Alan I agree almost 100% with your moral and your list of candidates, it’s good to see that Sean would put himself forward for the position of chair all good news as I feel that the current chair being part of the problem.

talking of DT elections, and just by way of update, around one third of the 'hustings' interviews have been recorded, with the remainder taking place over the next few days. The hope (and it is an aim rather than a concrete promise) is to get these uploaded and shared before the weekend - a good week and a bit before voting deadline. Each Q&A will run at around 15 mins, so quite digestible. Hopefully help give everyone a bit more on the candidates than a basic manifesto. BUT I have underline that nobody should expect anything all-singing, all-dancing - really will be basic but hopefully even-handed, short-form questions and answers. nonetheless, might be worth watching before casting votes...?

To me, if you want change, then you need o select new names, or more established one that you know will fight to make sure get heard properly. Things become tired and samey, when you vote for same people. The DTB can swing in either direction at the moment, so its important to find what works for future in taking a leap of faith on what you've seen and heard from the new guys and to see who can add to a change of agenda with Hannah and Angus, still sitting. Who do you believe from the ones seeking re-election can be flexible and happy with it, in going in a different direction? Who do you think is a steadfast, an entrenched believer in the status quo? These are all important considerations.

No grumbles about receiving emails right up to this morning, they just get immediately deleted along with all the other spam that gets through the filters.

My view is a need to increase the income per kids seat based on usage. But incentivised, not penalised. Pick a ST figure, say £200 and for every match the season ticket is scanned (I know!) credit the account with £5. With concessions that only thing I'd consider (possibly a4e suggested) is default to full price but allow a no questions asked opt out to a concession price. That protects those who can't afford it (and that is crucial). I suspect today today that most/all take the concession price they are offered. Offered that way round a percentage will willingly decide against the discount. Simply removing concessions is not on, nor is means testing. I also wouldn't freeze prices for early bird ST's. We should find reasonable ways to move the average bum on seat price from £17 to £20. Reselling should be a big part of that.

Russ I voted quite early and have not been receiving any emails other than the one for meeting 2. Think it is fair for the Trust to remind people to vote even if it winds a few of them up.

Actually DD made the sensible but now hard to implement suggestion here that the percentage of membership voting condition be dropped in favour of a percentage of membership voting in favour (i.e. 40% in this case). That would remove the value of abstaining when you are against and also make it harder to influence the outcome without knowing how people were voting.

Last email I got on the RA vote was on the 11th November, and before that, one on the 10th, and the voting link on the 29th October. Are they only emailing people that haven't voted yet?

No concessions in the posh seats, which you either define as the West Stand or as a starting point the central blocks of the West Stand.

The Six Million Dollar Man, if it passes the first vote then it needs 2/3 to vote yes on a 50% turnout for vote 2.

Unlike many on here I have no firm opinion on the vote as I don't think I know enough about the pros and cons. What I do know is that the sheer number of e-mails I have received from the trust in the last few days is far too many so I have unsubscribed from the mailing list. (And I am a founding member.)

Thanks for the maths lesson TomSwig but if you had read what I wrote instead of jumping on the arithmetic you would see I wrote that it can't be lower than the HIGHER of 40% of total members OR 75% of a 50% turnout. I know 75% of 50% does not equal 40%.

Tom - I am pretty much on the fence on fan ownership myself but whilst the majority are against it we will need to get creative in how we get more money. I think they need to make some unpopular decisions at some point.

TS - In your example, if 600 rather than 500 vote than 450 (75%) must vote YES. That exceed the 400 criteria 3 figure which is static once the number of members are set. So only 75% (not 80%) of those voting must vote YES.

Silk I agree about the rest but the biggest blocker with those 3 wasn't the anonymity alone. It was that they were putting in about a quarter of the debt to get not only a sizeable share but also to get the right to basically sell the club to anyone, including themselves, in stages, to raise the rest of the debt. Where the anonymity kicked in was because we weren't allowed to ask them questions and see their responses to judge if this was coincidence or design and why.

When the Three Amigos tried to buy 30% of the club the biggest blocker to us saying yes was they were not named. If the DTB are talking about unnamed investors they have either learned nothing or are arrogant about the feelings of members. On a paranoid conspiracy nut point of view am I the only who sees the co-incidence of unnamed investors wanting to buy 30% of the club and the club wanting us to vote for unnamed investors being able to buy 30% of the club? Are we talking about the same Three Amigos?

And if, for whatever reason I can't make a game (which happens) I have still paid for it. The resale option is fine but it must be my choice if I wish to offer it.

Russ, by removing the fan ownership shackle and inviting outside investment.

So assume 1000 members - 50% means 500 must vote; 75% of those 500 = 375 must vote yes; 40% of all 1000 members = 400 must vote yes. So that means 80% of those voting must vote yes. are 2

If the club is discounting tickets for concessions quite heavily, then is it not fair that those people make sure they either use the seat or allow the club to re-sell it?

The breakpoint where the 40% check becomes irrelevant is around 3375 voting Yes or No (so excluding abstentions). At that point the number of Yes's required on criteria 3 is lower than the number required on criteria 2 so becomes irrelevant. In other words if Criteria 2 passes, Criteria 3 automatically passes (based on achieving the circa 3375 Yes or No votes).

Tom SW16, I think the concession suggestions are more aimed at kids who get a ridiculously cheap ST then rarely use them leaving masses of space in the East Stand.

TS - Two different things in this context. 50% of all members must vote (abstentions direct or indirect don't count). 75% of those voting must vote Yes. And finally 40% of ALL members must vote Yes.

As a pensioner who has supported Wimbledon since 1963 why should I have to buy a debenture instead of a season ticket and then opt in to games? That suggestion is a crock of shit.

Just given in and voted 'no'.