"Yep voting link also not working." - Why can't they just get these things right first time??

Election timetable has been emailed out this afternoon.

I think the process is that the answers go into an FAQ page rather than them responding just to me.

Make sure you vote the right way - [Link]

Very good questions DD. I hope you receive equally well considered and thorough answers, which you are able to share on here.

Yep voting link also not working. Feels like something that can be easily fixed in the back end?

There’s a risk to voting Yes, they could turn out to be awful owners… then there’s a risk to voting No or Abstain, we could suffer administration and consecutive relegations, etc… Either way, there’s a risk. I’ve voted Yes, and I’m prepared to say “Oh crap, we got it very wrong, and I regret voting Yes” this time next year or in five years time or whatever - my head says that I shouldn’t vote No just in the hope of getting a halo through the post at some point that enables me to say “I bloody knew this would happen…” to people this time next year or in five years time or whatever. I’m certainly not saying that’s why people would choose to vote No, just that if I was feeling all virtuous and precious, then I might do that myself - but I don’t feel that way, and I think that our young fan base deserve the chance to see the club they support give it more of a go in a competitive environment. It’ll be annoying if it fails because of broken voting links to members/“owners”…

Good questions, saved me a job DD.

"...or some other mechanism?" (I think my post was chopped off for being so long!)

Apologies for long post but some might be interested in the questions I've sent to the info@ email address: "“1. Will AFCW PLC and TWIOF both be wholly owned subsidiaries of the new holding company (HoldCo) once the deal goes through? (I think the answer is yes, but could have been clearer.) // 2. Will existing shareholders in AFCW PLC be offered Ordinary and A Ordinary shares in HoldCo on a one-for-one basis with their existing shares in AFCW PLC? // 3. Have Republic Europe (Seedrs) and Nick Robertson agreed to waive their pre-emption rights? // 4. Will SSC's initial stake be in the form of Ordinary and/or A Ordinary shares? Will there then be a further class of non-voting share capital through which they'll build up their stake to an eventual 90% economic stake? (Part of the confusion here is the description of their economic stake - is it just that they'll own 90% of the value via their shareholding or some other mechanism for extracting value? I think the former, but not entirely clear from the pack.) // 5. Is the ongoing investment management fee calculated as a percentage of the money that goes in during the year in question, or as a percentage of the cumulative investment to date? // 6. Notwithstanding clarification at this week's meeting, it still isn't crystal clear how the walkaway provisions work. If members vote no, will we owe SSC any money for walking away from the deal? I think the answer is no, and that this only kicks in if the vote is yes and we subsequently walk away, but the text isn't crystal clear on this. // 7. There are various descriptions of the board composition of AFCW PLC. Will this same structure be replicated on HoldCo, TWIOF, AFC Wimbledon Limited, etc? // 8. Will there need to be an EGM of AFCW PLC? When will it be? // 9. How will the asset lock on the stadium etc work - will there be provisions in the Articles of Association saying that sale of the stadium etc can only happen if a certain class of shareholders agrees

SA - potato, potatoe. If they stop funding us, we will have huge player wage commitments but insufficient cash. SSC will hold all the cards.

Hello SA - I hope you're well. I've not bumped into you yet this season but no doubt will. In terms of ownership, SSC will eventually own 90% of the shares in HoldCo. It starts at 34% but grows. HoldCo will own AFCW PLC and TWIOF. Make no mistake, they will own the club. All the DT will have is some rights of veto, which the pack spins as control but it isn't full control. I want to understand how bullet proof these rights of veto are. Ultimately, SSC can turn off the funding tap if we don't cave in but then also risk losing their own investment.

Maybe it is the PHP issue SB/Sandy. Should WUP come down to fix it?

Anyone able to help with this voting link not working thing?

I'm getting too, Bob

There would be far more questions if we were given some details about the ones we turned down as we've spent 6 months agreeing the terms with SSC. Beyond that I suspect there are confidentiality issues and we couldn't name the people involved, which leaves even more worries than we might have about Mir. However many potential traps there are, this does strike me as the only game in town.

DO - 90% of the value of the Club but 34% of the shares. The 90% value will only be realised IF they decent to sell up and then the DT has a veto on that and even if agreed SSC can only sell to another investor on the same terms.

clicking on the link does nothing

We can analyse what the DTB have provided to us in terms of this deal until the cows come home but it is going to pass because we are in trouble and it is a case of when (not if) we run out of cash and go into administration. Most people will not care where the money comes from (assuming it materialises) and just want to watch a competitive team playing a decent standard in a decent ground. My gut tells me not to trust them but that would be the same for anyone wanting to buy us. My frustration with all this is we painted ourselves into this corner by previous bad decisions and taking too long to do anything about them. I still want to know what these supposed safeguards are and how they can work in practice. Merely stating it in a presentation and expecting me to be satisfied is not enough.

I have a unique voting link but where do I use it?

SSC are effectively buying the club on HP. Money every year for next 5 years until they have 90% of the shares. If they stop putting in money, will we be financially independent by then - of course not as we'll have huge players' wages to contend with. So if SSC say - we'll now need full control if you want more money.

Yeah the pack basically says it's vote for this or die which I find quiet distasteful (but not surprising) considering they used the same tactic in 2019. It also says it would take 6 months to reach a similar point with another investor which suggests to me they've been sat on their arses for most of the last 3 years which isn't helpful.

I think the deal structure from others was very similar. It's apparently based on a structure pioneered by Hearts. They said the SSC deal was the best offer according to all four evaluation criteria.

Thanks Clapdonn.

RK: Yes, they have a broker lined up to try and find a similarly structured deal from others. But it would be starting from scratch and we would likely hit a rocky position before we got there.