Trigs, i think people voted in favour of 50%+1 because they were convinced by the arguments in favour of it including risk of going into administration. The dissatisfaction with the board point is unrelated and separate.

I'm in favour of 50%+1 but it will just delay the DT becoming a minority (or zero) shareholder by a couple of years. I don't know the route by which it will happen but one way or the others it will.

Democracy was meant to be in quiet marks there btw. The Trust abandoned democracy two years ago (maybe more I don’t know).

I think you’re extrapolating a large portion there but fair enough entitled to your opinion and all that. Suggesting that the majority of people who voted for 50+1 did so because they disagree with how people have expressed dissatisfaction with the current boards is like putting 2 and 2 together and getting garden furniture oil based preservative treatment.

Thank god I will sleep easy tonight knowing I’m entitled to an opinion

I think of it as last throw of the dice,.although the championship talk did prick my ears 👂:-)

About 85% voted a year and a bit ago ago to introduce much tighter restricted actions. It was only defeated at the second vote because the other resolution alongside it failed. Were the people who voted against that out of touch with the club?

By 'the club' I mean the people, us, the fans, the community, the members etc because that is what we are. I do not mean the board or the people who 'run' things. The overwhelming majority of us wanted this to go through which is why it passed a very high threshold restricted action vote. Those against it (whatever their reason) are of course entitled to their view and to express it and to try to convince people of it, but they need to accept that their view is a tiny minority now. Trigs, what I meant was that there are ways of expressing dissatisfaction with those in power - most people didn't agree that the 50%+1 vote was the correct place to do it.

Hash explain that last post for me.

If those 4,500 were in touch with the goings on in the Trust you would have imagined the room would have been full to the brim of eager members willing to be there to support the motions. It's more likely they just voted as they were told to.

Well the chair of the DTB will be up for "re-election" this year. A good opportunity to express dissatisfaction, if you so wish

So after forty years I’m now out of touch with the club, fine I will live with that opinion

I would say out of touch because the overwhelming majority of the club doesn't agree with the way that they expressed their dissatisfaction with those in power

3000 didn't vote put them in the no vote it 52-48, for 50 .01

I dont think that anybody who abstained or voted no is out of touch with club, maybe its because we don’t have faith with those in power

92% is about as big a landslide as you can get outside of North Korea so those against will have to accept they are totally out of touch with the club.

Laurence I commented last year that I thought more names would be added to our history and not in a good way, I really hope that I’m proved wrong

Kai jennings score from his corner kick

I remember when we played Torquay on a Tuesday night think we lost down there

Torquay vs dorking on DAZN ch if you have it

Definitely a right way to do things we just never seem to choose it!

Trigs - Let 'em attack all they like, they can feel insulted too for all I care. There's either a right way to do things or there isn't.

I see that Rochdale play York on last day of season - Rochdale on 94 pts & York on 92 pts at top of National League. Could be a tasty match if still that close (3rd place on 76 pts)

Good luck with that line of questioning Pete. It’s not that I disagree - I have zero trust in the people running the trust or our votes and elections - but the attack puppies will be out acting insulted that someone might think that it needs checking.

Silly question but, who gets to check last night's sums? Not suggesting anything murky, but surely it would be only right and proper to be verified independently, rather than taking someone's word for it.