Also agree $6m the main stand always looked like a Vanity project to me and bearing how poor we have always been as a club to get outside income from advertising I never felt we would be much better at selling conference space.

We need a range of realistic options presented to us by people we can trust.

Completely agree with that 6mdm. Anything told to us last night has to be viewed through the lens of how badly the boards have performed since 2019 and how badly information has been shared in that time.

Maybe guarantee your ST seat by the end of march. Or lose it!

Because we are told reducing costs to match income is not viable without any evidence to back it up does not make it so. In the same way I challenged the need for all the conferencing facilities and extra floors in the west stand before it was built despite being told it would generate income without any credible evidence to back it up, I could not see where the demand would come from. If the club really could not survive if we lost our league place then that would be reckless by the directors to allow us to be in this position as two clubs every year lose their league place and very few have gone to the wall. Getting a seat on the board to fund ongoing losses for something others control does not seem that plausible to me. What if they stopped funding us unless they get their way? What then? You can't make them sell their shares, even if anyone could afford to buy them. You may be able to remove them from the board but that will achieve very little and you have less equity to sell to somebody else if we wanted to fully sell out.

Hash - agree it is not. The question is about the early take up of STs!

Ah, so when they reconvene, I will be invited to join the ESG it seems. Should be interesting, though it will mean having to self censor some of my opinions when it happens. Mostly I want to help frame the elections policy which the new constitution will require.

Thanks Hash - I think some won’t buy ST if the football continues to be so poor though

SB, every year we have predictions of doom and gloom that nobody is going to buy a season ticket and every year our season ticket sales go up. Bums on seats aint our problem!

Mark from w/c 23rd March

Surry Bob - I think those that support the club will buy early, and those that support the team will wait

Is there a date for a 50+1 vote?

I think Michele should be able to infer with reasonable accuracy what the non-respondents are likely to do, given that she has undertaken this exercise before. There were non-respondents to the survey last time who eventually made a decision one way or the other, or were repaid by default.

Wonder how many won’t buy ST!?

SB - I presume we'll be shown the carrot, or is it worm, of the discount for early bird renewal. Also, I'd probaly enjoy watching a season of League 2 more than League 1, given our budgetary constraints.

I wonder how many will buy their STs early given the 13% increase when our L1 status will be far from clear at the stage?

REPD I noticed that Doobs didn’t post comments like “isn’t he fabulous” after MB spoke like he did for CC an JW!

One thing that was clear ( to me at least) is that with all of this uncertainty, having a pitch owners scheme in place, could both serve to be a protection mechanism and an opportunity to raise money. The 3 words app works to a metre² and look at number of squares could be sold. That would at least take an active, tangible step to give reassurance on what scope any new major shareholders have.

The only real solution is going to be to sell out control- this may come directly or via this mysterious minority investor who agrees to fund our losses but who will inevitably take control, directly or indirectly.

collins - Yes I thought that too. The figures she showed assumed that the 23% who didn't respond would break down the same way the other 77% did. It could well be the case that those who didn't respond are those most likely to want their money back in due course.

OI - My impression was that it was closer to the first than the second.

Yes Mav, the question they dodged with both you and Mark's question, is what state Plan B is in. Is it "We'll start looking at Plan B if Plan A fails"? Or is it "We really want to stay fan owned but we have a good idea of how to proceed if that looks impossible?"

One thing I noticed from Michelle's presentation on the bonds, was that 77% of bond holders responded to the survey on their future intentions. So 23% didn't respond. But the figures on the various categories - repay, reinvest, donate, etc - added up to 100%. Were these figures from the 77% responders only, or an extrapolation from returns submitted? Assuming the silent 23% will behave in the same way seems a hopeful view, and may have distorted the true picture, If I'm correct.

I asked a question towards the end last night because it seemed to me that everything they were saying (including 50.01) may get us through the next couple of seasons based on the financial projections they were showing us but it didn't sound like a long term solution to our predicament. So I asked where was Plan B for the longer term and what might it look like and it sounded like a lot of people in the room agreed with me. Can't say I really got an answer other than 'there needs to be a Plan B'.

Think just general cost of living would take a lot of money going out of the club