Are we assuming then that the threshold for 50.01 passing was met?

Laurence, 100%

It was so disappointing trying to listen online last night. Ok not many but some people might have wanted to hear the discussion before deciding, so in that sense the whole thing should have been cancelled because fans were not able to be informed enough to cast their vote. Some points I got were ... One member of the board said they voted no last time but are voting yes this time because times have changed...oh ok... Another member said things will not be perfect, we wont get everything we want... at this point I was not filled with confidence! There was a good question about where potential investment would be spent and an informative answer from Graham about the fact that investors will put their proposals together and will have a say about where their money is spent so we cannot say x will be spent on playing budget etc YET. What was also interesting was that if the 50.1 goes through, we will still vote on the investors proposals. They will be put to us by the board and we will then vote. I think this would have been really useful to know sooner (I did watch the last meeting as well and cannot recall this) For people considering voting against, this is important, that we might still reject a proposal from an investor in the future if we are not happy with the offer. Other than that I cannot really recall any other key points as it just kept cutting out. This meeting did provide interesting talking points , but this should have happened sooner to inform voters. Some might have already voted and after last night wanted to change their minds one way or the other...I would understand both !!!

No one watching the stream can tell you what was going on - whenever a half interesting question came up the stream lagged. Only thing of note was that they agreed with protecting club assets and potentially transferring to the DT’s direct control but also wanted to put it into a heads of terms document with investors and then sort it out later. Which in my mind is a bit appalling as there’s been plenty of time to look at it already, and a ‘heads of terms’ generally isn’t a legally binding document.

whilst I had an occasional run in with Kentish, I found more benefit than anger with posts.

When is Kentish’s ban up?

As trigger said,shouldn't of banned kentish,he was excellent in informing wup of what was happening at club /trust meetings.

Nowt on Discord except for complaints. What actually was discussed?

Are you on Discord, Meadow? Maybe there is something there? Or maybe not.

What a debacle. A dull shift at Sainsbury's and I returned in the hope of getting an idea about what went on tonight. No posts about the actual discussions but post after post about the streaming failing.

Laughter here in Somerset, Hash .😊

Surely there is someone who was at the meeting who can tell us what happened or have they all signed NDAs?

Trigger has kindly edited himself to remove an accusation which may or may not be true and in my judgement opened Bert up to potential consequences. Trigger was unhappy so I invited him to appeal to Bert when I first removed it a few weeks ago, saying that if Bert was relaxed about it, fine it could be up there.

But no-one has an answer for Aideen......

That rings a distant ding-dong, Slough. No wonder we who have other stuff going on in our lives lose track.

The same Dave Boyle who wanted 50+1 back in 2020 with his Purpose Foundation being offered shares in AFCW Plc and they would change the structure to a steward ownership of which the purpose foundation would be in charge off

I think we both were 😁

I thought I was being sardonic, Trig. Was I not then?

So what’s happened?

Same dave who “oversees” the secretary and asst secretary, same Dave who was paid an undisclosed sum of (our) money to rewrite the constitution, claimed that the person who raised an election appeal would “moan about it publicly” if given a substantial fee (currently £10k) in order to bring a constitutional appeal and allegedly posted a tweet which was anti-some-ethic?* That’s a scrutineer?

Probably Dave Boyle, Keefy.

I presume there is an independant scrutineer surely.

Last time the “who is allowed to see the current voting?” question was asked the answer was the unelected volunteer and completely ethically compromised DT Secretary and one of the James’ who I believe now sits on the PLC Board and issued a bizarre statement in the Rule 10 election fiasco.

Royal Mail vs government tom on bbc parliament channel and YouTube see what bollox they come out with from 230 if you want a laugh and lies

Well as the Secretary is allowed to mark their own homework, as in allowing members to vote twice and then be trusted to not count their previous vote, I'd guess they can do whatever they like