Nicander, I wasn't referring to you but I think there are people who believe individuals are deliberately malicious. What your post should be seen as is a sad reflection that someone who contributed time and effort on a number of fronts is so disillusioned they are close to disconnecting entirely.

Abstention counts towards turn out. Two votes because it's a restricted action. Much like back in two ticks - sale of Kingsmeadow.

OI - I didn't mean to imply any malice. I think there is bunker mentality which is leading to the poor outcomes that always leads to.

Personally I don't think there are people on the board who are maliciously damagaing the club but maybe I am naive. I think there are people who are too sure that the DT's interests align with theirs, there are people who are out of their depth managing the DT and there are some competent people who are overwhelmed with the range of issues facing them. As an example take the Volunteer Code of Conduct. In September I requested a copy from the Volunteer Manager and was refused. I raised this with the board members I considered most competent and one agreed it should be available on the DT site and undertook to get it there. I then sent monthly messages pointing out it wasn't there, in January he said he had been let down by the people managing the site and would personally add it. It still isn't there and with all the voting going on it is pointless to chase it till May. But this is the document you may be being judged on, volunteer or not.

The Two ticks campaign seemed to be pretty well run (maybe my rose-tinted spectacles ...) so the DTb would have a recent model on how to get this to work

The sad thing was that at the recent meeting the DTB essentially said “we recognise that we messed up the vote last time and will be better this time” - if anything the arrangements and background are worse this time - totally incompetent, but realistically what do people expect from a group of random supporters elected on a popularity contest? Election is not really a mechanism to select for competence and governance of a business in financial difficulty is by no means an easy task, even if you have experience of this.

I have kind of withdrawn from anything about the club other than matches, due to anger and frustration, neither of which is good for me. And due to price increases next season, I will likely be attending fewer matches as well. But I have to say, I believe the stalwarts of our recent boards have effectively destroyed the club. I would hope that losing the 50+1 vote for a second time would lead to resignations. They had an opportunity over the last year to address concerns around governance and protections, and instead chose to conduct an elongated constitution review that has ended with important provisions gutted at the last moment, rendering the whole thing mostly a tidying-up exercise with no meaningful change. They clearly have no idea how bad the optics are around limiting people's ability to speak at meetings. I think it is a sign of abject failure that one group of fans thinks the boards are hell-bent on protecting fan ownership at all costs, while another thinks they are hell-bent on ending it. They have made their own lives incredibly difficult, and rejected easier, more collaborative paths. I do not know what any sensible path forward is - realistically it will be administration now. But I don't believe it was inevitable. I doubt I will vote on anything put forward.

OI thanks our consitution obviously needs amending and hopefully taking only up 2 sides of a A4 sheet of paper.

Keefy- I voted yes to the 50%+1 as I saw that as the best way to bring us closer to the end of fan ownership (by giving scope for a single large investor who will be positioned to take control when it all goes to hell) - but I think that that aspect is a matter of judgment and I doubt that the DTB is going to give us any advice on that aspect!!

Keefy, you can't have one vote according to both the current and recommended new constitutions. There have to be 2 votes within a month, with slightly different criteria to pass (if I remember correctly). What I'm not sure of, because I'm not voting yet is whether you can be counted as not-voting on some resolutions, whilst voting on others. Weirdly there seems to be a difference for some criteria between abstaining and not voting (Maybe that has been clarified on Discord).

Trigger you are right I'm all for a negociated sale but many are not, Tempted to vote no if it brings about an end to tt the fan owned ethos sooner rather than later.

Surely its simple, Have a meeting on the pros and cons re 50+01 only . Then one vote , done and dusted!

I think that view is growing in popularity keefy. Not sure 50+1 does anything significant to our longer term sustainability.

With the enlarged membership, many including myself need a simple easy to understand vote on 50+01. Sort it out George and trust.

Absolute mess and completely predictable when you look at board conduct for the last 5 years or more. Nothing done well, nothing got right first time, censorship and silence over communication and transparency. Zero accountability in fact people appear to be protected and even rewarded for failure.

I assume that TM is being sarcastic there - but, whether this is the case or not, the phrase "200 posts on discord" is hardly evidence of communication - the contrary if anything. If nothing else discord is a medium used only by a tiny minority of the supporters (basically those who are DT governance hobbyists) and is certainly not a proper communication tool. Also, anything that needs 200 posts to discuss it is, by definition, being made too complicated.

Donial - over 200 posts on discord discussing the ins and out - recommend heading there

For me. the 50.01% gives us a chance of a debt/bond-equity swap to, more or less, cancel the former and lower our costs by approx £350,000pa. Other reasons as per Nick Woking. So a YES for me

Echo Donial and Nick - it’s a big no/abstain combo from me until someone learns to speak in plain English to us…. 🤷🏻‍♂️🙄

Also doesn't help that the voting email comes from Survey Monkey - rather than from the DT, which certainly doesn't make it look official or important.

The communication is absolutely shocking and really confusing - I have no idea whether the new constitution needs to pass or whether this is just being chucked in a "might as well do that at the same time" basis (hence I abstained on that, as my view is that the details of the constitution are pretty moot anyway, given the short period before we collapse). If changing the ownership limits is so vital then the communication needed to focus only on that and be 100% clear - those of us on here are probably in the most engaged element of the fanbase and are struggling. The chances of someone who got the membership free on a "loyalty card" basis with their season ticket taking the time to try to navigate the complexity involved must be pretty small.

I’m really struggling to make head nor tail of all this DT stuff. Normally reading on here helps but I’m still at a loss. Is anyone able to offer a simple explanation into what exactly we’re being asked to do? Why are there 2 SGMs? Is 50.01 vote linked to others or can I vote for that alone?

Will the DTB reap what they have sown? A failure to reach the required level of support for 50+1 because many of those recipients they handed membership to free of charge will take no notice of anything that is as unintelligible to many as the recent communications are.

I might be condemning the club to oblivion but I really can't vote for 50+1.

To me tge whole 50%+1/ removal of the 15% limit thing is quite unlikely to prevent administration (I simply don’t believe that we will attract a minority investor who will cover our ongoing losses) but it’s definitely a step in the right direction and will likely result in us having a significant investor who will be in prime position to step in and take real control when the money runs out, so I am inclined to vote in favour of that. To me it seems slightly mad to be tying this vote up with all the pointless complexity of a new constitution, but perhaps I am missing something as I haven’t given that aspect any real thought.