Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

If SSC miss contributions, they will still own whatever percentage of shares they have been issued at that point but may lose some influence like control over football matters but will still be the majority owner of our club. The only way their percentage could reduce is if more shares were allotted and issued to somebody or something else to dilute their percentage. Whether they would have any pre-emption rights at that stage isn't pointed out.

It will pass because the alternative is administration and being picked off by any old opportunistic vulture. The DT is now a busted flush so at least this is a more controlled way for them to disappear but disappear they will.

The following link is still live [Link] "The Dons Trust is asking members to lower the Trust’s minimum shareholding to 50.01% of voting rights and remove the 15% individual investment cap." It is silent on OWNERSHIP.

This deal looks dodgy. Not saying it’s not the better option but even just a little scratch at the surface of doctorates and tartans and barons suggests the future (because obviously this will pass) will be a bumpy road.

I went back and read the emails we were getting spammed with to vote the 50.1% thing through. I just picked on the one I received dated 11/03/2026 and it stated, "The Trust remains the majority owner and the ultimate decision-maker." That was what we were asked to vote on with 50.01%. However, this will not be the case if this deal goes through.

Dundonald. you are correct, we don't own it and if we agreed to sell SSC would get 90%. what we have is full control and only we can agree to sell, but that would be pretty pointless. Even if the club liquidated not sure the Dons Trust can lose the stadium under the new structure, which I guess we could today. could we maintain it then. maybe not but could lease the ground to cover short term costs without selling. SSC can never directly financially benefit from the stadium value without us agreeing.

V. informative reading back here. Thanks especially to 6MDM. I've also been confused about what the 90% thing means in practice (albeit from a far less knowledgeable base). I do think most (or at least many) people voted for 50.01% on the basis that we would retain majority ownership and not just majority control. And it seems like after 1-2 years SSC actually own the majority of the club? I don’t think this will greatly affect the voting outcome but there does seem to be some misalignment between the 50.01% vote and what is happening here. The DT could also be clearer on it now as it seems (at least to me) to be quite important.

*now not bkw

Claude is the best right bkw for research but it’s not good at admitting that there’s not much info around. SSC and Mr M are not exactly flooding the internet with info and Claude can come across as a bit “like me! Like me!” so tries to sound authoritative on little info.

Sorry for so many typos this evening. My typing is not up to scratch tonight.

I have not voted yet but I did just read the wording on what I am being asked to vote on and it talks about authorising shares to SSC in AFCW PLC but the document refers to them being buying shares in HoldCo, not AFCW PLC.

Trig- fair enough, as I say, I generally wouldn't do that

Claude AI can only read the document you shared with it and any online information that we can all find iit just does it faster and in this case as many have stated there’s not much available. It speaks like it adds value but there’s no value in sharing it on here.

Nicander -i f everything pans out the way the document describes (and presumably the 10% in HoldCo will be divided up amongst minority shareholders and the DT in exactly the same percentages as now, so the DT will own less than 10% of the club), what happens in 5 years? All bets are off and it is an open renegotiations with a shareholder than hasn't got a pot to piss in and owns less than 10% and SSC, who own 90%, have the money man behind them and can do what they like (sell, water down their ongoing commitment or do nothing).

Talking of voting the new ESG Chair said on the secret discord server (where Mr Pollock expects the husttings to be held) that election timelines should drop (drop his word not mine I’m not a TikTok influencer) on the 17th October. I make it some time after that and members don’t appear to have had any info via any channel secret or otherwise.

Specifically on Omar Mir: "There’s no company he founded or owned, no business sale, and nothing pointing to personal wealth anywhere near £87m. Private wealth is often invisible online, so that isn’t proof of anything. But it does mean members are relying entirely on Sheridans’ confidential source-of-wealth checks."

It suggested valid questions might include: How much will SSC have paid when it reaches 90%? Is any of it escrowed or guaranteed? Does a default after reaching 90% mean any forfeiture or discount? Do SSC’s economic rights extend to the stadium’s value through the new holding company? Is there a cap on wage commitments that run beyond the funded years?

It's a complex deal - I never do this but I did ask Claude AI for its analysis, especially on the economic rights stuff. Partial response as follows if in any way useful: "Day to day, the economic rights barely matter. A League One club pays no dividends and spends every pound it has. They matter at three moments: a sale, a buyout after a default, or an insolvency. At each one, SSC would take about 90%. The pack doesn’t say how the remaining 10% is split between the Trust and the other shareholders. The bigger effect is on leverage. The Trust holds the vetoes, but SSC holds the chequebook and runs the department that sets the wage bill. After a few seasons the club’s costs will be built around SSC’s money. Saying no to SSC on anything contested then carries an unspoken risk that the funding stops. The default ladder hands football control back, but not the money, and the pack admits the club could be left with wages it can’t afford. An investor holding 90% of an asset it can’t control or easily sell also has a lasting reason to push for a sale or looser rules. First refusal is weak protection when the Trust has no cash. The pack admits the Trust can’t find £6.5m to take the stadium directly. In the best-known cases where an outsider held most of the money but a minority of the votes, the relationship broke down. AFCW’s terms are much better drafted than eg 1860’s or Hertha’s: there’s a default ladder, a buyer veto and the EFL funding agreement. But the underlying tension is the same."

I've voted. Hoping we spaff the £87million on a new striker in January

From a procedural perspective, was the vote on the 50.1% about control or ownership? I suspect most people didn't consider they could mean different things or just cared about somebody else funding their hobby but I don't recall anywhere it saying we would allow the sale of 90% of the club. It feels like we have been deceived to get to this position, deliberately or otherwise. HoldCo will be the parent company and that includes the ground. HoldCo owns the ground through TWIOF but has restrictions put on it (which I would like to understand the mechanism of how this is proposed).

Scotty: I don't think you're right saying that we, not SSC, own the stadium. HoldCo owns the stadium (via TWIOF). And SSC have (eventually) a 90% share in HoldCo. So, for example, if the stadium were sold (which it won't be, and SSC can't make happen, but just suppose) and the were money paid out as a dividend, SSC would get 90% of the value.

OI: The document says "Every shareholder swaps their PLC shares for shares in the new company."

Good work 6mdm

I've done a bot of reading of that document now. I wish they gave this new holding company a name, even if it is just HoldCo, so it is clear what is being bought. The documents starts talking about shares in AFCW PLC but SSC are buying shares in HoldCo and their shareholding in HoldCo will grow (hence the financial value they own), so whatever shareholding the DT have in AFCW PLC becomes irrelevant.