Aideen - Thanks for the Mikey T link 👍

Yeah ,sam or worse waiting for us in administration. Those voting against need to understand that!

The more I reflect on this deal, the more uncomfortable I am with it. Having said that, I am voting yes because I think the alternative is worse.

DD - that was why I wanted to find out more about Mir

6MDM, at one of the SGMs about 50.1%, the DT (Graeme, I think, but apologies if I mis-remember) did say something to the effect of retaining majority ownership meaning economic ownership as well as voting control. On the other hand, Angus did say that the boards would go forward and seek to find the deal that we had authorised but couldn't guarantee that we'd get absolutely everything we wanted. Personally, unless we find out something terrible about these people, I am in favour. There is a significant chance that our things turn out other than we intended in 5+ years. But I'd sooner that than be in a much worse position in 6 months. I also think (and hope) that this investment is somewhat philanthropical and aimed at a long-term relationship.

Shall we change our name to SSC Wimbledon?

🚨New episode available now🚨 Danny Baker & Lee Finch 🔵Wednesday and Mansfield 🟡Sloane Street Capital 🔵Wycombe preview [Link] Like, listen and let us know what you think.

Just wanted to try to understand what makes Mir tick

into royal charities built on community stewardship and social responsibility, entering a football club partnership that preserves democratic fan-ownership rather than staging a hostile, corporate takeover fits his public-facing ethos perfectly.

I had a "conversation" with AI this morning focusing on Dr Omar Mir and why he might be the main funder of the SSC consortium. This was the reply - It makes total logical sense based on his background. While an £87 million proposal to a League One football club is staggering for any individual, it aligns perfectly with the multi-million-pound philanthropic and technological patterns established by Dr Omar Mir. Looking at the details of the bid —submitted via his investment vehicle, Sloane Street Capital (SSC) — the move highlights several consistent traits in how Dr Mir deploys his capital. The Scale of Wealth - A personal commitment to inject an initial £16 million upon completion, followed by £71 million over the next five seasons, requires immense private capital. As a board member at World Wide Technology and an advisor at General Atlantic, Dr Mir operates within the ultra-high-net-worth brackets where anchoring long-term, multi-million-pound initiatives —just like his decade-long "Generation Potential" campaign with the King's Trust — is a familiar playbook. A Focus on Digital and Structural Modernisation -If the deal is approved by the fans, Dr Mir's consortium firm will oversee AFC Wimbledon's football operations. Given his background as an international technology specialist who advises King Charles III's sustainable initiatives on artificial intelligence, he will likely treat the club's infrastructure, academy data tracking, and community programs with the same high-tech, forward-thinking lens he applies to his philanthropic digital rollouts. Alignment with Supporter-Led Governance. What makes this deal particularly interesting is that AFC Wimbledon is a historic, fan-owned phoenix club. The proposed terms respect this legacy explicitly. The Dons Trust will permanently retain 50.01% of the voting shares. Fans maintain veto control over the Plough Lane stadium freehold, the club's name, its badge, and its kit colours. For a philanthropist heavily integrated

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

If SSC miss contributions, they will still own whatever percentage of shares they have been issued at that point but may lose some influence like control over football matters but will still be the majority owner of our club. The only way their percentage could reduce is if more shares were allotted and issued to somebody or something else to dilute their percentage. Whether they would have any pre-emption rights at that stage isn't pointed out.

It will pass because the alternative is administration and being picked off by any old opportunistic vulture. The DT is now a busted flush so at least this is a more controlled way for them to disappear but disappear they will.

The following link is still live [Link] "The Dons Trust is asking members to lower the Trust’s minimum shareholding to 50.01% of voting rights and remove the 15% individual investment cap." It is silent on OWNERSHIP.

This deal looks dodgy. Not saying it’s not the better option but even just a little scratch at the surface of doctorates and tartans and barons suggests the future (because obviously this will pass) will be a bumpy road.

I went back and read the emails we were getting spammed with to vote the 50.1% thing through. I just picked on the one I received dated 11/03/2026 and it stated, "The Trust remains the majority owner and the ultimate decision-maker." That was what we were asked to vote on with 50.01%. However, this will not be the case if this deal goes through.

Dundonald. you are correct, we don't own it and if we agreed to sell SSC would get 90%. what we have is full control and only we can agree to sell, but that would be pretty pointless. Even if the club liquidated not sure the Dons Trust can lose the stadium under the new structure, which I guess we could today. could we maintain it then. maybe not but could lease the ground to cover short term costs without selling. SSC can never directly financially benefit from the stadium value without us agreeing.

V. informative reading back here. Thanks especially to 6MDM. I've also been confused about what the 90% thing means in practice (albeit from a far less knowledgeable base). I do think most (or at least many) people voted for 50.01% on the basis that we would retain majority ownership and not just majority control. And it seems like after 1-2 years SSC actually own the majority of the club? I don’t think this will greatly affect the voting outcome but there does seem to be some misalignment between the 50.01% vote and what is happening here. The DT could also be clearer on it now as it seems (at least to me) to be quite important.

*now not bkw

Claude is the best right bkw for research but it’s not good at admitting that there’s not much info around. SSC and Mr M are not exactly flooding the internet with info and Claude can come across as a bit “like me! Like me!” so tries to sound authoritative on little info.

Sorry for so many typos this evening. My typing is not up to scratch tonight.

I have not voted yet but I did just read the wording on what I am being asked to vote on and it talks about authorising shares to SSC in AFCW PLC but the document refers to them being buying shares in HoldCo, not AFCW PLC.

Trig- fair enough, as I say, I generally wouldn't do that

Claude AI can only read the document you shared with it and any online information that we can all find iit just does it faster and in this case as many have stated there’s not much available. It speaks like it adds value but there’s no value in sharing it on here.

Nicander -i f everything pans out the way the document describes (and presumably the 10% in HoldCo will be divided up amongst minority shareholders and the DT in exactly the same percentages as now, so the DT will own less than 10% of the club), what happens in 5 years? All bets are off and it is an open renegotiations with a shareholder than hasn't got a pot to piss in and owns less than 10% and SSC, who own 90%, have the money man behind them and can do what they like (sell, water down their ongoing commitment or do nothing).