I doubt it OI...my hunch is it won't meet at least one of the criteria to pass this time so we won't be having any investor put to us any time soon.

I don't see how the restrictive actions would 'paralyses' the club in the future. If any opportunities came along that were as beneficial as some of the examples mentioned I'm sure the vote would easily pass any threshold.

I already have the campaign written for the first vote on a potential buyer, even if it were Winkelman "Turn this down and nobody will ever consider buying shares in the future."

I am looking forward to looking at the yearly accounts that have to be released by 25th November to shareholders, which is also the date for the second RA vote.

I would expect the Finance Committee and Treasurer to explain why our costs are so high and what the plan is to bring them under control.

I have always worried that part of our budgeting plan was player sales. Let’s be blunt, we got lucky with Ali and that type of transfer is 1 in a 10 year event and that’s being generous. The transfer market for clubs in League 1 & 2 is dead and will probably get worse over the next few years. The best way to benefit from transfers fees are from our academy. We are getting fees from players we have never heard of because clubs come in for them before they reach our U16’s.

Selling up is inevitable, within 5yrs!

Hash - I think you may have answered the question. The 50+1 is to facilitate one or a couple of investors who want more than 6%. So while they are technically no-one lined up there kind of is. Just like the gang of three wanted 30%.

Not worked up over it OI merely pointing it out so people are aware. Engagement is a good thing.

Excuse my ignorance, but why would 6% of a fan owned club, be less worthwhile than 15%? What extra benefits can they squeeze out by owning 15%? I thought we had protections ?

OI - it makes no sense to say it is imperative to go down to 50+1 as we cannot pay off the 2027 bonds without it and not have some plan to sell off the shares. So there is a plan to sell them off in my view.

Silk there is nobody lined up but there was an indication from the board that people have fed back that just getting 5 or 6% is not worthwhile - hence making this as an option where someone can get up to 15%. We don't know if there is another Nick Robertson out there - this vote gives us the option of bringing them on board if they do exist (and we still get to vote on them). If they don't exist we will just carry on as we are now anyway.

So when they have specifically said that nobody is lined up, they are telling lies? Would you trust people like that?

OI - the fact that the PLC/DTB boards have publicly backed this move makes me feel that there is someone lined up to sell these shares to.

We aren't selling down to 50%+1, we're saying we would sell down to that if a suitable sucker/altruist/villain came along.

I can get worked up about some things but having an ESG representative at the DT (not DTB) booth has been standard practice during the elections since there was a DT booth. People have questions about the election and someone being there to answer them seems an unalloyed benefit to me.

Indeed - those that say we're not ready presumably think that we can meet the 2027 bond repayments out of player fees and cup runs. The big problem with that policy is that we're now making annual losses of about £1.5m, so the aforementioned fee and cup income is gping to propimg up the operational side and providing us with a competitive team

I’m guessing quite a lot of legal fees/severance costs in the next set of accounts due to all the shenanigans that happened last year, too. Guess one good reason for being loyal to Jackson is that we’re not spunking money paying him off (yet..!)

On this day I'm thinking shifty eyes himself Gary Elkins

The only ray of light could be the annual figures shows a lower annual loss than last year or maybe us breaking even or making a profit.

We seriously need to get our costs under control. Our turnover is £7.5-£8 million which is pretty decent when you look at comparables - Exeter city turnover £5.8 million etc. it’s all the costs and administrative costs that seem high.

And if we cannot get money from player sales or cup runs then what?

$6M - selling down to 50+1 is to pay off the second round of payments in 2027. If we do not sell down then we have make up that second round from player sales instead or from cup runs. If we sell down then these sales/runs can be used to pay off our annual losses. We cannot use player sales/cup runs to finance the second payoff of bonds and cover losses. So not going down to 50+1 has everything about going bust.

Selling doen has nothing to do with going bust. We need to get our operating costs under control, whatever we do, as if we don't, selling down will just delay going bust but not stop it. Two completely different issues that the DTB propaganda machine are happy to allow to be confused. Selling down is just for capital projects, or at least it should be. We cannot default on repaying the bonds either. That is another urban myth. There may not be a charge over assets securing the bonds but bondholders could still sue in court and seek to recover their debt if the club has assets it could sell to repay it, which it does.

I still haven’t voted as was waiting to see if the threshold was hit before doing so. My head says vote Yes to 50% because we need the additional equity to sell and give us some sort of buffer, however my heart says to vote no because of the makeup of the DTB and my lack of confidence at this moment in anything being delivered with the quite obvious them and us with the members.