It's not the voters who vote no which will be the problem, it's the voters who fail to use their vote. 73% voting yes and 23% non voters with 4% no, would result in a defeat for the Trust.
That is indeed the main concern @wformation. Fortunately, with the best part of a fortnight to go, there is time to chase up non-voters (or at least the majority of them). Inevitably, as has been observed already, there will be some who are “no longer with us” and any such cases would of course require sensitive handling. And, assuming it is within the rules for Trust Board Members to do so, the amount of work involved should not be underestimated.
I started the voting process after a call of nature at 3am this morning only to find two unique personal numbers to quote at some stage and, lying in bed pen and paperless, decided to abort until later in the day. I just hope my action is not regarded by the computer as the equivalent of a spoilt paper.
Don’t worry about the numbers. You click the link, they appear, you vote for or against, you confirm this choice and that’s it.
Shame they couldn’t hide the page with the two sets of numbers as you don’t need them. I guess it’s a standard platform and these are usually user inputs for online votes where the invite to vote is sent by post rather than as an email link.
@micra said:
That is indeed the main concern @wformation. Fortunately, with the best part of a fortnight to go, there is time to chase up non-voters (or at least the majority of them). Inevitably, as has been observed already, there will be some who are “no longer with us” and any such cases would of course require sensitive handling. And, assuming it is within the rules for Trust Board Members to do so, the amount of work involved should not be underestimated.
I started the voting process after a call of nature at 3am this morning only to find two unique personal numbers to quote at some stage and, lying in bed pen and paperless, decided to abort until later in the day. I just hope my action is not regarded by the computer as the equivalent of a spoilt paper.
Here goes, anyway.
When you say chase up the voters, presumably you mean publicise time scales left, and put it on socials, in the programme, announce it etc
As I don't think they're allowed to check who has voted and individually contact the nons….
I think that risks breaking Influencing the vote rules...
Fascinating analysis from the panel, pretty much summarising my concerns about our ambitions. I think RH spoke well. He needs to stop talking about franchising mind. That’s a trigger word for most footie fans, let alone supporters of Bucks’ finest.
@Malone said: @AlanCecil this sounds like a job for you big man. Can you look into robin's situation?
(And if robin isn't his real name pick up with him privately?)
It is my rel name and i will be happy to cooperate with the club if need be, looking back on it it's only fair my vote is removed from the count.
Will be interesting to see the voting update, I suspect there'll be another jump in votes Saturday, that *could * get it over the line if they're not too far away already.
The proposal (46 pages or so) is available on Saturday at the club before the game I understand. While I Should have looked at the legal document I took the view that there are lawyers the Trust have appointed and outside lawyers looking through the legal aspects of the sale...
If we are prepared to swallow that the rent was only 'guestimated' at, ...as intimated in the meeting and could have been in reality far less than agreed, as the site is currently a massive 'loss making venture' which was implied in the meeting and conversely the true value of the club maybe higher if we had three Russian Oligarchs all round the table biding...but we don't ! ... then I could have paused for longer before voting.
Where did you get the 58% mark from? I can't find the latest total anywhere.
@chapmanio said:
58% turnout so far apparently. I'm not sure if it will be available to look through on Saturday though? (I could be completely wrong here).
However having caught the family somewhat off guard well outside the club environment with my family (not wearing Wycombe kit ) , with my brother who is also based in finance in the, we came out of the afternoon with the real feeling, like others have, that these guys, while wanting to make money, sure, are really not in it to shaft us...a non legal term....
They all have a comfortable living in the USA with plenty of money to spend. Missy's close family member is quite ill but she was prepared to make multiple trips supporting her husband and was genuinely sympathetic to my families health concerns too (MUm diagnosed with cancer). Pete has a youngish family but is prepared to uproot and live in the UK to steer the venture through. I am sure there are more profitable investments they could make in the USA close to home with far less hassle attached. I think they genuinely love sport, for Pete, soccer in particular and if Pete is prepared to be over here and manning the stand at the Bucks University Freshers Fare (exhibitions can be soul destroying!) then they have my vote as a family who can, with the Trust, be decent custodians of the club. Hindsight will be wonderful thing in a few years time BUT the recent past 2004 onwards meant they had a higher challenge, perhaps to buy Wycombe than say Yeovil or other already 'single owner' owned clubs ...likewise the adventure with the first American investment meant the Couhigs knew they would also not get away with a charge on Adam's Park...so perhaps everything does happen for a reason and the footballing gods were stearing us to this place...time will tell but for all these reasons I voted yes without pausing longer...and the email from Frank Adam's relative clinched it
Comments
Vegetable man!
It's not the voters who vote no which will be the problem, it's the voters who fail to use their vote. 73% voting yes and 23% non voters with 4% no, would result in a defeat for the Trust.
That is indeed the main concern @wformation. Fortunately, with the best part of a fortnight to go, there is time to chase up non-voters (or at least the majority of them). Inevitably, as has been observed already, there will be some who are “no longer with us” and any such cases would of course require sensitive handling. And, assuming it is within the rules for Trust Board Members to do so, the amount of work involved should not be underestimated.
I started the voting process after a call of nature at 3am this morning only to find two unique personal numbers to quote at some stage and, lying in bed pen and paperless, decided to abort until later in the day. I just hope my action is not regarded by the computer as the equivalent of a spoilt paper.
Here goes, anyway.
@micra your comment is slightly concerning as I wasn’t asked to quote any numbers. I clicked the link, selected For then submitted and confirmed.
Don’t worry about the numbers. You click the link, they appear, you vote for or against, you confirm this choice and that’s it.
Shame they couldn’t hide the page with the two sets of numbers as you don’t need them. I guess it’s a standard platform and these are usually user inputs for online votes where the invite to vote is sent by post rather than as an email link.
Thanks @arnos_grove I was slightly nervous I had somehow mis-voted
Rob Couhig on 5 Live last night - 1:19 in
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0009brl
When you say chase up the voters, presumably you mean publicise time scales left, and put it on socials, in the programme, announce it etc
As I don't think they're allowed to check who has voted and individually contact the nons….
I think that risks breaking Influencing the vote rules...
Fascinating analysis from the panel, pretty much summarising my concerns about our ambitions. I think RH spoke well. He needs to stop talking about franchising mind. That’s a trigger word for most footie fans, let alone supporters of Bucks’ finest.
Thanks for posting.
It is my rel name and i will be happy to cooperate with the club if need be, looking back on it it's only fair my vote is removed from the count.
You can double check by clicking the email link again. It’ll come up with a message saying your vote has already been recorded.
I wonder how we're (they're?) doing with the voting numbers today?
Turnout update coming soon according to the club.
I've not voted yet. Anyone else?
I turned out. My vote has been recorded.
Has anyone read the legal document or are delaying voting until they can?
I've turned out too, I've also voted!?
Going to see if I can flick through it Saturday, will vote Saturday evening either way.
There’s a polling booth in the Californian Suite I believe.
Nice and warm in California @micra. Keep going everyone and we may even get it over the line before Saturday.
Will be interesting to see the voting update, I suspect there'll be another jump in votes Saturday, that *could * get it over the line if they're not too far away already.
58% turnout so far apparently. I'm not sure if it will be available to look through on Saturday though? (I could be completely wrong here).
Mmm...slowed down a bit so a bit of a way to go then. Thanks @chapmanio.
The whole of this is very much recommended listening (especially from @glasshalffull). Thanks for posting
The proposal (46 pages or so) is available on Saturday at the club before the game I understand. While I Should have looked at the legal document I took the view that there are lawyers the Trust have appointed and outside lawyers looking through the legal aspects of the sale...
If we are prepared to swallow that the rent was only 'guestimated' at, ...as intimated in the meeting and could have been in reality far less than agreed, as the site is currently a massive 'loss making venture' which was implied in the meeting and conversely the true value of the club maybe higher if we had three Russian Oligarchs all round the table biding...but we don't ! ... then I could have paused for longer before voting.
Where did you get the 58% mark from? I can't find the latest total anywhere.
However having caught the family somewhat off guard well outside the club environment with my family (not wearing Wycombe kit
) , with my brother who is also based in finance in the, we came out of the afternoon with the real feeling, like others have, that these guys, while wanting to make money, sure, are really not in it to shaft us...a non legal term....
Instinct is an interesting and valuable thing. I agree with you @blue67.
They all have a comfortable living in the USA with plenty of money to spend. Missy's close family member is quite ill but she was prepared to make multiple trips supporting her husband and was genuinely sympathetic to my families health concerns too (MUm diagnosed with cancer). Pete has a youngish family but is prepared to uproot and live in the UK to steer the venture through. I am sure there are more profitable investments they could make in the USA close to home with far less hassle attached. I think they genuinely love sport, for Pete, soccer in particular and if Pete is prepared to be over here and manning the stand at the Bucks University Freshers Fare (exhibitions can be soul destroying!) then they have my vote as a family who can, with the Trust, be decent custodians of the club. Hindsight will be wonderful thing in a few years time BUT the recent past 2004 onwards meant they had a higher challenge, perhaps to buy Wycombe than say Yeovil or other already 'single owner' owned clubs ...likewise the adventure with the first American investment meant the Couhigs knew they would also not get away with a charge on Adam's Park...so perhaps everything does happen for a reason and the footballing gods were stearing us to this place...time will tell but for all these reasons I voted yes without pausing longer...and the email from Frank Adam's relative clinched it