I don't understand somebody who only comes on here to moan about how crap everything is and then has the nerve to make derogatory comments about people debating the most important point in AFCW's history.

Says the genius who thought we should have stayed at KM!

Listened to about half of it, will catch the rest later. Good interview. Cheers lads.

Good show Chiggers, like the format of questions being on point and without the gaps that comes from a Question Time ask the audience agenda. For a podcast this is ideal, but there's always a case for the Question Time approach too. One person one vote=the voters always having the right to ask questions. But for me, the WHAD podcast is essential listening. Well don (e)

" ... fewer than 40 people on here discussing it, maybe 100 ... on Facebook. Some more on Secret Discord. Perhaps 300 going to meetings...." So, probably, at most fewer than 500 people acting like mad dogs chasing their tails and barking at the moon. I'm beginning to wish Mir would put you all out of your misery and say "fuck the lot of you! If you're all so clever, how the fuck did you sleepwalk into the fucking mess this club is in?"

🚨New episode available now🚨 Danny Baker & Lee Finch An exclusive interview with Dons Trust Board members James Longhurst & Graeme Price (Vice Chair) [Link] Like, listen and let us know what you think.

Back to reality and it’s a tough game up next away at Stockport. Off the pitch shenanigans often don’t help teams on the pitch so I’m expecting a bit of a tummy tickling by a team that did the double over us last season without really breaking sweat.

Anyway I will cease boring people with my views as it’s time to sleep…

I’m just hoping they can squeeze this deal into an FM27 update once it’s released. Would be quite a nice career game to be playing as ‘moneybags’ Wimbledon.

$6M - totally agree with you there- the DTB wasted the time when we had enough cash in the bank and could have negotiated a better deal by pontificating that fan ownership was “non-negotiable” but (as people in business always say when they make a big mistake) “ we are where we are” and we have to make the best of the cards in our hand now

Trigger- maybe you are right but (1) it would be economically in their interests to sell out rather than shut the club down (2) Dr Mir has a clear pattern in his various charities (and even in his buying that Scottish title, which I agree is a bit naff) of doing stuff to look good and be part of the establishment, like most philanthropy it is as much about looking good as doing good, so I doubt that he would want to be the villain. I do of course accept that he could change his mind or approach and decide to stop investing just to damage us (or because he gets bored) - as I said below, nothing is risk free, but to me turning down the offer now is the bigger and more immediate risk - this is “lesser of two evils” time.

I agree our cash will run out on our current trajectory and it feels we are being blackmailed into accepting this deal (if you don't, it's your fault when we go bust in 6 months' time). I'm angry this was not tackled years ago when a number of us on here were expressing concern and could see what was going to happen. Now we are being forced to accept a deal to sell out to the invisible man with many unanswered questions about him and his four lackies, two of whom will upset the current football hierarchy that has made the most of what limited funds it has been given. I know for some dropping down a few levels would not be for them and so it would be the same as going bust so we may as well roll the dice but it can't be right we have allowed things to come to this.

6MDM - we are in the same position as we were with the 3 wise men vote. The board decided they had a preferred option and tried to persuade everyone to support it, but they had not worked up the other options in sufficient detail to show how they could have worked and then they were rightly challenged about it. Now we have a DTB who have their preferred option and again they have not worked through how we would make a no vote ‘work’. They’ve put all eggs in a single option basket. I want the deal to go through but they should work up all the options so it’s an informed vote.

These people could probably disappear as quickly as they have appeared so I don’t think being seen as the bad guy registers with them*. I want to know what the actual mechanics are of someone buying the land right out from under us and fans have no say because it’s decided by the DTB. Anyone heard anything from our board members? Would expect Hannah and the others to be expressing their opinions seeing as they represent members and have members’ interests at heart.

$6M man- I think that there was a mention at last week’s meeting about SSC buying a new class of shares (which I think were described as “non-voting”). I agree that it would be helpful if that were made clear so that those of us interested in the details can properly understand the structure. On going concern I think that we may possibly be able to remain a going concern but the steps to do that would probably involve dropping back to Conference South or lower and giving up the ground (as I doubt that we could cover its costs if we were permanently out of the league). To be honest, for me, that is no different to the club ceasing to exist altogether, as I have no interest in following a side at that level with no hope of advancement, though I realise that others may think that unrestricted fan ownership is so important that that is a price that they would pay.

If SSC decide after 5 years that they don’t want to fund us any more then I would see 2 cases (1) they sell their interest to someone else for what it is worth- I think that it was stated that our rights are unaffected by that (ie the new buyer has no more control than does SSC) (2) they just decide to walk away and stop putting in funding - in that case we would be in a mess and the club would probably fold up. As a lot of people have said, nothing is risk-free but (a) I think that basic self-interest (and the desire not to be seen as the bad guy) would push them towards the sale option (b) if we don’t take the offer we are going to collapse anyway, and much sooner than 5 years (maybe the 4-6 months in the presentation is something of a worst case scenario but it won’t be long as we are making losses with no way to stop them and our cash will run out soon enough)

Nick - exactly. All they need to do is say they are issuing two classes of shares (with associated rights spelt out) and a lot of my noise will stop because then it would make sense. The stats will be signed off in December, so there will still be time for the DTB to pull out that alternative budget (which I was told existed in case we lost our league status) and demonstrate how they will keep AFCW in business for the foreseeable future. If they can't then they have abdicated responsibility and acted recklessly, pinning all the hopes on this deal. Russ - agree about economic rights and how unhelpful a term it is as we are all interpreting it in different ways. Fully understand voting and economic rights are different but want to be told how they will work for us, not just trust the lawyers.

I love you Russ but this is the time for saying things how they are and that is absolute nonsense. We need clarity not nonsense.

In terms of the auditors I would think that the 2026 accounts won’t be issued until the results of the vote are known - if the proposal is rejected I would be extremely surprised if the accounts could show us as a going concern- there would at the very least need to be a discussion of the doubts over this and possibly the accounts would need to be qualified on that basis

Google Gemini ;) They’d own 90% of AFCW PLC’s ‘value’ I think, not 90% of the stadium’s value, they are separate companies. But even if they were entitled to 90% of the sale proceeds of the stadium (if it was sold at some point), that does not mean they have the power to decide whether it gets sold or not in the first place. Economic rights are not the same as voting rights.

Do votes count for much when voting against a proposal involves a threat of dying?

I am not sure that this is exactly what is being proposed here but consider a company that issues 2 classes of shares, to two different parties. Say 100 class A shares to investor 1 and 900 class B shares to investor 2. Profit entitlements are divided equally per share (so 90% goes to investor 2, as holder of the B shares) but only the class A shares have any voting rights. Very clearly in that case investor 1 controls the company (as they are the only party who has any votes) but investor 2 is entitled to 90% of the profits of the company. I think that in our case SSC is buying a new class of shares which entitles them to the agreed share of economic interests but doesn’t have full (or possibly any) voting rights.

If they can't say the DT will own 50.1% in HoldCo then how are they defined as the major shareholder or how has the terms of the authority they have been given to ensure no more than 49.9% is sold has been respected.

They will start with 34% in HoldCo. This will eventually increase to 90%. I appreciate owning shares does not necessarily confer control if there are different classes of shares. The document refers to it as economic interest but for our deal it is shares in HoldCo. If that is not 90% ownership, then what is? If they sell their economic interest of 90% to a third party they would expect to be paid the market value. Why would a third party pay for 90% of something when they are only receiving 34% of it? They wouldn't. So where would the cash for the 56% difference come from? It wouldn't come from anywhere because that is not what they would be buying.

Let’s put it this way… if every pound promised (£86m) comes in over 5 years and thereby SSC owns 90% of our “economic rights” and they say “we’re done here” then what happens to our ground?