Interfere/set agenda - no. Golden share committing not to relocate the club/sell the stadium without DT approval - yes.

DD - do you genuinely believe that someone that has spent millions to take over an ailing business/football club, is going to let the former owner continue to interfere/set agenda?

6MDM: We would need to be firm on the provisions of the golden share protecting our stadium and identity etc (with a seat on the board, one would hope) and then be prepared to give control of everything operational. The role of the Trust would then be to watch over the rights granted by the golden share and to represent the interest of fans, eg ticket pricing etc. I'm less pessimistic than you - we ought to be an attractive club to buy, given location etc, and it's not as though other clubs are finding it that hard to find buyers. I agree with you, though, that minority investors are likely to resist carrying other shareholders' share of operating losses for very long.

I am also slightly more optimistic than you about a buyer being willing to support losses (there would be no point in them buying if they weren't willing to do that, so the key is having someone with the capacity to do so, which again we have more chance if we control the process) and to accept some restrictions (realistically most buyers will want the brand equity in the team name, kit etc and ground). As you say, though, we are in a total mess and can now only make the least worst of a dire situation.

$6m man - totally agree with what you say below, including being incredulous that the DTB don't seem to have seem to have focussed on this analysis and have wasted their time on trivialities and personal vendettas as we drift ever closer to the precipice. To me, the best that we can do now is to look to put in place certain safeguards and sell out to a sympathetic investor who will take control. All that we really have to offer a buyer is an orderly sale (rather than them having to take their chances against other buyers in an administration) but there is also some value to an investor in being perceived as an agreed buyer rather than a vulture feasting on our carcass.

BBC coverage of the DT statement - [Link]

DD - if we could find somebody who would buy the club whilst allowing the DT to retain some sort of right of veto to prevent selling the stadium (even as a sale and leaseback), changing the club name or colours, etc., then that would be great but any purchaser with half a brain would want complete control and autonomy. If push comes to shove would we be prepared to give them that?

Leds and co.lol

Come on TBK ,tell us the plan please?

To me, 50% +1 is futile. It is not enough to generate serious funds and income and will merely kick the can down the road for a short period of time until whatever is raised runs out. The choices are: 1 - Reduce our costs to be commensurate with our sustainable income and find the level we end up at (probably National or national South). This would show a lack of ambition and call into question the whole point of existing. 2) Sell out to a sugar daddy / philanthropist (should one even exist, which I doubt) and rely on them to continually plug the funding gap. This may be fund while it lasts but when they get bored or run out of money we will be back to square one with no say or influence in what happens next (not that we have much say now in reality). 3) Sell out to an investor. They will most likely asset strip, look for a return on their investment and then then sell the carcass of whatever is left to anybody they want to. 4) Sell down to 50% + 1. This is unlikely to raise enough ongoing funds beyond whatever we sell the shares for. You could not compel a minority investor to subsidise losses if the majority investor isn't doing likewise (which they couldn't because they have no money). 5) Do nothing and hope for the best because fan ownership (sic) is the way forward and the football regulator will save us. I included this last one for completeness and is what the hard of thinking amongst our fanbase still believe to be true. Many of them are active and they will ensure this club is dead as we know it within 18 months.

The only thing that may surprise me about that DTB statement slipped in without much fanfare is if anybody is surprised by the dire financial position we find ourselves in. I have been banging on about this for months / years and and there are a few others on here who have done likewise. We all could see the financial disaster impending and pleaded that something should be done while we had destiny in our own hands. I got criticised for doing so. Clear choices were not presented to the DT members or the wider fanbase setting out the ramifications. There is no ideal solution without something pleasant. The choice is to choose something that is the least worst. The problem now is the choices are narrowing and least worst is becoming more unpleasant.

MAD - from earlier, Sam has had his stoma for a couple of years now and this was his third major surgery. With this last operation, they had to re-site his stoma and sort out a hernia and a blockage.

Totally agree with what DunDonald says that we need to work out how to protect our position while we are still solvent, rather than just drifting to administration

I remain persuadable that 50.1% is the way forward. But we don't have the luxury of not also considering options to go below that, in my view.

I’d hate to think how much we’re paying the likes of Orsi and Kelly

Last year’s accounts leddy - L2 as you well know.

If we do a deal with a prospective purchaser of the club while we are still solvent, then hopefully we could restructure the share capital so as to create a golden share for the Dons Trust which would require Dons Trust approval to sell the ground, move the club, etc, etc. If we wait to go into administration, then the administrator will not seek to create such protections and a purchaser can asset-strip or whatever. Much better to do a deal now than to take our chances on what emerges from administration.

There are 15 clubs in League 1 with even more massive gates than ours.

I agree that it would be helpful to understand our finances more clearly but, to me the reason for our losses may be as simple as (1) every / most team in the league spends more on paying their team than they earn in net revenue (basically because the owners are willing and able to subsidise losses) (2) we don’t generate any more net revenue than other sides (3) therefore we have a choice of spending the same as other clubs on the team (and hence making a loss) or spending less than other clubs in order to break even (and hence having an uncompetitive squad and probably getting relegated).

Not every candidate was allowed to do the hustings.

As an aside, in the recent Hustings each candidate was asked what they would do to stem the £1-2m annual losses if elected…. Might make for interesting listening [Link]

I’m old enough to remember when club comms equated 50.1 with going up to the championship 😂 that said, reaching the play-offs wouldn’t half help with the losses - so, of course, everyone who can should pop£10/month into WAWF and get us there! I’d still like to see some ideas touted. Good to see the Boards now pushing for more than a sugar hit when selling down - but not sure how you can make someone put money in annually if they get bored of doing so?? Would also like a two-liner in laymen terms of where the money goes if we are hitting record revenues and have the lowest budget. Unless that really is the way it is, I guess. But moreso I’d love to see some progress on some plans. For eg PLB3 - yes people are bored of dipping into their pockets but hear me out… since we last bonded we’ve doubled our crowds. And our fans always rally around if there’s a real need. Plus non-Don investor came in for the interest offered. But rather than just raise money to cover annual losses, which would be daft IMHO, raise a Bond to explicitly invest in something with a ROI - building a stand. Raise £5m, get 2,000 more fans in (£20 per ticket average) x 20 games and that’s £800k a year. Pay the bonds back over 5 years and then that’s half the annual losses cut. Then we do it again. Bigger gates, maybe a play-off or two. All while looking at enabling development to build a hotel in the corner and finalise the place for free and packing the place. If those losses really can’t be cut, then I’m not sure even selling up really works. That has to be the focus. The worst thing we could do is sell down, cover the losses for a year (or maybe two if lucky) then find our self in the same place again in two years with nothing else to sell and losses of £1-2m to cover. Arghhhh.

Massive gates,good tyrnover, ,good merch sales high ST prices,vast corporate areas ,groundshare, solar panels.homework couldn't of been very good 👍

If our playing budget is so low and our revenue is at the highest it’s ever been, where is the money going?

But because of other results Northern Ireland still get a playoff spot.