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.

I'll be honest, I'm not in favour of 50+1 because it doesn't protect us against a hostile takeover. They can give us all the assurances but 75% protects us 50+ one doesn't.

Art imitates life Miss K

The bottom line is that no club around us in the the league is financially viable without a few million coming from outside the business. This is due to the ratio of players wages to turnover. We are no different. The Dons Trust are stuck between a rock and a hard place on this.

Trigger how very apt

“You force your fire and then you falsify your deeds. Your methods dot the disconnect from all your creeds. And fortune strives to fill the vacuum that it feeds. But this is beginning to feel like the dog's lost the lead”

Wonderfully put, Lurker.

Voted for because of one simple thing. It’s clear the people running the trust don’t know what to do now to make the club financially viable. And the DTB has become something that cannot be controlled by the people it reports to. It’s been a sort of elected dictatorship for some time now. In cases unelected plain and simple. In that situation you might as well sell it down anyway. The state we’ve reached where good people just get ground down on there. To me it no longer means the difference between us controlling the club or someone else. It’s someone else controlling the club the way they want and using the excessive power of the board to get their own way. I don’t see anything different to an outside owner anymore. So selling down this much is no different other than it potentially realises more funding.

I think you meant that the people that you talk to don’t like how some people express their dissatisfaction and tried to play that off as being the vast majority of the club.

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.