Numbers. There are fewer than 40 people on here discussing it, maybe 100 (probably far fewer) on Facebook. Some more on Secret Discord. Perhaps 300 going to meetings physically or virtually including a lot already counted from social media. Some more reading the pack in detail. We have nearly 7000 members, it seems to me that 80% or more are paying really scant attention to the whole thing. That may be very sad but it is the way it is. If those people vote it will be on things like 87 million, recommendation from the DTB etc.

BTW, I don't have any terminal diagnosis so sorry if my comments in my last post were misunderstood.

Fortunately, I've never been divorced so I've no idea how I'd feel about remarrying (at my age I probably wouldn't anyway). I'm not concerned about things unlikely to happen. I think it will. It is just a case of how. You cannot be entitled to 90% of the profits or equity sale unless you own 90% of the shares. Accounting fact. Reserved matters may offer some protection for some things but they are not control (more like rights of veto). Economic interest is spin because it sounds less like selling out to some dodgy bloke with a suspect PhD, a naff, bought title, dubious connections and money (if it is his) that could come from literally anywhere because of a misleading resolution that was voted on. All the while, we are being advised by Mickey Mouse LLP. Nowhere do they explain how we have 50.01% control. Just saying it over and over doesn't convince me. And as for there being no other option, sorry, I simply do not believe we could not survive if we cut our costs, including how we operate the stadium, to match our revenue. The problem is we don't want to.

This thing needs both sides. It needs people like 6mdm displaying fear that this deal may put the future of the club at risk. And it needs people like Spit to say that we should just go with the flow and this deal is perfection we could never have dreamed of.

Do people get this nervous when they wed for a second time after a bad divorce?

6M - should we start predicting the next town/city that we get moved to? The rule must be that it can’t be anywhere previously suggested, so no Cardiff or Dublin predictions - I’ll start…. Douglas, Isle of Man….

Comes back to what Pads (I think it was she) was saying earlier on about fans needing to vote on something they can understand and is explained in plain English (or whatever language each fan happens to speak.)

Frankly, I don’t really understand much of this but still have numerous questions. My key one now is about the actual investment. Even just concerning the £16m for year one, is it a tangible ‘real’ amount of cash or is this some way of loading the club with debt of some kind? I’m sure it has been explained; I just don’t know…

*fan ownership stalwart

We don’t even know how remiss it is or isn’t either. It’s important (imho) to do as much scrutiny on this deal as is humanly possible - but even then we really won’t know what we’ve signed up to* until some time later. And as I always used to say when I used to be a fan ownership - you only get to sell once. Veto shmeto if the choice from SSC next time around is the same as it is now from the Trust “accept this or die” then on we go.

History is going to repeat itself, isn't it?

We have to recognise that only a small section of the members are thinking about it at all, even if that is remiss of them.

Martin Calladine, who wrote that Josimar article, has written quite a bit on other such matters. Also note that the piece goes behind a paywall after 24 hours

So much reliance is being placed on Sheridans but they are only a small boutique law firm. [Link] Why are we using them?

Let’s see what tomorrow brings in terms of concrete information, direct answers to direct questions and reassurance over ground ownership.

6MDM - probably a stronger argument if we did it six months prior to entering administration ie if we did it after a no vote, aware of impending financial doom, it’s a bit more of a deliberate ‘diminishment’ than doing it at the point of a £16m cash injection and having £70m come in over the next five years.

If the legal advice is by moving TWIOF under HoldCo in case AFCW PLC gets into financial difficulty will protect Plough Lane, it would be easy for an administrator to argue we deliberately diminished our assets and still go after the stadium, especially as the owners of HoldCo are the same. HMRC certainly would.

My one serious question to the DTB is.. has anyone actually met Mr Mir in person? (Or is he just AI generated) Assuming I’m remembering the numbers correctly, would getting a 34% stake in the club for £16M be pretty good business by them? (I.e. In a years time Mr Mir *shock* vanishes where the other chaps can then apply leverage/pressure to take more of the club at a discount or if not they still have 34%)

Had to use Google to translate the Norwegian options to read that article Nicander provided a link to. "avvis alle" is the one ti choose on case anyone is interested as it means "reject all".

Hovis of Jobee?

If some are worried about Mr Mir and his connections to Plantir then look no further than that Hovis of Jobee stuck in trap 2 last Saturday. It took 5 hours for Aldermaston official to arrive and say false flag

My question to the DT has been about holding company/parent company guarantees. Do the DT have a veto on them? If the holding company make guarantees for AFCW PLC then they become liable for their debts and then an AFCW PLC insolvency would potentially mean an insolvency for the parent company, and that puts the stadium company into the hands of the administrators as the only asset the holding company has is the shareholding.

Three for the accountants. Is the freehold valued separately from the stadium in the accounts? If so what are the relative values put on them? Do you depreciate freeholds?

How are economic rights realised? Do they just accumulate in the value of their equity share so they sell the club for their new realised value, or can they ‘cash in’ elements? Eg do they pay out a dividend to themselves with the Trusts approval?

LL - that is possible but if I was suddenly approached again after we vote no, I'd be less enthusiastic in that we didn't think their proposal the best and that our members didn't like what we chose and might do the same again. All they would really know is that more than 25% of those voting didn't like the offer or more probably more than 50% didn't vote. They can't tell whether it was because people were worried about Dr. Mir or about the freehold. They may also have moved on to looking at other clubs or opportunities. If people really want to vote no then that is a risk they are preapred to take which is fine. It is not a risk I am prepared to take though.