Legacy Vote System Flawed ?
I am very concerned with this 75% majority needed.
I cant help but think that the percentage of non voters may really screw this up. I cant stress enough how important it is to vote. I am a former season ticket holder myself and not as invested in the team as much anymore and as i would like to be. So please dont waste your vote, regardless of your choice. I think it has to be a yes but that is not the issue here. I think it should have been 75% required of the vote itself, so meaning percentage based on votes active. I know Trevor said it was a defence mechanism and it makes sense, however he was right saying "This may bite us in the backside one day" and i can see that happening here.
0
Comments
No, i think Wycombe Wanderers deserves protecting, as Trevor explained last night. 75% is about right.
The Couhigs will have no problem getting the votes they need.
I hope you are right.
Valid concerns, but you'd hope that almost all the people who have been a season ticket holder for 4 years and bothered to join the club will be involved in the club enough to have no excuse to not vote
True, however, students studying away, people who travel for work both domestically and internationally. Sickness etc the list can go on, and for sure this will equate to a percentage, just not sure how much of a percentage.
Lets just see what happens.
You know the vote is taking place over a period of time don't you? It's not like you have to turn up on a given night to cast your vote?
I must be missing something everyone else sees, because I'll think it'll sail through with overwhelming support
I will be totally honest, I didnt know it was much of a time period. Well that makes sense then. I did hear it may be online too. Thank you for pointing that out.
I would like them to leave it open while they chase down every last vote, or at least get to a threshold of say, 95% of votes cast, if possible. Not sure how practical or realistic that is, though.
Don't think there will be an issue with getting well over 75% of those who vote.
However there is no room for complacency and the Trust should be canvassing all eligible Legacy Members and enlisting help where necessary to ensure the message is out there loud and clear. Apathy should not decide the future direction of the club.
People need to calm down.
Legacy members have held season tickets for at least 4 consecutive seasons. They are by definition the least apathetic supporters we have.
It is in my opinion (and I suspect now the Trust Board’s) opinion a dumb rule. But legally enforceable rule it is. So we have to live with it.
Inertia and to those of us interested in the “politics” of the club incomprehensible lack of awareness does have a real possibility of reducing turnout to a level that could scupper the deal.
The one thing the club has in its favour is that it does know the likely precise whereabouts of its electorate at 15.45 every other Saturday in many cases down to a specific seat. I see nothing wrong in a trust representative armed with a ballot paper accosting any non voters and asking them to vote at half time of the match before voting closes (and grabbing terrace ST holders as they pass through the turnstiles).
By the way, I thought the point made last night about fans who have had to let a season ticket go for whatever reason had a decent point. Someone, for example, who has had a season ticket for 10 years but then doesn't renew because they've lost their job, or because or poor health still deserves, in my opinion, a say in the future of the club.
Too late now of course, but perhaps we could have made the criteria that if you've held a season ticket in 7 of the last 10 seasons you qualify, or if you hold one for 5 consecutive seasons you're a founder member for life?
I just feel sorry for those people that don't get a vote that have clearly demonstrated over time that they are true supporters
beyond parody
A lady I spoke with last night told me that her Wimbledon supporting friend had said that they also have a 75% voting threshold. I an not aware if it is the same 75% as ours though.
I was an original £1 "Share" holder and I held season tickets for myself and my two sons continuously from 1995 until 2003, when work abroad and university bound sons intervened. I'm now retired and although I spend a fair bit of the season sailing on my boat, l joined the trust and also bought a ST a couple of years ago. I'm thus unable to vote as I'm not technically a legacy member. It's frustrating but as Trevor rightly said last night, any system will disadvantage someone. I consider it my duty to do all I can to ensure that everyone who can, actually does vote. If we all take this view I feel we'll make the threshold. ALL fans in a fan owned club have responsiblities to support the running of the club. This is one of the reasons it is unsustainable at our support level.
In the 2009 vote, in which Founder Shareholders voted on whether to remove the previous 25% shareholding limit and allow Steve Hayes to acquire 100% of the club, the result was -
In favour 339
Against 77
The total Founder Shareholding was limited to 500, so the proportion who voted in favour was 68%.
Taking into consideration that -
I think it is likely that the vote on selling a majority of shares to Couhig will get 75% or more in favour.
If you wanted to maximise the number of non-voters among the eligible constituency, this would seem as good a way as any!
What an odd way of looking at it
Thank you for that @Uncle_T and you are IMHO correct. However, I feel we should be on our guard against complacency regarding the vote and all try our best to ensure a full turnout. Several hundred folk all invested and trying is better and more likely to succeed than a few Trust board members and Wycombe staff trying the same.
Simply implying that, if there's to be a high bar for the passing on of fan ownership, it is perhaps best to confine voting status to those with a clear, current presence and interest at the club, in this case evidenced by the maintenance of season tickets. If one starts to make exceptions here and there out of sympathy, for whatever reason, one risks beginning to incorporate voters who may not actually have the committed interest one might initially think. Not a biggie. Just seemed logical to mention it in the context of the conversation.
One is simply saying that it's a shame when people who obviously love the club and have committed lots to it over the years don't have a say in such a big decision.
One already acknowledged that it's too late now and the system we have is the one we have.
Didn't I already see that the Trust have said the voting will be supervised by Electoral Reform Services?
A very good idea as the Trust will be making every attempt possible to ensure all Legacy members cast a vote either for or against and need to ensure their position remains impartial.
I dont think there will be a reason for anyone not to have voted come the day unless the individual feels that a non-vote/spoiled vote sends some specific message different to a 'No' vote.
I would say though that I'd urge anyone thinking of doing so to address the issues directly with the Trust/Rob Couhig before the vote is due.
I've always been of the mind that in a true democracy a spoiled vote deserves a punch up the bracket. But that's just me.
Why raise this issue now? The rule has been in place for over 7 years, since the Trust's acquisition of the club from Steve Hayes. It was put in place for a very good reason. Those who have lost legacy membership in that period for whatever reason and those who have never had legacy membership have presumably not felt it necessary to ensure that they have a voice/vote when deciding the club's future.
Maybe they can't afford a season ticket?
Can't afford a season ticket/relocate far afield/ill health/family commitments/work commitments...
I was a season ticket holder for years, then due to a young family and tighter times had to give it up for a while and just come when I could. That ultimately meant i couldn't be a legacy member, I'd love to vote but cant. There are always genuine reasons. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this unfortunate position.
I'm sure that's so, @HolmerBlue, but the line has to be drawn somewhere if one is to be confident that all those voting are likely to give the matter the consideration it deserves, and this seems a reasonable place to draw it, does it not?
I feel for you @holmerblue as I have a vote though a) I am not a 'local' and have only 12 years in (which meant I did not have the trauma of the decision made over the hayes takeover) and b) I also had to give up an ST for some years for financial/family/work reasons. I also feel a great responsibility as I want the club to do well for selfish entertainment based reasons whilst also not wanting it to get done over!
The problem with having a 75% total threshold, and a lower barrier to entry (e.g. anyone with a season ticket and trust member) is that you’d end up with a higher number of non-voters.
At least now the club only has 800 or so people to get in touch with. Imagine if every season ticket holder ever was eligible?
Anyone complaining about how high the bar was set obviously doesn't take the time read up on what has happened at other clubs where no such oversight had been allowed to supporters, with the predictable disastrous consequences.
A rule isn't bad just because it stops you from taking an convenient shortcut to making a decision that should be given the utmost consideration.