With regards to the 50+1 and safeguards we already have a professional precedent to crib from - the Bundesliga. I hope we have reached out to them to see how safeguards are implemented, what works and what doesn't and can legally be introduced in the UK.

Lurker - not in binary yes/no terms, but they obviously weren't keen

The club board (AFC Wimbledon PLC) wants 50%+1 but the DT - including the members with their Kafkaesque resolutions about banning online voting - are buggering it up.

I do feel for the current DTB. This is a really important part of our history with the PLB payments needed over the next 3 years. Let’s not forget that we have had people on the DTB previously who are now pushing for some things to be changed that they could have influenced when they were on the board. The constitution has always needed to be updated, but wasn’t by many people because they are always firefighting. I was honesty to many last night that I would want to be nowhere near the DTB over the next 3 years and I reckon that is the same with many of us and I expect to see an uncontested elections later this year.

correct me if I'm wrong but did the board recommend to vote against all 5 resolutions (prior to the meeting)?

Thanks a lot KD- he does sound pretty competent and commercial (something of a fish out of water on the DTB), so I will definitely listen to his podcast.

Part of the problem is the DTB will just see it as people don't want it - rather than realise what the issue now is.

Sav - 100%.

Nick - Graeme Price [Link]

About 12 months ago the DTB looked like they had a good plan on 50.01% with a long lead time for conversations/persuasions etc. Since then they've stumbled around, pushed through unpopular changes, failed to provide timely useful information on the proposal and generally treated the membership with contempt. Given we have the likes of Ivor now at meetings and on podcasts being against the idea (for now at least) it's going to be a real battle to get it through. A clear failure of execution by the DTB for a proposal which looked pretty much already won a few months ago.

KD- I will listen to the podcast when I can, but in the meantime could you just remind me who Graeme Price is- is he an elected DTB person, a co-opted DTB person or a non-exec on the PLC board- he’s not a name I am familiar with (which I realise may be me not paying enough attention) but obviously has some sway if he is describing our strategy on an “official” podcast. I must say that I am sceptical about “stewardship” investors- what we need is more someone who will make the effort to run the club on a commercial basis, not someone who will bung in a bit of cash as a quasi-charity and leave things to run themselves.

Russ that's essentially what I was saying - you don't need to rewrite every bit. But there's been quite a few things that do need it and aren't getting done. The point about board recommendations is a good one that needs something formalised because it's perceived to have been abused then people hide behind "but we couldn't get the accounts submitted in time if we couldn't do that". It probably could use something that determined where the board can/cannot make a recommendation. For example member submitted resolutions should not automatically come with a formal recommendation the way the annual accounts do. They're not the same thing.

What is the purpose of the DT in 2024? Is it paying towards the womens team and the academy? If so why? Is it worrying about the culture of the club? Is it looking after associated charities? Is it monitoring the club on inclusion and diversity? Or is it simply a way to let the DT membership, who control the ownership of the club, exercise that in a sensible manner? Probably a mix but only when you know that can you see if the constitution supports or obstructs that purpose.

Lurker - let's see how much of a shitshow a full re-write becomes :) Especially when people will want consulting on a range of issues I assume. We have a fairly solid base at present, it's mostly worked for 20 odd years. It could work better with changes in practice without any changes to the constitution eg more engagement and debate on resolutions BEFORE any meeting helps to counter people making their minds up before the debate on the night.

Russ - the first question for me is whether the DT is fit for purpose in 2024 and, if not, how do we update it to reflect its current responsibilities. Only once you know that can you have a constitution that supports it effectively.

The process to update the constitution should be the easy bit to define. Step 1 agree a (standard normal wording) statement of intent (without legal involvement). Step 2 once that's agreed get the view of can you legally do your intent - Yes, No, Maybe and address what needs to be changed to make it viable. Step 3 get the simple statement of intent approved. Step 4 get the legal wording created to make it correct and binding.

Russ I don't think the entire constitution needs changing in one go but there are so many pieces that aren't fit for 21st century purpose that it needs a lot of work not just slapping an extra sentence in here or there.*

It would be people like Nick Robertson, more on a community basis than a 'something in it for me' basis. Michele finally seems to have accepted they need to tell us something about the process before we vote (a little akin to Ivor's points about the constitution).

50%+1 would allow the likes of Nick Robertson and John Green to invest more in the club.

A decent pace should still be 6-12 months, minimum. I don't even know why the constitution is unfit for purpose aside from how proxies are treated. Wouldn't a piecemeal evolution of it be better than a full re-write?

Indeed Lurker- I think that the whole 50.01% thing is a distraction- as I don’t think that if it passes it would raise any real money. The current structure seems unreformable so to some extent the real choice is either to carry on broadly as we are, perhaps getting odd bits of extra cash investment along the way, or to sell out control to an investor, such that the DT and all the endless talk of polls and proxies withers into insignificance. Realistically I can’t see the latter happening though, short of financial collapse.

Glad to hear you have joined the Constitution working group Ferret. Are you willing to outline how you will attempt to make sure that it becomes suitable for 2024 and beyond and how the DT membership can be involved rather than presented with a "take it or leave it" rubber stamping?

Nick my thought is more that they won't pay that much for no collateral against it AND no control. Especially since, if I understand it properly, we're not proposing anyone gets hold of 49.99 or whatever %. We are really offering less than 25% and not even that much to one person.

Triggo- if you start calling *me* 'they' , I'll have your guts for garters.

No way anyone is going to pay big money for 49.99% of the club when the DT holds the other 50.01%. Who would want to be the junior partner to such a deeply disfunctional entity?