Don't mess with the mighty Padds. 😁

Oi, Trig

Hey it’s no problem you can’t remember which way you voted or whether you voted at all it happens.

Trigger- I realise that I didn’t express myself very clearly, my apologies. I don’t recall whether I voted no or abstained on the constitution - I could probably go back and look it up but I won’t, because I don’t care / it doesn’t matter and so I can’t be bothered to spend my time doing so. I am sorry if that leaves you in suspense but I am afraid it’s all you are going to get from me on that - from my perspective life is simply too short to spend any of it worrying about the DT constitution.

Ok so you said you didn’t vote on it but now you say you voted no and you don’t really recall and then pull out the “doesn’t really matter” argument.

Totally agree with Paddington’s last post- if the 50% vote is so critical why muddy the waters by throwing in the constitutional change (which absolutely didn’t “have” to be done now)

And which idiot(s) decided to combine 50+.01 and the constitution in one vote? Back in 2 ticks was brilliant in its simplicity. If they don't reach the voting threshold they may see the stupidity of it.

I am inclined to vote for 50+ whatever for the same reasons as NickW. I will vote against the constitution and sneaky standing orders. I am not voting for anything where terms are not defined and having only just been enabled to read after an unwelcome hiatus I will just base these decisions on instinct, I'm afraid.

Trigger- I voted no, I think- to be honest I don’t really recall on that. To me, I don’t care that much about the constitution as (1) even if it does get changed it is unlikely to be in effect for long before we hit administration (2) the only way that administration won’t happen is if we find this mythical minority investor who agrees to bail out our ongoing losses (or “provide working capital” as the board always rather coyly call it) and in the case that investor would in effect call the shots and the DT side of things will be purely ceremonial.

Plus the new Standing Orders are being quietly attached to the new constitution which would give the board the power to not let someone in to a meeting if they claim to have a feeling that person might not behave well, and to limit the time anyone one individual can speak for in a meeting. And the number of times someone can speak in a meeting. That route will end up with some old men physically trying to remove some other old men from Plough Lane - not a route we should be treading along.

I voted for the 50.01% because it brings us closer to selling control altogether (by allowing us to attract a dominant and in-effect controlling shareholder), which is where we logically need to end up. Didn’t vote at all on the constitution as I don’t have enough information on that and in any case think that it’s wholly wrong to be trying to sneak that through on the cost-tails of the other vote.

It wasn’t fenced in though you could just walk across through the car park

Once the AELTC bought the land they used it for parking during the fortnight but before that it was just a private golf course, fenced in.

OI-my recollection is that there was public access to the golf course for many years I always used to park in Home Park Rd and go to the tennis

OI - Ditto your moral. Used WP a lot when my tribe lived nearby. Doubt I'll ever go back there, but that's not the point.

It is interesting to see the (thankfully few) people on here who are voting for and the various reasons they give to justify it. “There’s no plan b” and “the board are dreadful but we can’t do anything about that so may as well give them more money and time” are my favourites.

Absolutely Pete, they probably knew they wouldn't win the fight over the floodlights and you need to be ready to fight if they want to sell the land for housing. No argument with people objecting to the Wimbledon Park plans though they are going to lose. My argument is about the lies they are telling.

The thought of someone thinking they know whether we’d be better off in any of the future scenarios doesn’t add up in my mind. There’s no way of knowing that being bought out of admin is going to work out well or badly or well then badly or well you get the point.

will do, Keefy.

OI - Just a few short years back, Ben D helped me out when they wanted to install very high floodlights just at the back of the houses in Cannon Hill Lane. Everyone's gardens on my side of QMA would've seemed like daylight until late at night 24/7. We were lucky that time, they dropped it. (New para) If AELTC are successful in their latest project in WP, they probably won't need that huge plot just down the road. I'm ok with what's there atm, just concerned with what happens next, seeing as modern planning seems to be returning to Hi-rise. By the way, did you see the gas holder project in Motspur Pk (Hi-rise blocks) has been kicked out? That could easily happen down the road without an eye being kept on things.

... if someone snaps us up out of...

I voted for (the first round of) the resolutions. Whilst I would have wished further information, and would like to see more before the second round, i think the idea that we would be better off letting the club fail on the basis that we'd be better off over someone snaps us up our of administration is wrong.

That is a different issue Pete, I think they have qualification/training courts round the corner from me and if that changes and planning permission is sought the council will have a say and so will local residents. The same will happen in Merton. What I find so annoying is rich folk with homes nearby going on about 'precious public space' when I know personally there has been no public access to that land in the last 70 years and with the plans there will be.

How many caps did Roy Law get?

They already hold prelim rounds at their place in Grand Drive, or did the last I heard. It's that plot I want future info on, if the main project goes ahead.