New on the spoons breakfast menu smashed avocado 🥑 muffin and hot drink (free refills) £2.99

That might explain those voting numbers

If you think whoever the main funders are that they are getting good value for money at the share price they are paying then invest to maintain your percentage. Otherwise ignore it. Did John Green and co get any 3 vote shares and if so are we maintaining the ridiculous idea that a 3 vote share is worth exactly the same as a 1 vote share?

Collins - the words are obliged by the Financial Conduct Authority.

OI - indeed. Also coming up to end of tax year, so good time to chase spare money.

It just seems to have all the appearance of a scam - lots of financial buzz words, and a very short window to invest - get in quick!!

I presume seedrs (or whoever they are now) insisted pre-emption rights are maintained so if there is new funding (John Green and co this time?) then people with seedrs have to be offered shares.

Collins - was literally about to post the same thing

Why strange, Collins? Just added a few more pounds to the total. Always good to ask existing investors to add more money.

There's two seperate financial issues here; 1) cost of West stand being one of the key drivers to debt accumulation and 2) major shift in owners' funding of clubs since we joined the EFL. It's 2) which will be the most challenging and, will eventually, drive us into private ownership

These are the five averages excluding this season: 2024/25 – 7,924 - 2023/24 – 7,893 - 2022/23 – 7,604 - 2021/22 – 7,704

Just had a strange email from Republic Support Europe (formerly Seedrs) inviting me to invest in AFC Wimbledon, who are "raising another round of funding". This "pre-emption campaign" is open until 1st April. Anyone else had this nonsense? I should have unsubscribed before.

Agree about the poor decision making regarding the west stand. I don’t think it’s the only thing that’s costing us though.

Spit - wasn't there reduced capacity due to lock down initially?

We've had nearly 5 seasons with big crowds in the ground, not sure another 2 years will make much difference .

Agreed Mav but do you think the time will be used for that or grandstanding about the wonders of being fan owned? And for 6MDM and others, I remembered this appropriate song [Link]

That always felt like the case and is expressed in different ways. Kicking the can down the road and allowing time for planning are both the same thing. Time will tell which words are most apt.

Over the past year, and having been close to the numbers for a while when I was on the board, I've come to the conclusion that 50.01 is a necessary first step but not a long term fix. I'm afraid we are no longer financially viable in the longer term. We can't defy logic and gravity and stay competitive indefinitely in a football world that is more and more about big money. Without outside investment my concern is the real risk of non-league football and administration within (at most) 3 - 4 years. We would then have no choice about what happens to us. At least this gives us time to plan properly for the longer term future looking up rather than down.

StD - for a very long time now, one can break down our support thus : 80% aren't that bothered with the "political" side of things, 15% are bothered, and 5% are very very bothered by it.

I'm sure most fans would go with what the club want. But looking at how many were at the meeting,it's only the hard-core that really care about such matters..others go with the flow,

Morning all. Maybe the turnout was high amongst the otherwise unengaged simply because it was a thing that could legitimately seriously affect the football club, and one that the club decided not to sweep under the carpet...

I’ll admit I got it wrong - I didn’t expect the turnout to reach the required threshold. It does make you wonder whether more season ticket holders with gifted memberships are actually more engaged than assumed. If so, the DTB may have played a blinder.

"I'm not saying my wife is a bad cook,but she uses a smoke alarm as a timer" . Love a bit of Bob monkhouse ,BBC hang your head, cancelling a legend. :-(

Not voting is not the same as voting against

I can't envisage any scenario in which an investor would instigate a hostile takeover. They would just be throwing good money away (paying a premium to existing shareholders) when they could just wait and get it for very little during administration, which would happen with or without 50.1% in place. The main risk is them turning the tap off funding ongoing losses (should that even exists as a concept) unless they get their way or just lose interest.