Good write-up, Hash. I thought it was a good meeting, set the scene well and got the tone right. With a different format, Angus was not being both master of ceremonies and spokesperson all at the same time, and I thought he came across well. I think our problems are structural rather than to do with the quality of our boards. Some of them do look as though they could do with a good night's sleep, though, and they're clearly working hard on our behalf.

I’m concerned how many season tickets we may lose with a rise of 13% and going on sale end of this month. One of our tickets won’t be renewed as it’s not used that often so unless the club manages to sell that seat next season they will lose on the S/T money plus the donated resell

Thanks Doobs. Key things for me were : 1. Rumours that we have told players they are not being re-signed are not true. 2. Our budget is 23rd and £1.5 million behind 20th. 3. Revenue is up pretty much across the board but so are costs. 4. There has been some improvement (8%) in no shows / empty seats. 5. Our profit from player sales has covered our operational loss over the last 5 years. 6. We are still due to run out of cash in summer 2026. 7. We have a £1 million loan available to get us through this if needed (the rumour about a £2 million loan from Ian NcNai already being used obviously was a play on this and not true). 8. We are in talks with multiple consortiums about investment. This may or may not include a consortium that includes a former Wimbledon player. NDAs have been signed. 9. The investors want more equity c. 25%. It wouldn't be 'kicking the can' because they won't just be making a one off payment but providing ongoing funds. They may want a place or two on the board in return. 10. 50%+1 vote will start in w/c 23rd March. There will be meetings before then. We have 23.6% equity available to sell so if an investor wants 25% they will need to buy some of an existing shareholder(s). 11. Vote for 50%+1. 12. Vote for 50%+1. 13. You will still get to vote on the individual investor even if 50%+1 goes through so vote for it.

Bye 👋,

I’ve tried to document what happened tonight fairly verbatim but it’s on Twitter and I have no idea how to unroll it. [Link]

Apologies - been out this evening. Can someone give a brief summary of what was said at meet?

Thank you to Doobs and whoever is running the Same Old Wombles X account. A very comprehensive coverage of the meeting.

Is there an update on Sam Hutchinson? Would make a difference to us in the run-in, if fit

If we can get an investor who will bail out our losses without want control then that is all well and good. If we can’t then the only alternatives would be to give up control or go into administration- the meeting tonight was pretty clear (albeit not stated explicitly) that we would choose the former rather than the latter and that “cutting costs and dropping back to NL South” wasn’t an alternative that we were going to look at

OI - just think of the warm fuzzy feeling the investor would get for doing something good

Silk - there is no clear path as to how anyone could gain control so we can't currently be valued at that level. There can't be any sort of under the table agreement because it has to go to the membership. At the moment we are valued as someone securing a stake not greater than 25% and possibly with commitments to pump money in as working capital year on year. The big question is what would you demand as quid pro quo for that?

The whole point that someone would buy a minority stake and provide “working capital” (aka bail out our losses) seems very odd to me, but if we can get someone to do that that would be great. Of course, in that case, whoever is providing the funding would in practice control the club, irrespective of their % shareholding, by simply threatening to cut off the funding if we didn’t do what they wanted.

SwinDon thrown out of the Vertu cup. Luton replace.

OI - you only need to buy 51% of the club to have control - so we could sell approx 25% now and still sell a controlling stake afterwards. The only limiting factor would be if the buyer wanted a higher stake to sell on later.

WW - You will find a lot of people who think the 30 million is more than the club is worth. However as they point out people want to buy English football clubs which ups the value but maybe only if they get control.

Thanks. I am generally supportive of the concept and voted for it last year on trust that those running the club know better than me. But this doesn’t seem to be enough money to sort us out properly and enable us to increase gate receipts / attendance going forward. So it’s frustrating! Wonder how we could get the value up to 60m and sell then!

The interesting idea is really only wanting people that stick money in each year to cover operating losses. If there are such people then great but how long would they be tied in to those payments for and what would they want in return?

WW - I can't find the current number of shares but I think it suggested the whole club was worth around 30 million. So selling another 25% would raise about £7.5 million at that value.

Woody, if we sold that additional 25%, we would get about £8m. It's basically a route to swap our debt, which is also about £8m minus the £1m loan from a few weeks back. Lots of ifs of course. It doesn't do much to bottom line, except we do not have to pay about £0.4m bond interest annually

Cashflow problems kill businesses if not taken care of PDQ

Sorry 50.01%

Talking about going to 50.015 again now. I thought what the club got wrong last time was in not talking about the revenue it would raise. For instance, if it raised 35m we could pay off all the debt and put a new tier on the east stand. if it raised 5m then we would still be in trouble. So it’s massively important.

and they completely ignored the elephant Alan, of course we have lots of different plans but do they include selling a majority stake?

Agreed, Mark brought in an elephant with him to the room.

Go Mark!