Yeah again please note the vote is only based on the Heads Of Terms. Once passed the deal could change significantly between the solicitors drafting up the actual details and members have no further rights.

I don't mind self-interested people looking to make money through us but not at our expense. I remain to be convinced that this deal as laid out is the thin end of the wedge and within the next few years we don't lose everything again. At least at the moment it is still within our power to prevent that, however unpalatable doing so could be.

At one stage, Moldova was very much "next" as pro Russian forces had already taken over large parts in the northern part (remind you if anywhere else). Didn't they have a team that were funded by the russian state and doing rather well in european comps. Seem to have vanished

Checkov checked out.

So about 15 kilometres from the Ukrainian border Rob. Don't take a wrong turning.

He did well to pivot from YT videos to being an author with at least a couple picked up for movies I think.

OK I'll stick to Ian Rankin and Sara Paretsky and similar.

I didn't realise how popular John Green was until I saw a row of his books on sale in a massive Target store just outside Dallas.

a4e - I prefer the term self-interested not "selfish". Human nature is driven by self-interest - but through the actions of individuals acting on self-interest - the best outcome is derived. So yes I would have preferred that the club was owned by a number of self-interested fans who had a real financial stake to drive the club forward with passion and self-interest.

a4e - it's a big target audience. I doubt OI is in that demographic. TFIOS is 15 years old. The population of the US is c340m. None of this is a comment on the quality of JG's writing, just that I doubt OI would enjoy it in the same way I'm not reading Colleen Hoover.

Red Kite - I'd like to think that some of the ideas I put forward were useful. Certainly many of them have been taken up and implemented by the Club - but of course the cynics on here might say that they would have been implemented in any case and had nothing to do with me. Either way I'm happy that over the last year or so the club appears to have adopted a bit more commercial sense.

The Fault in Our Stars has sold over 23 million copies, so there’s definitely quite a big target audience…

Unless OI is in fact an angst-ridden sexually confused teenage girl who likes to think they have ADHD.

OI - as Trigger says. You are not his target audience. As for Ayn Rand - well, voting yes on our proposed investors perhaps aligns us with her view. An interesting philosophical discussion to be had there.

Yep. Don’t.

Galt - I’m genuinely confused by your posts. You say that you’d have been prepared to put a couple of million quid into the club (I’m not entirely sure why you couldn’t still do that if you wanted to help out…?), but you also have somewhat (in my view) contradictory ideas - how do “Id (sic) much rather have the club driven forwards on out and out self-interested capitalist motivations than any pretence of philanthropy” and “it would have been much better to enfranchise through equity ownership dozens, hundreds or thousands of fans” fit together? Do you mean that you’d like the club to be owned by hundreds/thousands of selfish people who only invest in the club for personal gain?

Sorry (well not really) Airsy. I might actually be tempted to read one of John Green's books. Does anyone have comments or suggestions?

6MD - absolutely!

Along with Google AI's comment "Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is generally considered a difficult and demanding read, not because the vocabulary or prose style is unusually dense, but due to its extreme length and heavy ideological weight"

OI - There was I thinking of giving Atlas Shrugged a go. You've put me off now.

With regard to Ayn Rand / John Galt I give you John Green's response in his Guardian article about books, in this case ones he would never read again: "I don’t feel an urgent need to return to the works of Ayn Rand, whose flimsy plots only serve to reinforce flawed ideas about how humans organise themselves and cooperate."

Aside from the money aspects and us forever being reliant on outsider ownership (it's no longer merely investment), my short term concern is what damage Bertrand could do to the playing side of things. He has no track record and whilst he may put the noses of Messrs Jackson and Cope out of joint, he may also commit us to player contracts that are unsuitable or bring in players that do not fit the style or culture, assuming he doesn't try to change that too. I suspect most will be moaning about that long before financial armageddon because it is the most immediate and visible consequence of selling our club.

Galty, did you get any feedback from the Club regarding your income generating ideas ?

WIJG - yes I think your ideas are interesting and would probably work in theory but I have no belief they would work in practice. We are unlikely to ever know which of us is right. I agree thatgiven our current situation the SSC offer makes a lot of sense and brings a a lot of professional expertise into the club and is thus what I will support.

OI - whatever you think about the workability or uptake of some of my ideas - I have been pretty consistent in expressing a commitment to have taken up a small minority stake if the Club had determined to adopt Real Fan Ownership. I would have been willing to have bought shares as part of a overall fan ownership offering of up to £2m; I would have been happy to pay more for my seat or purchase some right to my seat. I think you believe me. My gut feel is that the offer on the table from SSC is a better form of ownership than the ghastly collective that currently exists - but it would have been much better to enfranchise through equity ownership dozens, hundreds or thousands of fans.