I got my email yesterday morning asking me to vote again without even telling me the result of the first vote. I found out from reading one of Scotty's posts on here! To this day I still have not been told the result. The DTB and the voting / election processes just seem to stumble from one cock up to another at an alarming frequency. If somebody like Mark LeaDON thinks he is voting to reduce the threshold to allow 50% + 1 but it is actually a vote to impose the ridiculous super RA that will cripple this club from ever attracting investment or seizing opportunities then I am sure he is not alone. He would be voting in favour of something for years he has consistently said he is against.

I can imagine a scenario where (1) the DTB included resolution 1 as a sop to allay fears on resolution 2; (2) none of the DTB members personally support resolution 1 but (3) they feel obliged to proceed with it anyway because so many people voted for it, even though (4) many people who voted for it were newby ST members who've never been exposed to all this RA stuff before and taking it on trust that if the DTB were putting a resolution forward, then obviously they support it.

Spartan-we can only get a Burton, Cheltenham, Exeter or Colchester

* over, sorry I really need to read before posting !

Kevin Rye against too. Several of them Oban pro boards said they voted against but I don’t want to name them incase I’m wrong. Basically we have to vote in down.

Thanks Saveloy. I see that question has now been asked directly on PB.

DunD - James Longhurst has said on Proboards he is against. Given his voice as both at DTB member and a candidate it’s a shame he’s not being more vocal. I tried to go through the minutes of DTB meetings earlier and couldn’t easily identify either a vote count or specific views on SRA (I was quick though, it might be buried in there).

Are MK still in it?

For anyone interested in the tin pot trophy, the draw is on Skysports on Friday at 7.30pm and is being drawn by Jobi McAnuff and Jamie Mackie.

Looking at the proposed wording of the Super-RA (thanks Mags) and in particular: "i) at least 90% of total eligible membership cast a vote on the resolution; ii) at least 90% of the votes so cast are cast in favour of the resolution; the number of votes so cast in favour of the resolution represent at least 80% of the total eligible membership..." in what universe could the 80% threshold not be passed if the two 90% bits are passed? I understand belt and braces but that's ridiculous!

Ah, that one does. Thank you. :-)

2nd link works, I tested it this time

Thanks Mags, but that link doesn't seem to work for me 😞

[Link]

[Link] The original blue paper showing percentages required for super restricted actions in resolution 1.

Do we know if any of the DTB members are in favour of this resolution, and if so who?

The (understandable) confusion on here illustrates why proceeding with this vote is a nonsense. Not helped by the fact that there is no link to the actual wording of the resolution in the email inviting me to vote (they messed up one of the links).

Right ok (not read email properly). Having said all that, from my point of view, we have to change things to stop minority stopping the majority’s wishes

Mark, we are only voting on the SRA resolution. The 50.1 is dead in the water for now.

50%+1

Yes but on the Super RAs, not the 75%+1 which has failed. If/when it comes back better presented it will still need 75% in the first vote, 66% in the second. This Monday is just a vote to make sure it is impossible ever to move to a new stadium.

Going from 75 to 66 isn’t it?

Gone from 75 to 66 it said

But the current resolution ups the threshold rather than lowering it, claiming that in some cases the percentage achieved in 50%+1 is nowhere near enough.

Sorry duplicated