Alan - IOW. If this goes wrong, I will have every name engraved in my brain, just like I do the FA Cup winners of 1988. And for different reasons.

Alan IoW - I'm more inclined to believe that the current hierarchy would have preferred not to have 50+1 and kept the model as is/was, but they've also seen the spreadsheets...

Repd - you could be right, those that have pushed for this, will be remembered particularly if the poo hits the spinny thing later down the line.

Spit, 50% +1 is what the FSA define as fan ownership, so yes we can.

Russ - "what we are really doing is selecting which minority investor we are going to screw over in a few years". Think it's more likely we'll just go for a full sale in that scenario

Oooh Robbie Earle would be alright.

TF - "These are our values. If you don't like them, we have others".

I think the “share our values” filter may reduce the number of people interested in donating money ;-)

Can we still claim to be fan' owned at 50.01.?

OI - I wouldn't be surprised if an investor is somebody who's put money into us before.

I hope people look past "Robbie Earle" or the equivalents in other groups and actually examine what is on offer.

Haven't we been told a fair few times since 2002 that we've had plenty of people interested in buying a stake in the club?

At the risk of sounding completely stupid, am I correct in thinking that this result means that there is a slightly better chance of us being able to bring in some money to the club from outside investors (subject to a successful second vote…)? I know that my level of understanding of financial and company matters is pretty shallow, but I suspect that I’m not alone, and I quite like simple straightforward explanations of these things…

We also get to vote on any individual offer so if you don't like it you can vote against

I don't think the question was asked, OI, but it is a good one. The specifics of whichever offers come in are going to be absolutely crucial. I hope we have someone commercially savvy negotiating them.

With the broadcast issues, I didn't hear whether anyone asked about providing 'working capital' as well as investment in shares. Does anyone know? That is the issue for me, just payment for shares kicks the can down the road for a year or two and providing 'working capital' may give too much power through threats to stop.

“ Resolutions 1 and 2 will now proceed to the confirmatory vote at the second SGM on Wednesday 8th April. At this meeting, both resolutions require a turnout of 50% of total membership and a two-thirds majority of votes cast”

Maybe you're right RK! Am not sure. Interesting times ahead anyway :-)

Don’t know how to feel about this to be honest. Gutted about the 15% threshold been removed. It’s not far fetched to fear that someone will soon own 49.99% of my club.

Yes RK it will be fascinating to see what sort of folk come in with what sort of offers. And hopefully all handled transparently rather than the last time around.

I think it's simple majority Hash?

As I understand it the 2nd vote requires 2/3 to vote in favour on a 50% turn out. So given we got 92% we can assume the 1st threshold will pass and given the turnout was 60% we should get the 50% turnout.

Ah, thanks. I'm not really one for constitutional procedures...

Those the rules Rob and same as sale of KM as per constitution. First hurdle to get 50% of members, was the hard one, esp with expanded membership

Rob it's a restricted action so needs two votes, like the back in two ticks thing. IIRC the threshold for the 2ns vote is lower so we can assume this is through given the landslide and ease with which it has passed all three thresholds in the 1st vote.