DO - 90% of the value of the Club but 34% of the shares. The 90% value will only be realised IF they decent to sell up and then the DT has a veto on that and even if agreed SSC can only sell to another investor on the same terms.

clicking on the link does nothing

We can analyse what the DTB have provided to us in terms of this deal until the cows come home but it is going to pass because we are in trouble and it is a case of when (not if) we run out of cash and go into administration. Most people will not care where the money comes from (assuming it materialises) and just want to watch a competitive team playing a decent standard in a decent ground. My gut tells me not to trust them but that would be the same for anyone wanting to buy us. My frustration with all this is we painted ourselves into this corner by previous bad decisions and taking too long to do anything about them. I still want to know what these supposed safeguards are and how they can work in practice. Merely stating it in a presentation and expecting me to be satisfied is not enough.

I have a unique voting link but where do I use it?

SSC are effectively buying the club on HP. Money every year for next 5 years until they have 90% of the shares. If they stop putting in money, will we be financially independent by then - of course not as we'll have huge players' wages to contend with. So if SSC say - we'll now need full control if you want more money.

Yeah the pack basically says it's vote for this or die which I find quiet distasteful (but not surprising) considering they used the same tactic in 2019. It also says it would take 6 months to reach a similar point with another investor which suggests to me they've been sat on their arses for most of the last 3 years which isn't helpful.

I think the deal structure from others was very similar. It's apparently based on a structure pioneered by Hearts. They said the SSC deal was the best offer according to all four evaluation criteria.

Thanks Clapdonn.

RK: Yes, they have a broker lined up to try and find a similarly structured deal from others. But it would be starting from scratch and we would likely hit a rocky position before we got there.

I agree with RK. This is being portrayed as a binary choice - SSC now or administration at end of the season or thereabouts. If the other 19 proposals were all so woefully inferior to SSC - fine - but given the importance of this decision, I think we should at least know what the, say, next two best (in the DTB's view). Don't need names - just terms - so not a commercial confidentiality issue.

I don't know if it's in this Pack, but there should be some plan on what action the DT would take in tje event of a NO vote. Obvioua option would be to go for the "next best" but doing that would need to understand why SSC were rejected and what Option delivers that SCC doesn"t ...and so on

well said, hash and Trigs, i agree - my comment based on what is in the packs. Meadow, the email had very little info, it jsut poitned to this site really [Link]

Oxford - he's always been Omar Mir afaik, but he has changed the middle names used on directors registers.

Since Freddie, sorry that should be Omar, is The Much Honoured Baron of Thorntoun (Omar Michael Thomas Mir, Baron of Thorntoun) in Scotland, do we need to get international clearance…?

Can someone forward the last couple of emails from the club regarding the vote as I'm not getting anything? Obviously the voting link won't work for me but I'd like to see what else is available.

Trigs is correct. Ultimately we wont know until we know and maybe it will all end in tears but as it stands currently i haven't seen a better option for us than this.

From a top line view it’s not obviously a bad deal and with all an available information it seems a good deal. As I said before, we’ll only know what it is some way down the line.

I'm no financial expert but as far as I can see this is Hobson's Choice.

Thanks TF

There is some info on that in Sections 7 and 10 RK but they're listed from the point of view that this deal is recommended by the author(s) so you can decide for yourself whether all risks are covered and to what extent each is or isn't mitigated.

Does this pack outline risks and risk management ?

Same Russ and that's where I think there could be a point of weakness (not that I think SSC dominating the board is much better tbh) in that if they're sat there with their investment chequebook and the board keeps voting against them it's not a happy relationship.

6MDM you have done an excellent job breaking it down, and I agree with all of you analysis. Ultimately, as you say, SSC are the owners. We shouldn't forget the reason for all this though - we have no cash left, as you say the alternative is administration. Bear in mind, if we sold the club, whatever anyone promises there are very few safeguards that can be implemented, or secured in ownards sale chains. A lot of leverage is lsot. In that light, I think the DT have got a great deal - the club is being sold, dont think it any different, but we have a lot more safeguards to protect key assets (the ground, etc) than if we sold the club outright. And for a fair chunk of investment commitment, with a claw back mechanism if it doesn't materialise. in the circumstances, i think its the best deal possible, and better than I was expecting, truth be told.

I think pitch owners was looked at but only through the lens of replicating the Chelsea pitch owners set up rather than taking the concept and seeing how we could adapt it to our own circumstances. I think Chelsea’s has different people with different levels of stakes and a few other mechanisms that we wouldn’t necessarily need, we could just put it all under the DT as a subsidiary. However I see in the investment deck they can’t transfer the stadium as a whole to the DT as it would create a £6m tax bill. So maybe there are some financial barriers to it as well? We weren’t given much more detail beyond a short report dismissing the model.

an option and even not ever!