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

Exactly Spit - we need to see where the money is going out of the club.

The low budget on such good gates, suggests to me we will be getting a relegation or double relegation in the next 4/5 years.

Wonder if 27/28 ST sales will start in January next year.great if people think our financial situation isn't as bad as some of us thought 🤔

Keefy - when were you in favour of fan ownership, please?

Keefy - to be fair, the whole "live-within-our-means-even-if-it-means-back-to-Conference-South" thing is only bandied about by few people. And it's something that would fall apart at the first clash with reality.

Always a reason not to change what's broken eh?

Last night for me showed maybe there is now a realisation that Fan ownership is in the balance and we are now looking to go to the edge re 50+01, if the vote fails selling will be the only course forward. What ever the aim is to retain our club in Merton and move forward. Any ideas of living within our means will end up us ground sharing with Raynes Park Vale

Interesting to hear that the two people who impressed people the most are both "outsiders"

If anyone from DLAG is about I am trying to fill in the volunteering form on the website but keep getting a critical error? Is it me or you and is there another way?

Agree James Woodroof should be on the board. We need to encourage him to stick around (and additional reason).

That said, freshening up the DT Rules is worthwhile (and long overdue).

OI: I'd argue there's not too much point changing the governance model in advance of doing a deal with an investor. An incoming investor will what went to get comfortable with how governance works post-deal, and it will almost certainly involve changes - probably with nuances that are bespoke to whoever comes in. Maybe they'll think an Exec Chair is needed; maybe they'll prefer a Non-exec Chair. Part of the negotiation.

And highly unlikely to get banned

What are your ideas on a rights issue Laurence? Would the DT appeal for donations so that they could take up some of their rights? Would small shareholders take up their rights? A hard NO from me. Who do you think would take up their rights? Would we have outsiders underwriting the issue to take any remainder? Would we limit how big a holding any underwriter could acquire?

Laurence - I'm not saying whether I think the veto is good or bad, just that if I was investing I'd be unconvinced how a seat on the board protected me from anything.

Another thing I'd question as a potential investor is plc governance. A year ago we were told that we couldn't find a new Executive Chairman and the potential candidates appeared to suggest it was the wrong model. A year later we have heard nothing about the supposed report on what to do and Mr. Buckley is still doing the 'temporary' job he started 4 to 5 years ago. Now with 50%+1 and the new constitution the DTB are going to have no spare bandwidth till at least May (I'm giving up on chasing the Volunteer Code Of Conduct till then) so there is no sign of any policy even being produced till the second half of the year. If I was being asked to cover losses that would worry me.

The only thing last night actually changes is a 13% increase on season tickets (did I miss any info on ordinary matchday ticket increase?) and some respect for Woodruff (not saying he didn’t have it before this was just the most visibility we’ve had since his appointment.) All the rest is still very much up in the air and open for debate. We’re still out of money in the summer (great to know we have access to a loan but loans need to be paid back often with interest).

OI - the right of Veto is good, providing the DT chosen few on the club board understand what is being discussed and offered.

Dundonald: One of my friends on FB just responded with this, when I was explaining the idea of a rights issue: 'sorry mate you’re getting too technical. I just want simple answers to simple questions.' He is a great supporter and I suspect he might speak for loads of others. Are supporters being confused on the message?