Gone further the wrong way OI and that relates to Silk’s moral - members won’t decide anything on this because we’re not set up for that to be possible.

We really have little control. We could vote to raise prices and find it leads to empty seats and lower revenue. We could vote to sell out and find there are no acceptable suitors. We really need to be guided by people with relevant knowledge and a sense of realism.

A large part of the idea of NPL, besides returning home, was that it would be revenue positive allowing us to invest in the playing budget and eventually in other projects with an acceptable ROI. It was reasonable, if wrong, to believe that through the build, the pandemic and even a couple of recovery years till 2023 (there were also the various third floor schemes). Since 2023 it should have become increasingly clear that that financial model isn't going to work. More and more of the fanbase are seeing that but we still manage to elect and appoint people into power who are reluctant to grasp that.

Raising ticket prices should be one of the options given to the membership on this. As should staying as we are with the inevitable drop down the pyramid. It may not be want you personally want and I cannot see either being chosen over selling out but unlike others (we know who they are) we have to ensure that all options are fairly represented, explained and the choice is given.

If we’re selecting players based on a desire to sell them purely to be able to exist then our financial model needs to be changed.

We also have to get more cynical with our recruitment and starting line up. The player with the highest potential transfer fee is Hackford - so he has to start ahead of Orsi and probably Bugiel and Browne. He may be raw but he can score from through balls. We have to tailor our tactics to him. IN a 3-5-2 him up with Stevens - when he is fit. Look at players with a high potential sell on. Have the experience in defence and defensive midfield the low return. People who can score goals or create them get the big fees.

I don't know if it was intended as a serious proposal, but I very much doubt that the scale of losses we are talking about can be covered by raising prices. Broadly we are losing between £1.5m and £2.5m per year (figures to be confirmed when the accounts are finally issued). To cover this you would need to raise an extra approx £60-£100k per home game, which would mean (taking into account the need to charge VAT on the increase) increasing all ticket prices (including those for kids, concessions etc) by an average of £12 - £15 per match, without reducing crowds at all. (Obviously this is a high level estimate but it gives an indication of the scale of the task). This might be feasible if all of our fans really put "fan ownership" above everything and were willing to pay their own money accordingly, but I simply don't think that either is the case, as witnessed by the failure of the various "donation" exercises recently.

Stu - If the trust wants to fund the club then yearly ownership at £25 a pop needs to realistically be a whole £2 per day. After all, if you own something - maintain it.

Stuart Douglas on James Martin’s cheffery show this morning on ITV

Morning all. I'm sure the 3000+ new fans we've picked up since we returned home will be more than willing to pay significantly higher prices. After all, they're here because of fan ownership...

Of course there is an answer to our financial problems staring us in the face and it’s not selling out. Raise prices. If we all want to be sustainable then we have to pay for it as owners. Increase ST prices, matchday tickets, hospitality prices, executive box prices, sponsorship. Those are choices we can all support if we think that our current model can be sustainable.

That's how I read it, OI.

"Fan ownership doesn't work in the EFL but we must have fan ownership in the EFL" seems to be the current stance.

If Luton beat Rotherham, we go down a place today - as far as I can tell, that’s the only fixture that can affect our position today… Probably watch the rugby this afternoon instead…. 🏉🇳🇿

No match today, i wonder what else is there to talk about?

Therein lies the nub of it mad.

DD, it's been the trusts gift to ring fence the pitch for many years as a form of protection. Bit late now.

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