New Zealand looking good for cricket WC final

For anyone unsure about buying a ticket for Stevenage, I ordered mine online on Sunday afternoon, and it has just arrived, with a first class stamp on the envelope.

You could throw them off the board but you couldn't force them to forfeit their shareholding. Even if you couid, HMRC would have a field day arguing about what the price paid for thr shares was with this sort of arrangement if they used the write off to claim a capital loss. In all likelihood all you could do is throw them off the board and hope they sell them to someone else willing to chuck cash in each year for no tangible return.

Agreed 6mdm - a good chair makes a good meeting. We don’t have a problem with people talking for long periods or trying to dominate meetings. So we don’t need rules which will end up with elderly members being manhandled out of the room. We’ll also then need a rule about no filming of elderly members being manhandled out of the room.

CW - Waggy said he intends to continue playing.

6MDM - I'd want to see the safeguards against them withdrawing funding. I'm fairly sure what I'd want would put people off, e.g. rolling funding with a 3 year exit period.

I'd be more inclined to vote if it were just for 50.01% and a limit what shareholding an individual or group of individuals can hold. I am not interested and informed enough to have an opinion on the constitution and standing orders (whatever they are). When I see things like restricting how long members can speak for to form part of this, my first reaction is why is this even needed? Is it an issue now? It's hard enough to get anybody to turn up, let alone speak. It feels like fixing a problem that doesn't exist and was probably stuck in by this person who did the review and never got challenged. My second reaction is isn't it the role of the Chairman to control a meeting and how long he or she let's somebody speak for?

Voting 50.01%, as it's presented, will not line thr pockets of any investor. In fact, they are expected to continually gift cash every year to fund operating losses and, if nothing changes, in all likelihood they will lose their investment when we sleep walk into administration. My issue is I simply do not believe such an investor exists. Having 25% ownership and a seat on the board is not an adequate return for what is expected of them. If someone was stupid enough to sign up for this, there would be nothing to stop them withholding their ongoing funding and decide just to write their investment off. With a full sale they would have more to gain as they are in control but would also have more to lose. I'm beyond bored by all this now. Will this current vote succeed? Maybe. Will it make much difference in the medium term? No. Therefore, I'm just going to enjoy going to the games at Plough Lane and the away trips as best I can for now. What will happen will happen. I'm past getting worked up about it as it's unhealthy. The whole point of a hobby, which watching football is supposed to be, is it's fun. Club ownership isn't.

Spartan-saw Wagstaff playing for Tonbridge earlier in the season, presumably he can do both jobs

If this vote falls just watch as they blame us for being bad owners, rather than themselves for being shambolic communicators! Somehow they’ve managed to make this vote even more farsical than the first one.

No apologies needed RK. I did have baby brain.

Some of us having been saying this for years ! [Link]

Ex Don Scott Wagstaff is the new Gillingham u18s coach.

Certainly a lot more cost effective to offer perks for volunteers than to have that many full time or part time roles on the books.

Nick there were plenty of volunteers around during the ownerships of Noades and Hamman, mind you there were plenty of perks offered.

Some people will walk away if we aren't fans owned,not a big loss really.. (although I dare say it's hot air and most will support afc wimbledon no matter what.)

WJ, we're pretty certain to go down next season anyway unless somehow we magic up another £2m or so from s9mewhere. Very sad

I cashed my bonds in at the earliest opportunity after the embarrassment of the Maklin fiasco, seeing how our club was being run, I feared that I wouldn’t have anything to recoup if that was an example of their expertise. Having the DTB and the people who we employ to run our club in a position of unchallenged control as we returned to an empty stadium after COVID felt like the turning point and fans returning to games seemed like an inconvenience, and they were almost viewed with distain. I wonder how bond holders feel about the possibility of their investment supporting an organisation that could have a substantial portion owned by a single business man? I also wonder if volunteers will feel that working for free for the profits of a business (part) owner is not attractive? I have no idea how to vote (or even if I will) as I don’t feel that I have access to all the information I need to decide, but feel that I am being steered towards the option favoured by the DTB rather than having all the info presented to me to make a choice.

Afternoon (just) all. TBH admin is something you only do when you really can't avoid it. While it can work out for the best - Wrexham going into admin all those years ago saved the club - it's not a chance we should really take if it's in our own hands

Far better bet is the threat to Administration and engage with fans meaningfully. This 50.0001% nonsense is delaying stuff. Administration = points deductions, size not known, transfer embargo's, forced player sales and generally loss of good will, when the administrators due their duty in screwing local creditors in favour of the priority ones HMRC etc.

Looks like last night's results more or less went out way 👍

It's looking more and more like the best outcome for the fans is administration and a gamble that we get a decent buyer. Needs to be timed right to avoid multiple points deductions and stiches up any creditors and shareholders who thought they were making an investment and not a donation.

😄😄

I shan’t be voting. The majority ownership of the football club, in the hands of an outdated Industrial & Provident Society, suppresses and denies true fan ownership. As the majority shareholder they consistently trample on the interests of the 5000+ true fan owners, who sank hard earnt savings into owning a small share of their club. They continue to hold the Club back through a lack of investment and access to capital and have denied the true 5000 fan owners the ability to do so – through a rights issue. There is virtually no attention given to the interests and wishes of the 5000 - which is in stark contrast the priority given to the interests of bondholders. The worst part of every match day experience is having to walk past their “Dons Trust” cabin – promoting the idea that their Industrial & Provident Society represents any semblance of fan ownership. The idea that you can suppress the self-interest of thousands of individual shareholders with those of a Collective has been shown throughout history to be condemned to failure. It is just a matter of time.

That 12pm (sorry T9m Swig) ko gives us faraway wombles some practical problems too