Live stream just finished. Over half of the legacy members there in person or watching / listening online.
Online voting has opened. From people's comments on the facebook stream more than a handful have voted already.
My vote is cast - I am reassured that a yes vote cannot in any future worse case scenario lose us our football ground - and what a chance of an adventure - now looking forward to Saturday.
I think from what Trevor said, that'd be against voting rules, unless I misunderstood. They are allowed to publicise how many people have voted as they go along, but not which way the vote is going.
I was originally disappointed that Rob Couhig was not going to attend, having watched his video I felt that he really understood how personal this issue is to the fans, it was far better that he was not at AP. The meeting was overall positive, with the majority of the questions answered. It was disappointing that over 80% of the audience were very mature (a polite way of putting it). Hopefully the younger fans have watched on line.
@Fit2drop said:
l. It was disappointing that over 80% of the audience were very mature (a polite way of putting it). Hopefully the younger fans have watched on line.
I mean this sincerely - has the club verified that all legacy members eligible to vote are actually alive?
If you were dead then unlikely you bought a season ticket this year though I guess could be unfortunate enough to have passed before the vote tonight ...but why would you want to do that and miss us topping League One!
In the Rob Couhig video he states WWFC will enter into a 25yr lease deal with FALL on using Adams Park (effectively a lifetime guarantee of not moving the club, although owners in the future could renegotiated that deal I suppose), however in this morning's email it says a 15yr lease.
Was this picked up by anyone at the meeting and if so was it clarified - 15yr or 25yr?
@Twizz said:
In the Rob Couhig video he states WWFC will enter into a 25yr lease deal with FALL on using Adams Park (effectively a lifetime guarantee of not moving the club, although owners in the future could renegotiated that deal I suppose), however in this morning's email it says a 15yr lease.
Was this picked up by anyone at the meeting and if so was it clarified - 15yr or 25yr?
Yeah Trevor confirmed it's 15 years. 25 was said in error
Reassuring and added a layer of comfort hearing Karen Adams' short note at the end, I thought.
Pleased to hear CES will be updating the Trust on turnout daily, that way half way through the process we should all know if turnout is looking like being an issue. I think it is so important that apathy does not decide the outcome of this vote.
Just up for a pee. Agree @DJWYC14 but, with so much at stake, hard to believe there’s too much apathy. To me, approval is a complete no-brainer. Back to sleep now. Hope to wake up and vote later !!
1) Bill and Jim, the board's preferred bidder, pulled out in April which led to the board having to, allegedly, ring up Mr. Harman to ask if he could revive his bid.
2) The Dutch consortium were in pole position until that deal fell though in May/June hence the Chairmen having to revive interest from the previously rebuffed Mr. Couhig.
Yet last night we heard the Chairmen in October say " There isn't a Plan B as such."
Another point, given the board have the email addresses of Legacy members why can't we receive copies of the full 45 pages of the bid by email?
If you have nothing to hide, why hide it? Yet they talk about transparency...
The biggest barrier to the Couhigs' deal is the board itself.
@LeedsBlue said: @peterparrotface Thx. Yep, I thought that had been said - just worried that some hasty drafting might've left the door open (even if unintentionally) for a 'Cardiff City' situation, especially since the wording around the quarters was so precise.
@LeedsBlue of the chaps from the Trust board seemed to confirm last night that all enshrined rights remain in place, and Trevor Stroud answered the question around the colour of kits with the answer "I believe so yes".
@NiceCarrots said:
1) Bill and Jim, the board's preferred bidder, pulled out in April which led to the board having to, allegedly, ring up Mr. Harman to ask if he could revive his bid.
2) The Dutch consortium were in pole position until that deal fell though in May/June hence the Chairmen having to revive interest from the previously rebuffed Mr. Couhig.
Yet last night we heard the Chairmen in October say " There isn't a Plan B as such."
Another point, given the board have the email addresses of Legacy members why can't we receive copies of the full 45 pages of the bid by email?
If you have nothing to hide, why hide it? Yet they talk about transparency...
The biggest barrier to the Couhigs' deal is the board itself.
If all other deals have fallen through or been found to be unviable, we don’t have a plan B.
@NiceCarrots said:
1) Bill and Jim, the board's preferred bidder, pulled out in April which led to the board having to, allegedly, ring up Mr. Harman to ask if he could revive his bid.
2) The Dutch consortium were in pole position until that deal fell though in May/June hence the Chairmen having to revive interest from the previously rebuffed Mr. Couhig.
Yet last night we heard the Chairmen in October say " There isn't a Plan B as such."
Another point, given the board have the email addresses of Legacy members why can't we receive copies of the full 45 pages of the bid by email?
If you have nothing to hide, why hide it? Yet they talk about transparency...
The biggest barrier to the Couhigs' deal is the board itself.
The large audience at last nights meeting gave the board a deserved round of applause on more than one occasion. There were two people who were critical and they were shouted down by the rest of the audience. Why do you persist in this negativity when we are so close to moving forward?
@NiceCarrots re Point 2 in your list.......where is the evidence of this? I have not seen that Dutch consortium were in poll position, just that they had met, were seen at games.
Also where has it been said that Rob Couhig had an offer rebuffed ?
You may be correct but please point to the evidence backing this up
@NiceCarrots said:
1) Bill and Jim, the board's preferred bidder, pulled out in April which led to the board having to, allegedly, ring up Mr. Harman to ask if he could revive his bid.
2) The Dutch consortium were in pole position until that deal fell though in May/June hence the Chairmen having to revive interest from the previously rebuffed Mr. Couhig.
Yet last night we heard the Chairmen in October say " There isn't a Plan B as such."
Another point, given the board have the email addresses of Legacy members why can't we receive copies of the full 45 pages of the bid by email?
If you have nothing to hide, why hide it? Yet they talk about transparency...
The biggest barrier to the Couhigs' deal is the board itself.
The large audience at last nights meeting gave the board a deserved round of applause on more than one occasion. There were two people who were critical and they were shouted down by the rest of the audience. Why do you persist in this negativity when we are so close to moving forward?
What did they say that deserved shouting down? I didn't hear that part
Comments
Well, no great shocks or surprises from the meeting. Over to the voters...
Live stream just finished. Over half of the legacy members there in person or watching / listening online.
Online voting has opened. From people's comments on the facebook stream more than a handful have voted already.
My vote is cast - I am reassured that a yes vote cannot in any future worse case scenario lose us our football ground - and what a chance of an adventure - now looking forward to Saturday.
... and CES haven't wasted any time in sending out the email so we can vote online.
I suspect not, but say the threshold is met this week, could the result be announced early?
Never mind!
That question was asked. It is the Trust’s intention to do so but they have not yet had confirmation they can from CES.
I think from what Trevor said, that'd be against voting rules, unless I misunderstood. They are allowed to publicise how many people have voted as they go along, but not which way the vote is going.
If you trawl through the e-mail that was sent out in error you could find out. I doubt that he has a season ticket for four seasons.
I was originally disappointed that Rob Couhig was not going to attend, having watched his video I felt that he really understood how personal this issue is to the fans, it was far better that he was not at AP. The meeting was overall positive, with the majority of the questions answered. It was disappointing that over 80% of the audience were very mature (a polite way of putting it). Hopefully the younger fans have watched on line.
I mean this sincerely - has the club verified that all legacy members eligible to vote are actually alive?
@OxfordBlue I can confirm that I am and have cast my vote just in case I don't last the night...
Duly noted!
Just to flag up, as it might possibly happen to others - my email from CES tonight went direct to my junk mail folder.
If you were dead then unlikely you bought a season ticket this year though I guess could be unfortunate enough to have passed before the vote tonight ...but why would you want to do that and miss us topping League One!
In the Rob Couhig video he states WWFC will enter into a 25yr lease deal with FALL on using Adams Park (effectively a lifetime guarantee of not moving the club, although owners in the future could renegotiated that deal I suppose), however in this morning's email it says a 15yr lease.
Was this picked up by anyone at the meeting and if so was it clarified - 15yr or 25yr?
Yes he does have a vote.
Yeah Trevor confirmed it's 15 years. 25 was said in error
@LX1, thx. That's what I thought, good that it was cleared up.
Sorry, Steve Hayes that is.
@Twizz Trevor Stroud clarified it, 15 years.
Reassuring and added a layer of comfort hearing Karen Adams' short note at the end, I thought.
Pleased to hear CES will be updating the Trust on turnout daily, that way half way through the process we should all know if turnout is looking like being an issue. I think it is so important that apathy does not decide the outcome of this vote.
Just up for a pee. Agree @DJWYC14 but, with so much at stake, hard to believe there’s too much apathy. To me, approval is a complete no-brainer. Back to sleep now. Hope to wake up and vote later !!
Very relaxed attitude @micra!
As someone who works in the city of Derby as opposed to the city of London, I voted immediately like the pliant simpleton I am.
1) Bill and Jim, the board's preferred bidder, pulled out in April which led to the board having to, allegedly, ring up Mr. Harman to ask if he could revive his bid.
2) The Dutch consortium were in pole position until that deal fell though in May/June hence the Chairmen having to revive interest from the previously rebuffed Mr. Couhig.
Yet last night we heard the Chairmen in October say " There isn't a Plan B as such."
Another point, given the board have the email addresses of Legacy members why can't we receive copies of the full 45 pages of the bid by email?
If you have nothing to hide, why hide it? Yet they talk about transparency...
The biggest barrier to the Couhigs' deal is the board itself.
@LeedsBlue of the chaps from the Trust board seemed to confirm last night that all enshrined rights remain in place, and Trevor Stroud answered the question around the colour of kits with the answer "I believe so yes".
If all other deals have fallen through or been found to be unviable, we don’t have a plan B.
The large audience at last nights meeting gave the board a deserved round of applause on more than one occasion. There were two people who were critical and they were shouted down by the rest of the audience. Why do you persist in this negativity when we are so close to moving forward?
@NiceCarrots re Point 2 in your list.......where is the evidence of this? I have not seen that Dutch consortium were in poll position, just that they had met, were seen at games.
Also where has it been said that Rob Couhig had an offer rebuffed ?
You may be correct but please point to the evidence backing this up
What did they say that deserved shouting down? I didn't hear that part