They have said the alternative is another investment proposal / vote and it will take 6 months to get there. I suppose they could have presented 2/3 to us at the same time but this group wanted exclusivity so that would have counted them out. Am assuming any serious proposal would have wanted some form of exclusivity as the negotiations got more detailed.

If those that are looking for every flaw in the present offer please come up with a better funding solution and make it quick please. For every football supporter life is a lottery. We've stuck our noses up in the air telling all and sundry our way was the better/only way. We have got it wrong we are about to join the real world. Warts and all. I'm voting yes. Just hope we can acheive 75%

Alternative 2: we talked to some people we can't name who might or might not have the funds to invest x million but we didn't get into the nitty gritty of negotiations so everything is far vaguer than SSC while you worry that the SSC proposal has holes.

The alternative plan is "the owners won't cover the losses, the owners won't vote for a way of covering the losses, we have proved to be unable to stop making losses, like every other league club. So at some point soon we will run out of cash and go into admin".

It’s the board’s responsibility to have an alternative plan and they have failed.

Before long someone will claim that one of the backers is Putin or Hesgeth (other idiots are available). I'll give up if this doesn't go through, not because I think it a wonderful deal but because I haven't heard an alternative plan that doesn't end in total disaster.

Rumours around that some votes have been lost.

Thanks for clarifying that Galt - I still believe that some things can be successful when the people contributing have “the greater good” in their minds and not just “self” interest… In the case of AFCW, that idea has run its course, which is why we are where we are, and Yes should be the outcome… Still doesn’t stop you chucking in the £2m you say you could add if you wanted to… I too could chuck in £2m, but first I’d need to win the Euromillions, or at least the Dons Draw… :)

NickD - true, and to be honest, I wasn't suggesting OI might be in the target audience - my kids are in their 30s, so they’ve known his books since their teens :)

Yeah again please note the vote is only based on the Heads Of Terms. Once passed the deal could change significantly between the solicitors drafting up the actual details and members have no further rights.

I don't mind self-interested people looking to make money through us but not at our expense. I remain to be convinced that this deal as laid out is the thin end of the wedge and within the next few years we don't lose everything again. At least at the moment it is still within our power to prevent that, however unpalatable doing so could be.

At one stage, Moldova was very much "next" as pro Russian forces had already taken over large parts in the northern part (remind you if anywhere else). Didn't they have a team that were funded by the russian state and doing rather well in european comps. Seem to have vanished

Checkov checked out.

So about 15 kilometres from the Ukrainian border Rob. Don't take a wrong turning.

He did well to pivot from YT videos to being an author with at least a couple picked up for movies I think.

OK I'll stick to Ian Rankin and Sara Paretsky and similar.

I didn't realise how popular John Green was until I saw a row of his books on sale in a massive Target store just outside Dallas.

a4e - I prefer the term self-interested not "selfish". Human nature is driven by self-interest - but through the actions of individuals acting on self-interest - the best outcome is derived. So yes I would have preferred that the club was owned by a number of self-interested fans who had a real financial stake to drive the club forward with passion and self-interest.

a4e - it's a big target audience. I doubt OI is in that demographic. TFIOS is 15 years old. The population of the US is c340m. None of this is a comment on the quality of JG's writing, just that I doubt OI would enjoy it in the same way I'm not reading Colleen Hoover.

Red Kite - I'd like to think that some of the ideas I put forward were useful. Certainly many of them have been taken up and implemented by the Club - but of course the cynics on here might say that they would have been implemented in any case and had nothing to do with me. Either way I'm happy that over the last year or so the club appears to have adopted a bit more commercial sense.

The Fault in Our Stars has sold over 23 million copies, so there’s definitely quite a big target audience…

Unless OI is in fact an angst-ridden sexually confused teenage girl who likes to think they have ADHD.

OI - as Trigger says. You are not his target audience. As for Ayn Rand - well, voting yes on our proposed investors perhaps aligns us with her view. An interesting philosophical discussion to be had there.

Yep. Don’t.

Galt - I’m genuinely confused by your posts. You say that you’d have been prepared to put a couple of million quid into the club (I’m not entirely sure why you couldn’t still do that if you wanted to help out…?), but you also have somewhat (in my view) contradictory ideas - how do “Id (sic) much rather have the club driven forwards on out and out self-interested capitalist motivations than any pretence of philanthropy” and “it would have been much better to enfranchise through equity ownership dozens, hundreds or thousands of fans” fit together? Do you mean that you’d like the club to be owned by hundreds/thousands of selfish people who only invest in the club for personal gain?