LL - with all due respect to him, he's somebody who appears to see the whole thing through an ideological lens.

DD- fair point on player sales- but if you do that you should quote the results before and after player sales, not just a figure saying “we made a profit over 5 years”. As I say, though, that reference last night was all about spinning things, so I understand why the measure was chosen

REPD - I did suggest on Discord we needed more business minded Directors on the DT. Kris Stewart got very angry about that idea. I found that strange.

Investopoedia is pretty good too.

Just found this online lexicon, Dundonald and may help some of our supporters. [Link] I notice Rights Issue failed to get a mention last night, unless I missed it from Graeme.

If you wanted a less misleading “underlying” profit figure you would adjust the figure quoted to (1) exclude player sales (2) deduct interest (3) if you want to ignore depreciation then you definitely also need to show annual capital spending as an expense.

Playing devil's advocate... if buying, developing and selling players is part of our business model, then isn't player sales legitimate to include? Lumpy and not to be relied on, as was made clear last night, but is it illegitimate to include in operating profit?

Morning all. Think the possibility of investor(s) wanting a place on the board is highly significant, because that would go some way towards answering why somebody would put in money with seemingly little power in return. A seat on the board would give them a lot more power, because if they keep getting outvoted by the rest of the board they could just withdraw future funding...

Laurence- I prefer to use the actual GAAP numbers, rather than a misleading adjusted number, but then I am not trying to spin a story- I am looking at the facts!

Nick - operational profit? Vital to prove we remain in growth mode.

Dundonald - I suspect we could do with a lexicon of words and statements to help some supporters understand what is being talked about. I am often asked, why I don't appear to share the same fears as others. As Mick Buckley quipped we do have lots and lots of accountants amongst our supporter base. Many I am sure, if asked would explain more about what is being talked about and the impact.

One thing that I did think was that the statement that we had made an “operational” profit over the last 5 years was both irrelevant (what matters is where we are now) and highly misleading (as the definition of “operational” profit seems to be one which includes all of our income- in particular player sales- while excluding major parts of our expenses- both interest costs and the depreciation of the stadium, so doesn’t in any sense reflect our real performance over that period.

Spit: I don't know if you were there/listened in, but the boards certainly weren't saying things are rosy.

Working capital tends to be a very commonly misused term of art, extending beyond its narrow meaning of current assets minus current liabilities. If providing working capital means replacing current liabilities with long-term liabilities on a like-for-like basis, then it's kicking the can down the road. If it's subsidising the operating budget, that's not kicking down the road. It will be interesting to see what the proposals are - quite possibly something between the two.

The fact ST are going on sell so early. Wanting fans to roll over bonds, very low players budget compared to others, I agree everything is looking a lot rosey. 👀

Reassuring that the attitude to retaining 'fan ownership' appears to be pragmatic, not dogmatic, but agree it would be a turn up for the books if there is an investor willing to take a minority stake and cover losses on an ongoing basis. Delighted to be proven wrong, but what happens if they then run out of cash or lose interest in providing 'working capital'.

The goalkeeper is hilarious in OTD. It looks like he's holding a mannequin.

I think that Hash’s summary below is accurate and I also agree that the speakers last night were good (with one exception) - I am still amazed at the idea that someone will take a stake of 23.6% and at the same time agree to provide “working capital” (which seems to be the accepted code for “bail out our ongoing losses”). The existence of this sort of investor seems to be how the DTB are attempting to square the circle of remaining both viable and fan-owned, so let’s hope that they exist. At the same time, it was made clear that, if push came to shove and it was a between selling below 50% and administration, we would choose the former rather than the latter. The idea of cutting costs to be solvent (described as “rightsizing”) seems to have been rejected, as we would need to drop to NL South level, and then wouldn’t be viable given the costs of the ground

Because of the 13% increase on season tickets, will that mean the ability to pay via direct debit apply? Not a ST holders but wasn't there an issue surrounding DD payments last season?

Yeah I was impressed with all the speakers last night. Think it helped that they were being a bit more candid and transparent

Thanks DunDonald and yes, forgot to mention the ST increase and sales starting imminently which is obviously to give us some cash

Karen: I think it will be interesting to see how the 13% will be structured. I'm guessing that the increases for the premium seats will be higher.

Good write-up, Hash. I thought it was a good meeting, set the scene well and got the tone right. With a different format, Angus was not being both master of ceremonies and spokesperson all at the same time, and I thought he came across well. I think our problems are structural rather than to do with the quality of our boards. Some of them do look as though they could do with a good night's sleep, though, and they're clearly working hard on our behalf.

I’m concerned how many season tickets we may lose with a rise of 13% and going on sale end of this month. One of our tickets won’t be renewed as it’s not used that often so unless the club manages to sell that seat next season they will lose on the S/T money plus the donated resell

Thanks Doobs. Key things for me were : 1. Rumours that we have told players they are not being re-signed are not true. 2. Our budget is 23rd and £1.5 million behind 20th. 3. Revenue is up pretty much across the board but so are costs. 4. There has been some improvement (8%) in no shows / empty seats. 5. Our profit from player sales has covered our operational loss over the last 5 years. 6. We are still due to run out of cash in summer 2026. 7. We have a £1 million loan available to get us through this if needed (the rumour about a £2 million loan from Ian NcNai already being used obviously was a play on this and not true). 8. We are in talks with multiple consortiums about investment. This may or may not include a consortium that includes a former Wimbledon player. NDAs have been signed. 9. The investors want more equity c. 25%. It wouldn't be 'kicking the can' because they won't just be making a one off payment but providing ongoing funds. They may want a place or two on the board in return. 10. 50%+1 vote will start in w/c 23rd March. There will be meetings before then. We have 23.6% equity available to sell so if an investor wants 25% they will need to buy some of an existing shareholder(s). 11. Vote for 50%+1. 12. Vote for 50%+1. 13. You will still get to vote on the individual investor even if 50%+1 goes through so vote for it.