It's not going to be withdrawn/unrecommended on two accounts, the first being that they would sooner it went down with votes rather than having lose face and if they were to admit the wrong link was sent, well you all know what that would look like....

Nicander - agreed it has to go ahead but the DTB could suggest abstention to allow it to be reconsidered as part of the way forward the new DTB will have to undertake.

Nicander: whilst I take your point, they've messed it up procedurally - they didn't send out the wording of the proposed changes to the Constitution with the invitation to vote. The links don't work. How can it be right to expect people to vote without seeing the detail?

You can't pull the vote. It would be exactly the same kind of anti-democratic, "I'm right and you don't matter", procedural game-playing/mugging off approach that is at the root of a lot of our problems.

6MDM - I suggested that the DTB asked people to abstain so that the new DTB could look at the future of 50%+1 and Super RAs together, so not even saying it should be ditched permanently (which it should). I got slapped down by Ribligo telling me that would be unfair on all the people who had voted in favour.

Pleased that you all have kept this DTB shenanigans front and centre before it gets removed within seconds from Piss Boards.

🚨Our new episode is out tomorrow🚨 Lee Finch and Danny Baker 🔵Barrow and Accrington 🟡The 50.01 vote and the lad's opinions 🔵Walsall [Link] l

Nearly as boring as your twitter links Spit 😉

Spit the trouble with going to PB's for this talk, is 1) Fewer people will see the messages and 2) the amount of (re)moving of posts around kills the flow with conversations that needs to be had.

Hash - mistype surely? Wimbledon keeper?

Going to be quite windy on Sat as well so with a wet ball swirling around I expect a clanger from the Walsall keeper

Big jump in temperature but heavy rain forecast for Saturday (all day) and Sunday. Will the attenuation tank not explode again? Looks like its first real test since it was resealed.

Big jump in temperature Saturday but will the pitch thaw in time. And will the under pitch containers freeze?

The Dons trust talk on here is the most boring couple of weeks in the history of wup .can't you go to pro boards and have this discussion with biggles.

In a previous life I used to trawl through LMA multi-lateral revolving credit facilities I was arranging on behalf of the company I worked for with the banks. Of the 100 odd pages in the document, the bit that took the longest with the lawyers was always the definitions at the front of the document. I would not expect the average member to have the attention span or, frankly, the interest to invest significant time in this super RA vote but the ramifications of it, both for and against, should be clearly spelled out. Where has the downside of approving this super RA been explained? All the focus was on the failed 50% + ! resolution. Many people will not even understand why we have to vote again for the same thing (it does seem odd to me too, I have to say, but that is what is is in our constitution, presumably as a second chance to reconsider).

There must be a constitutional handbrake somebody can pull to stop us sleepwalking into a straightjacket that nobody actually wants while we provide clarity on what has happened and what we are now asking members to vote on. Even the language on the online poll ("yes" or "no") could confuse people. It should state the resolution on the screen with the radio buttons and clearly ask are you be "in favour" or "against" this resolution. Putting a link to a document that many will not read is not enough.

It's not 90% versus 75%, Meadow. It's 90% (to vote yes) of 90% (turnout), i.e. 81% of all members, versus 75% of 50% (with minimum of 40% of all members) for Category A. That's a crazily high bar - over twice as high.

I may have spoilt the vote by voting against early. Who knows what the future will bring? I don't want to stimie future generations. 75% will suffice 90% no.

DunD - diluting is another great word to use. :o)

DunD at 21:59 - I think you may have it there.

Fox, trot off sir.

Six Million, I vote no once, No invitation to vote again. Confused!

Laurence: the proposal was based on AFCW PLC issuing and selling new shares to third parties, thereby diluting the DT down towards 50.1%.

6MDM - there is even a regular poster on here, who thought that approving 50.01% was authorising sale of shares, rather than reducing equity. I carefully explained along with a candidate on proboards they were two different things. This is a challenge the DTB face - they are asking people to vote without explaining what people are voting on. There should be a glossary of terms attached to these resolutions explaining what words mean. From my days in financial services, we had to explain not only words, but terminology, and ask an investor to sign a declaration that they understood it all before paying over any monies. Seedrs did this too, when they asked us to invest in the share issue.

The results need independent scrutiny. There's history...