Commercial basis to me means having a strong likelihood of making a profit or at least breaking even from the organisation's business activities themselves. On that definition almost no EFL club is run on a commercial basis, they are all expected to lose money on their main business activities.

Why the early KO tom night?

Laurence - because if it was then we’d have fired Buckley before he hired him.

JG - where or how in your estimation is AFC Wimbledon not run on a commercial basis, please?

JG - fair enough. My real concern is that just removing the DT from ownership (by diluting it down by the sort of massive rights issue that you are suggesting) and running the club on a "more commercial basis" wouldn't make us profitable (no, or almost no, other club in L1 is profitable), so you would still have the question of who covers the losses. The reality is that a rights issue of that kind (if successful) would mean ownership by a small group of wealthy shareholders (your "£2m crew") while the DT got diluted down and the rest of the 5,000 shareholders either put in enough to maintain their existing small stakes or didn't, and got diluted further. It would, though, give the club a big slug of cash, which I agree is not to be sneezed at.

Kind of not interested in watching it now. Edited? Why?

That’s brilliant only five and a half days to put up a video.

@aideen - the meeting footage will be available tomorrow am now

Brighton was the best pub runs he done took over 2 days somewhere on his vlog

Galty has put in £2m? Excellent news - our money worries are over, praise be to Galty!!! 🤪🥳👏😇

Postman he is great,does about 15 pubs in a session .will give it a watch[Link]

When we tried to raise capital through selling more shares during the construction of the stadium it barely reached £2m. It was heavily pushed and incentives were offered depending on the value of the investment, some of which I believe still remain unhonoured. Even the stadium installation with names of subscribers had many missing names because of poor data and to this day I am still chasing the club to put this right. I'd love to be wrong but I simply don't believe the appetite is there. The reason the bonds were successful is investors could see a return and a route to getting their money back. None of these apply with shares.

The great British pub crawl on you tube was in Wimbledon last night you might see yourself if you take a look and was on the sherbet

We are in some ways poorly run because we make year on year losses with no way to cover them. Other clubs at our sort of level are badly run because they make year on year losses and have someone willing to cover them. I am not sure that there are clubs similar to us in Leagues1 or 2 who regularly break even or better but would be happy to hear details of them.

Thanks Meadow.

6MDM & OI - I wouldn't be doing this as a logical investment. I'd be doing this because Wimbledon have been a big part of my life. That said I wouldn't want my money pissed up against the wall - funding day to day losses - so I most definitely wouldn't invest unless I knew that the Club was going to cease being controlled by a "Collective" and would from herein be run along commercial lines. These latest thoughts have come about because my seat neighbour on Saturday asked me what it would take to get me more financially involved - so I have given it some further thought. But I assure you I'm not chomping at the bit and would be more than happy to spend £2m on something else.

Aideen - to me the issue isn't whether I had 25% - in fact I'd rather not have a large percentage as I wouldn't want or seek any form of control. The issue I would have is with any other one person or entity having significant control.

Nick W: I agree with your assessment with the one proviso - that 5000+ fans owning shares is more akin to fan ownership than the model of ownership by an outdated Collective Industrial & Provident Society. Anyway I have put some money where my mouth is. I would be committed to £2m. Whether or not all, some or any of the other 5000+ fans who currently own shares would participate I can only have a gut feeling which would be we'd be oversubscribed.

JG - agreed. His argument was that no votes mattered because the DT had so many! My suspicion was that an admission that NR had paid less for his 1 vote shares than he did for his 3 vote shares would have complicated the adjustment that was necessary to compensate the purchasers of shares via Seedrs.

OI - I think someone was being somewhat disingenuous suggesting that a share with 3 votes was worth the same as one with 1 vote. Value is usually attributable in proportion to voting rights.

“It’s being edited”

Donial, you have mail.

Aideen, it's being edited. I put out a chaser on Discord last night. It should be available today.

Thanks guys, I’m trying to find out if the meeting is online anywhere? Stu, it’s probably to sell more to ppl who already invested to take them over the currently permitted threshold.

Stuart i think it was said that we have 23.6% available under 50%+1 so if someone wanted 25% they would need to buy 1.4% from existing shareholders