Don’t agree TM about what qualifies you as a fan. We should embrace all fans wether they are legacy, KM or recent PL additions to our fanbase.

Agree re Plough Lane. Pitch to be retained by the trust or a covenant like we had on the old PL(until the council caved in to Sam the Sham) that stipulates the land must always be for sporting use

The key thing for me is Plough Lane. Plough Lane has to be safe. Whether that is through a Chelsea pitch owners type thing or some sort of variation of that I am not fussed but that is my red line. Maybe we can add the trademarks to the Wimbledon name to that. Beyond that I am not fussed though I cannot see a realistic scenario where the Trust will have no role at all in the club. Even if we do eventually sell even beyond 50% I imagine the Trust will continue in some form. Anyway I will definitely vote for 50%+1 as I did last time.

Thanks Keefy. Good to hear, I got a few lifts from Colin back in mid 90’s early 00’s to away games l, pleased he’s still going

Spotted Shergy at a recent home game!

Why would anyone invest in a simple 50%+1 with no solution to systemic losses? "Here is a couple of million pounds for shares, which I expect to be worth nothing in a year or two".

An earlier post mentioned Shergy & it made me think that he was a regular contributor to this guestbook, I can’t remember the last time I saw a post from him, did his experience & the way he was treated during that election make him walk away from the club? Or is he still a supporter albeit a disillusioned one who to quote a few others, “just wants to watch football ?”

But "contracting out" the work presumably incurred a cost - which we can't afford and should absolutely not be anything like a priority in the current situation.

I'm not sure too much should be read into updating the constitution – the old was stretched and out of date, and updating it could be seen as 'being professional'. The update is probably only taking up much time for one board member, because most of the grunt work was contracted out.

I thought the cash figure was quite good, presuming it was what was left of cash put aside to get the club through the summer.

TM Definately, that goes for the enshriners as well, if they persist with their views and if the only option is ultmately to sell out, then they should support that decision.

Also notable that we actually seem to have made a "profit" on the flooding incident, as donations and insurance receipts exceeded the costs incurred (slightly confusingly, the costs and the income are shown in two different notes to the accounts)

Thanks to Timmy Magic for posting the 2025 accounts last night - lots to pick through there. One thing that jumps out on first review is that, even using the DTB's preferred measure of "cash" losses (pretending that depreciation isn't a real cost), our "core" loss last year was £2.2M [£2.8M loss per accounts, taking out players sales profit of £1.0M and then adding back depreciation of £1.6M (net of capital spending)]. For context, our cash balance at 30 June was only £1.3M, so we had cash to cover less than a year of losses (and are now 5 months into that)

Controversial statement, but if you supported Wimbledon prior to AFC Wimbledon and you’ll stop supporting Wimbledon if we stop being fan-owned then you’re not a true supporter of Wimbledon.

$6m man - I totally agree with what you say below that we need a proper debate about what to do when the money runs out (which is going to be very soon), but that it is clear that this isn't going to happen. To some extent i don't blame the DTB members - they are just a bunch of fans elected on the basis of a popularity/ name recognition contest and there is no reason that they would have the skills or ability to deal with a substantial business in financial problems. To me there is less excuse for the other members of the PLC board, who are supposedly there to bring business experience, but seem to have done nothing to deal with the looming crisis. The fact that there was a meeting this week to discuss a new constitution, rather than our financial crisis, really just shows the utter disfunction of the fan-owned model once you get into choppy waters.

Think that’s a good summary of where fan ownership has currently got us situated 6mdm - most of the same problems as private ownership just with no money.

My guess is my option 2 will be what most would favour because their dream can live on. My concern is we will be at the whim of somebody to do what they liked. What if this philanthropist turned out to be a looney? What if they got fed up with the club continuing to make losses, with no strategy to reduce them? What if they hiked up ticket prices and everything else? What if, what if .... I know this is how 99%of clubs are run and, on balance, why should we be any different? For every Sheffield Wednesday there is a Wrexham. For every Bury or Macclesfield there is a Man City or Newcastle. We'd just have to accept once we sell out, that is it and we are into the territory of hoping we don't get screwed over.

I fully accept I will, in all likelihood, be in the minority with my preferred option and that is fine. It would be nice if we could have an honest conversation, set out the options without any prejudicial spin or DTB / club recommendations and see what the majority of supporters want. Then we would have a basis to form a strategy and develop a plan to deliver it. For years now we just seem to muddle through until we hit a crisis but instead of using the stay of execution to ensure we never find ourselves in the shit again, we piss up the wall any good fortune we have received and end up in a worse position. I do not know whether we could or could not run our stadium if we dropped out of the league because we don't see any figures. What are the fixed and variable costs? What could we strip out or mothball if we had to, especially if crowds dropped. We have 3 temporary stands. Do they all need to be used? We still have a stadium and land to generate non-matchday income. These are rhetorical questions but it is what the board should be asking instead of just backing one horse, which is 50% + 1 or administration.

6 million dollar: you set it out really well. Maybe option 2 would not necessarily end how you say though and is my preferred option

I wasn't able to attend the SGM in person this week. I watched most of it online but missed a few chunks. What, if anything, was said about the financial situation? I caught something Angus said to the effect, I think, that last week's announcement wasn't supposed to be very dramatic, but may not have caught that correctly and didn't hear any subsequent discussion on the subject (other than the £400K provision).

Even if it was viable financially, which I doubt, I can’t see any real enthusiasm for dropping down to the Ryman League in some non league stadium (if we could find one) - it was fun doing that once but I can’t see the attraction of doing it again, this time without any real hope of getting back-so, not for me this time.

I am also less sceptical about Option 2- given that it is how basically every other club in the league is run

You don’t know that on point 2 - when owners of other clubs come to the end of their reign it doesn’t automatically mean things get worse or go bad.

$6m man- I think that you have set out the possible outcomes - though I doubt that Option 1 is viable unless we also give up the ground, as I don’t think that there is any level of football which is compatible with our income given the overheads switch the stadium. One thing that I noted from the 2025 accounts is that last year we saw a cash outflow of £1.3m from operations and, at June 30, we had cash balance of £1.3m, which gives some indication of how just close to the endgame we are now.

The solutions, as I see them, in my order of preference, are: 1. Reduce costs to be commensurate with income and find whatever level of football that results in (all we will suffer is relegation but we will not be held to ransom over ticket prices or anything else and our destiny will still be in our own hands). 2. If there is some altruistic mug or egotist out there who loves the limelight, has money to burn and will fund our losses, sell out 100% to them (when they get bored or run out of money we will be in a worse position than we are now but we can enjoy the ride before then). 3. Sell out to investors who will want to restructure the club, probably asset strip and have an exit strategy to turn a profit (very risky, likely to piss most people off and we will end up losing most of what we have now). 4. Go down the 50% + 1 route. It will kick the can down the road for a year or two, possibly enough to get through the 2027 bond repayments time bomb but it will not be long until the next crisis appears and we will be in a weaker position than now. 5. Carry on doing what we are doing, wait for administration and hope the club can be saved but with absolutely no say in who takes it over or what they choose to do with it.