Mostly they were going to buy shares to pprovide cash to finish the NPL build. The big downside was that they were seeking the right to issue more shares to themselves at some future point, which would have removed fan ownership without any vote.

Sandy it was pre the first bond when we were up shit creek without a paddle and three anons (one we later discovered was Nick Robertson) offered to buy 30% of the club for £7.5 million to cover the shortfall. However we weren't told anything about them, who they were, what their plans were, what protections would be in place to stop them buying us out completely and demolishing Plough Lane and replacing it with a casino etc It ended without even a vote and then the bond happened

Can someone remind what the "3 wise men" proposal was? I seem to have completely blocked it from my memory!

Yeah and it's not just proxygate and election shenanigans and multiple board members resigning it goes right back to the 3 wise men proposal which was handled badly. People need to see this one being communicated well and in a balanced manner. Feel like we're already on the wrong foot but hoping the investors themselves do a professional job of presenting their plans to members - and answering their questions.

Trigger agreed, it seems to me that a few people involved somewhat blotted their copy book by not reading the room in the past

I feel like most people want this to be the right move and to go well but also that many are wary of anything proposed by the boards because of historic events. Personally I'd rather this works out than the alternative options but it does need proper stress testing in terms of the protections based around any deal for all future scenarios.

Hash, good points. Its not unusual to have an inward look and sit on a decision that you don't need to make straight away. I'd advise all to do this. If you want to vote yes, or no sit on it and vote yes or no a few days on. Quite often new stuff appears/leaks that may or may not change your view, but do allow that info appear before committing oneself to something you may regret no past the close of polling

Totally agree Aideen (I also agree with Hash and wonder if the 3rd group is enough to steer a vote towards whatever the 'right' result should be). Deep scrutiny is crucial but can only go so far if members are fed a positive story which doesn't match the ensuing reality. So for me safeguarding is more crucial - what happens if this just doesn't work either for the fans or for investors? Can we roll things back without financial armageddon? Can they change their minds and take their money back, or leave us with contracts that we can no longer afford without their investment?

Aideen i suspect the three types of voter...1. Will vote yes regardless 2. Will vote no regardless and 3. Will wait to hear all the information. Those in the third group won't rush to vote and i don't think opening the voting later will impact the other two!

I just hope ppl dont rush to vote after just one meeting . There will be nothing negative said that night, everything will be spun in a totally positive way. We need to reflect and ask more questions at the egm and second before voting. I suspect it will pass easily, but needs to be after some proper scrutiny .

Yeah he's given them some fairly decent times but does seem like their fans aren't currently that impressed. Always considered them top half L1/occasional foray into Championship but they're having a second tough season in L1 at the moment.

It was an ironic comment really. The Posh fans I know can't stand him and they're not that enamoured with Fry either.

Impossible to know Airsy unless you can find 1.21 gigawatts of electricity. The most important things we've done (imho) is regain our league place and get back to Plough Lane (even if I believe that move came with accompanied damage which will continue to hurt us now and into the future.) Any alternate-universe where either of those two things don't happen is a step down on our reailty.

Beginning to think that we should have just taken D-Mac's offer all those years ago 🤷

There are so many questions it's going to be a tough job trying to ensure everyone gets heard and answered and that's even before they've started speaking. As per Hash would be good to have something of a pre-read prior to the meeting as that may help answer some questions (but will naturally also create new ones as well.)

I guess my position comes down to one issue "Are you happy that three people you may have never met could veto any plans you come up with?" "If you are, why should we imagine you to be financially competent?" "If you aren't, what is in the proposed agreements to protect you?"

Bertrand is my cat's nickname so I have some experience in communicating with entities bearing that name.

Now that we have meetings etc confirmed there is really no reason to keep things secret so I would hope we get some information before the meeting...at least their identities? Come on Ryan, say something pal

DO - Poorer than ours last week which also had 18 penalties, but two more were converted? But both still had only 1 miss, the other 2/4 were saved.

A4e - 18 penalties - 5 missed or saved! How poor is that?

Bulls get a 3-3 with Windsor tonight still unbeaten

Josh Kelly scored for Woking this evening…

Well done Viking

Not comfortable with voting opening on the 21st before the second meeting and later egm. It’s too big a decision to vote on after a quick introduction and not a lot of questioning.

Airsy - and Spurs lost on pens hahaha!!