Oh sorry - super RAs. Suicidal. I actually find it extremely worrying they were out forward at all because it suggests to me ultimately the plc believe they could be ignored.

It's possible, I suppose, that the shares will be sold down to a large number of small investors (e.g. via a rights issue). They wouldn't necessarily get a seat on the board and I can understand it would be difficult to get approval for all their identities. That's a bit different from one person hoovering up the lot and getting a seat on the board. Where was it confirmed that we wouldn't necessarily get to confirm, by the way - I haven't seen that on Proboards (may have missed it).

Morning folks. The club sells itself as being different, the SOW's set talk about the rights and wrongs of other clubs models and how Fair Game are going to change things, via the Football governance bill. And here we are, unethical election practices, major value shares possibly being sold to unknown "investor" and wanting to tie the future of the club into perpetuity. All done in the name of democracy, transparency and community engagement. You couldn't make it up, because you don't have too, its there to see in action.

I voted no to both. I am an instinctive yes on 50.01, but I can't overlook the fact we have rampant governance issues and the relationship between the plc and DT is not right and too cosy. I don't trust the competence or motives of key personnel, some of whom cannot be removed soon or at all. I would like a new board to begin resolving some of these issues, provide more challenge to the plc and bring the proposal back with better arguments and a clearer plan and then I will vote for it.

Moore more more.

They also get a place on the PLC don’t forget. But I wouldn’t mind so much if we were being told the truth, or rather not being intentionally misled. Just say ‘ you won’t get to approve them’ or ‘you will be asked to approve them but they might be anonymous’. But this comes off the back of official literature saying we have Super RAs in place, which was absolutely not true. Leaves a bit of a taste in the mouth :(

We never have been Laurence. I have challenged for many years that we are not owners of the club, we are just people who pay a yearly fee to seem like we are.

Doobs - more than two years ago, I said members were not being told the whole story, and this simply confirms that fact.

To be honest a 15% investor has no power so I don't see why we would need to approve them, any more than we did Nick Robertson when he bought his 10%. That said, an approval where we don't know who we are approving is totally ridiculous - either you have a real approval process (which definitely needs knowledge of who the investor is) or you say it's not necessary, not some pointless token process.

I was planning not to vote and hope the threshold was missed. With the threshold hit (subject to abstentions) I’ve voted no, for now. And following a ProBoards update, I’m glad I did. We’ve just been told that any investor coming on board wouldn’t nessesarily be named. We’ve been told we would get to vote/approve them, now it’s been clarified that we would get to vote/approve the sale without knowing who they are, unless they said we could. Shit getting weird.

Don't worry about voting ,Biden about to start world war 3

I don't think it's really the DTB driving anything. It's the PLC. It is quite likely Angus, James M and Graeme get relected to the DTB. Michele will remain hugely influential on the DTB, just without having a vote. Not sure there will be enough DTB members able to vote to prevent those three remaining on the PLC.

Yes can confirm from being involved in TF Rule 30 that GJ has access to both ESG & DT Secretary emails

SW - As far as we know yes. Also I assume the current e-mails from the DTB Secretary are coming from him.

Slough, ah I see. I assume Trigger killed his cat or something. Meadow, I’m confused, if you’ve registered your abstention then you’ve no decision to make babe you? If you haven’t voted yet, and you want it to fail, then vote no. As they’ve reached the threshold then any no vote after that effectively needs 3 yes votes. I think it will be close. Passing won’t be a shock. Only consolation will be that’s it’s a new board overseeing the process and they can’t be worse than the current one. Can they?

Isn't George Jones the only person with access?

Saw a social media post suggesting vote 50+1 to afford a new goalkeeper in January.

I'd suggest a question to ask is the approach of those who are against both Resolutions. You'd expect that to include members voting No to Super RA's and abstaining on 50+1. The question would be how many have taken that approach.

I'm stuck in a difficult situation. Having been advised not to vote thereby registering an abstention, we now have sufficient votes apparently. Do I refuse to vote, register an abstention or vote against. For isn't an option currently.

In my opinion there only two possible results. Yes or Threshold missed. I suspect a lot of members have blinked this weekend and voted No. I think that will be the equivalent of voting a Yes and changing the outcome from Threshold Failed to In Favour.

Aideen I'm expecting it to pass as that's what the DTB wanted and as seen with Shane what they want they can get no matter how they accomplish it

Aideen that will be Ian Pillock from Proboards

Whoever Biggles is he needs to get rid of the non rent paying tennant living in his head. The man’s obsessed!

How we all feeling about the vote result (I assume on Tuesday) Pretty impressive total so far, difficult to call.

Our current board and to a certain extent, previous ones, puts me in mind of how having Starmer and his two tier cronies are running the country at present.