The question is, OI, how do you sort it out? Is it a case of asking the DT (and other holders of Ordinary Shares) to accept that they only have one vote each? Do we compensate them for that? For what it's worth, I can see there being a case for another class of shares - a single "golden share" which requires the PLC to obtain the holder of that share (i.e. the Dons Trust) to approve any change to the name of the club, sale of the ground etc. Then (controversial, I know) we could be less bothered by the DT's shareholding being above 75%, 50% or whatever.

Good stuff DD.

I have just made my first ever (I think) post on Discord, Trigger, and have also emailed the Secretary.

DD - The whole two classes of share is a nonsense now, especially if the club are still going with the fiction that a 1 vote share and a 3 vote share are of equal value.

DD are you on Discord? I do appreciate Mav’s engagement on here but it’s also clear that the board still aren’t really interested in engaging all members. Feels like a question for on there and/or direct to the board and then hopefully you are able and willing to share on here.

Just noticed that the heading of the paper itself says A Ordinary shares but the resolutions themselves only refer to Ordinary shares. That can't be right.

Trig - ha, no, well after my time and wouldn't have been the likes of me anyway

Honestly nicander betting just flies miles above my head it doesn’t register with my brain at all. So I try not to judge anyone who gets into trouble from it because it’s clearly bigger than a personal decision for some people given the scale of some of these cases.

The papers for the AFCW PLC EGM seek authorisation to sell Ordinary Shares (i.e. shares with 3 votes each) but not A Ordinary Shares. If we're only selling Ordinary Shares to Across the Pond, then they're buying quite a level of control. By contrast, we sold Nick Robertson a blend of Ordinary and A Ordinary shares such that his shareholding was 10% both in terms of economic and voting shares. I've asked the club to clarify. There may be a simple explanation (e.g. relying on a pre-existing authorisation to sell A Ordinary shares), but it's worrying that this isn't explained at all in the paperwork.

Did you sign the food vans deal nicander? 😆

Fair enough, will catch you at a game sometime ;)

Trigger - I had zero sympathy for Downes and his eight bets so you can imagine how much I've got for the double century lad.

(But easy to see the plethora of gambling adverts connected with football and sport in general)

I hope that we help Foyo, he’s still young. Does a ban stop him from working in football? If not, he can help with coaching maybe. In the years he is being charged for, he was out on loan a lot, I wonder what support he received during that time.

OI happy to answer your question but I don’t think a public forum is the place as I hope that there is still a conversation to be had between the clubs representatives and the pie man.

Easy to say the food van deals were rubbish for us, but the challenge the club had was that it no longer had a captive audience for food unlike at KM (fatboys aside). It is extremely foolish to look at the money going out the door on the pie I might have from MyPie but not to notice the beer I bought while I ate it.

Devil’s in the details nicander. Must have been a reason why we signed the lad with little intention of playing him last season. Maybe we had the information and have built a contract around this eventuality. Maybe we got hoodwinked and his parent club Ipswich knew. Maybe they didn’t. Will be interesting to see what happens next but Foyo himself needs good people around him if he’s going to stay in football.

Doubt Foyo will play for us again, will prob be at least a season ban, presume we'll sack him.

In what way nick?

OI perversely that is part of the problem

We can have it both ways, actually. We can increase drinks sales volume and keep some food trucks while boosting our own food concession revenue. If we chase every last penny and drive people away from the stadium, they won’t buy food or drink.

I have no dog in this fight as I haven't eaten at a football ground since the abortive attempt to get a Jamaican meal at the first evening Plough Lane game we could go to. The aim must be to maximise income, which I presume maximises profit, so the catering company need to provide food offerings of similar quality to that of the vans so that people will continue to eat in the ground. So over to them.

Definitely agree that clarity is key, nick. I doubt we’ll see much of it (again not moaning, these are commercial contracts and all that) but I hope that the end result is a decent selection of food options at a decent price for fans driving decent profit for the club.

We can't have it both ways. We can't urge the club to generate increased revenues to reach break-even and then moan when they look to do exactly that. One of my suggestions earlier this year was that the club look into implementing in-stadium spending via an AFCW Stadium digital and/or physical gift code/card which would then have enabled to club to track spend at the various concessions and impose a % margin. A lot of horse racing tracks implement something similar. I always purchase a Vegan ciabbatta (and anyone who comes with me) from the Argentinian outlet and one or two diet cokes at an overall average matchday spend of around £30. But how much of this was going to the Club??

I see that Carlisle, York and Eastleigh are now confirmed as not participating in the National League Cup. Not sure if any others as well they’re the only ones I’ve seen.