush to vote and i don't think opening the voting later will impact the other two!

I just hope ppl dont rush to vote after just one meeting . There will be nothing negative said that night, everything will be spun in a totally positive way. We need to reflect and ask more questions at the egm and second before voting. I suspect it will pass easily, but needs to be after some proper scrutiny .