Naz - it is unclear. Back in 2022/23 when I was still in favour of fan ownership, I challenged those wanting to sell out to produce a report looking at the various options in selling out and what they entailed. I even offered to help fund such a report but nothing happened. The past couple of years I have only been willing to vote for people who at least wanted to understand what was involved in selling out and we still need that report so that members are properly informed.

Good idea by the club to remind folks by e-mail last night that today's match is cancelled. Would also be good to do it when kick off time/day has changed (my mate missed a 12.30pm kick off thinking it was still 3pm!).

Lucky we aren't in the old Coventry days of renting a new stadium. We seemed F**ked when we were given the land and have no rent to pay.

Your moral Trig is what makes the most likely scenario, administration.

Gone further the wrong way OI and that relates to Silkā€™s moral - members wonā€™t decide anything on this because weā€™re not set up for that to be possible.

We really have little control. We could vote to raise prices and find it leads to empty seats and lower revenue. We could vote to sell out and find there are no acceptable suitors. We really need to be guided by people with relevant knowledge and a sense of realism.

A large part of the idea of NPL, besides returning home, was that it would be revenue positive allowing us to invest in the playing budget and eventually in other projects with an acceptable ROI. It was reasonable, if wrong, to believe that through the build, the pandemic and even a couple of recovery years till 2023 (there were also the various third floor schemes). Since 2023 it should have become increasingly clear that that financial model isn't going to work. More and more of the fanbase are seeing that but we still manage to elect and appoint people into power who are reluctant to grasp that.

Raising ticket prices should be one of the options given to the membership on this. As should staying as we are with the inevitable drop down the pyramid. It may not be want you personally want and I cannot see either being chosen over selling out but unlike others (we know who they are) we have to ensure that all options are fairly represented, explained and the choice is given.

If weā€™re selecting players based on a desire to sell them purely to be able to exist then our financial model needs to be changed.

We also have to get more cynical with our recruitment and starting line up. The player with the highest potential transfer fee is Hackford - so he has to start ahead of Orsi and probably Bugiel and Browne. He may be raw but he can score from through balls. We have to tailor our tactics to him. IN a 3-5-2 him up with Stevens - when he is fit. Look at players with a high potential sell on. Have the experience in defence and defensive midfield the low return. People who can score goals or create them get the big fees.

I don't know if it was intended as a serious proposal, but I very much doubt that the scale of losses we are talking about can be covered by raising prices. Broadly we are losing between Ā£1.5m and Ā£2.5m per year (figures to be confirmed when the accounts are finally issued). To cover this you would need to raise an extra approx Ā£60-Ā£100k per home game, which would mean (taking into account the need to charge VAT on the increase) increasing all ticket prices (including those for kids, concessions etc) by an average of Ā£12 - Ā£15 per match, without reducing crowds at all. (Obviously this is a high level estimate but it gives an indication of the scale of the task). This might be feasible if all of our fans really put "fan ownership" above everything and were willing to pay their own money accordingly, but I simply don't think that either is the case, as witnessed by the failure of the various "donation" exercises recently.

Stu - If the trust wants to fund the club then yearly ownership at Ā£25 a pop needs to realistically be a whole Ā£2 per day. After all, if you own something - maintain it.

Stuart Douglas on James Martinā€™s cheffery show this morning on ITV

Morning all. I'm sure the 3000+ new fans we've picked up since we returned home will be more than willing to pay significantly higher prices. After all, they're here because of fan ownership...

Of course there is an answer to our financial problems staring us in the face and itā€™s not selling out. Raise prices. If we all want to be sustainable then we have to pay for it as owners. Increase ST prices, matchday tickets, hospitality prices, executive box prices, sponsorship. Those are choices we can all support if we think that our current model can be sustainable.

That's how I read it, OI.

"Fan ownership doesn't work in the EFL but we must have fan ownership in the EFL" seems to be the current stance.

If Luton beat Rotherham, we go down a place today - as far as I can tell, thatā€™s the only fixture that can affect our position todayā€¦ Probably watch the rugby this afternoon insteadā€¦. šŸ‰šŸ‡³šŸ‡æ

No match today, i wonder what else is there to talk about?

Therein lies the nub of it mad.

DD, it's been the trusts gift to ring fence the pitch for many years as a form of protection. Bit late now.

Interfere/set agenda - no. Golden share committing not to relocate the club/sell the stadium without DT approval - yes.

DD - do you genuinely believe that someone that has spent millions to take over an ailing business/football club, is going to let the former owner continue to interfere/set agenda?

6MDM: We would need to be firm on the provisions of the golden share protecting our stadium and identity etc (with a seat on the board, one would hope) and then be prepared to give control of everything operational. The role of the Trust would then be to watch over the rights granted by the golden share and to represent the interest of fans, eg ticket pricing etc. I'm less pessimistic than you - we ought to be an attractive club to buy, given location etc, and it's not as though other clubs are finding it that hard to find buyers. I agree with you, though, that minority investors are likely to resist carrying other shareholders' share of operating losses for very long.

I am also slightly more optimistic than you about a buyer being willing to support losses (there would be no point in them buying if they weren't willing to do that, so the key is having someone with the capacity to do so, which again we have more chance if we control the process) and to accept some restrictions (realistically most buyers will want the brand equity in the team name, kit etc and ground). As you say, though, we are in a total mess and can now only make the least worst of a dire situation.