"Through a thorough and considered process, one investor group has emerged as the strongest fit across all criteria ......." So we will possibly end up with a solution that pleases the clique because they will retain control of "their club" - and like lemmings we will vote for it out of fear for where the club might otherwise head - as opposed to being able to consider a solution (were there really 19 others when we were continually told there would be little or no interest?) that might actually be better for the club overall and in the long run (which we will not get to see) whilst, at the same time, it might be one that removes the clique from their ability to interfere negatively as we have seen so often over the last few years.

Trigger-I don’t remember 52 at Middlesbrough but that figure would seem about right as a low point

I wonder if JJ will attend...

“Details of the investor group, their proposal and how to vote will be shared on 21 October” - does this mean that we will be told exactly who is involved and what the specifics of the investment would be, including any conditions and longer term prospects for further investment…? If not, they might as well not bother with the meeting.

Rob - I think it was more that some, certainly me, thought it could be funded by New Plough Lane. Reality hit when that was fully functional and losses stuck at around 2 million per year.

Wasn't it a well-publicised 52 at Middlesbrough back in the early 90s that was the lowest top flight away crowd?

OI - judging by matchdays, those who have left have been replaced already

Agreed Hash and that's why 21st October is so crucial. I hope they do a good job and I hope they're true to their word in terms of their plans rather than just doing a good job to get through the vote and then removing the mask. Again this isn't a suspicion that that's what will happen as I have no evidence to suggest that they would be great or bad investors and obviously I hope for the great kind. And I agree that it's good to (hopefully) actually see the people involved this time round prior to any vote.

Hash - the Three Wise Men was a piss-poor sales pitch from the start, so it was no real surprise it flopped. If it was better organised it might have been interesting if it passed - we've kept our current ownership model for as long as we have because nobody made us a proper proposal until now...

Some people stop going at any major decision, about a decade before turning semi-pro, people stopped going because of moving from a committee picking the team to Les Henley as manager. More recently some have never been back since Eames got sacked. All fine but hopefully they get replaced by new supporters.

Spit the dog-I was in Crete on holiday a couple of years ago and met a Wednesday fan who insisted that one top flight game we only brought 14 fans, he said only Shrewsbury took less once with 12. I told him we did have bad away support(as did a lot of clubs)but never that few as I went to all those games

We weren't told anything at all about the three wise men proposal and as far as i remember there were no protections put in place that would stop them eventually buying out the whole club, Plough Lane etc. It was a shower of shite. This seems on the face of it to be promising and we will actually get introduced to the investors and get some detail about what they are planning to do.

REPD-back in 1964 people stopped going when we turned semi pro as they liked the amateur ethos but within 10 year amateurism was abolished so Sydney Black was ahead of his time in seeing that

TF - ES clearly knew more than most of the punters in the room...

One would hope the trust would have learned from the reaction to the three wise men proposal from years back to know not to present this as "accept or die" although looking back maybe they were just being honest after all.

If it doesn't go through, stand by for a firesale

If this goes through on Nov 18th, does that give us enough time for a Jan spending spree?

Today is also the release of the IFR report on English football

I agree Rob, this is moment where you really do need to trust the process used, didn't stand down other "acceptable" offers, a choice of two maybe would be better, however, that would then depend on the "sell" given on the night, which doesn't always go well for the less fluent speaker, despite the possible superior prosal and package on offer to us.

Hash - yep, there's a number of clubs up for sale, so obviously we must offer something they don't. Perhaps we're relatively cheap to purchase and run?

Also agreed this will go through easily unless 1. It is a shower of shite as Trigs and Rob say or 2. They don't actually tell us anything and its all confidential as OI says.

The thing is if these people are absolute tossers it would be odd for them to choose us as the club to invest in when they could have just gone to Crawley or something without all this hassle of member votes etc. Obviously the proof will be in the pudding.

Sounds good as long as a lot of the details of the investor group and their proposals aren't withheld as 'commercially confidential'.

Yeah it would need to be very obviously bad to not pass. The trick will be in what it actually turns out to be once it starts.

Morning all. Would this be the modern day equivalent of WFC going (semi) professional in 1963 or 64?