DT Election 2003 - Questionnaire

Enthusiastically, because it was really the only way to secure anywhere near the level of finance needed to purchase the stadium. This does not in anyway negate the stadium Fund raising that has and is going on since this has got us going on the purchase and we have an ongoing need to make the stadium fully operational together with providing a financial base upon which we can clear our stadium purchase debt .

“with reservation”. I supported without any reservation the plan to purchase the main lease at Kingsmeadow and hence recognised the need to raise significant funds beyond those generously donated by fans and members. I did however question the need for a Public Share Offer over a Private Share Offering amongst D/T members. I am still unconvinced that the Public Share Offer raised sufficient additional monies to justify selling a stake in the organisation to third parties. Secondly I was against the final structure used in the Share Offer, I would NOT have agreed to sell any part of the football club as has happened instead I would have preferred to have issued shares in a separate trading company responsible for the stadium only.

There are still significant issues arising from the Share Offer, e.g. How do the Dons Trust exercise their vote, will the Trust as majority share holder be consulted on strategic and operational issues. If no why not if yes how?

I had reservations at the time, and with the benefit of hindsight wish I had opposed it and insisted on a members' vote to approve it. By the time the proposal for a public share issue in a holdings company was put to the Board, the stadium deal might have been in danger if it had not been approved. Alternatives, such as a share issue in the stadium company only, a bond or loan scheme, or a donation scheme were not fully explored or properly debated by the Board. I do not wish to make excuses, and realise that some members feel let down. I believe that any future sales of the Trust's assets should be subject to a members' vote, and that this should be enshrined in the constitution. In the long term, once financially viable, I would favour a share buy-back scheme on a voluntary basis.

I was unhappy with many of the share issue and related decisions. Firstly, I must qualify the following by stating that I fully supported the acquisition of the leases for Kingsmeadow which we overwhelmingly decided to do by resolution at the SGM.

For the SGM, I was directly involved with the drafting of the resolution, and my understanding was that it's intention was that the board could proceed as long as the legal and financial implications of the acquisition of the stadium in terms of price, and contractual terms were resolved.

I did not take this to mean that this was a resolution empowering the board to incorporate a Plc and to sell up to 50% of our Club by public offering of shares. Similarly, I am still not convinced that a public share issue was warranted. It was my understanding that we could have made a private issue of shares to Dons Trust members.

We still await details of the value shares bought by non AFCW supporters/Dons Trust members to see whether the public offering generated proceeds from ‘other supporters' in excess of the additional cost of the public issue.

Additionally, I understand that we may also have lost out on donations and loans that will not now be available because we sold part of the club.

Critically, I think we should have asked members:

a)  if we wanted to sell part of the club to finance the stadium acquisition
b}  Whether we preferred a public or private issue
c)   How the organisation was best structured.

I think all members should be asking whether they feel there was sufficient discussion with members on these critical decisions.

With reservations.

Enthusiastically. Didn't everybody?

The share issue was made without consultation to the members therefore it is impossible to say I supported it or otherwise as we had no say in the issue. I had reservations at the time and was very concerned that the members were not able to vote on the decision to issue shares and that the Trust's ownership was being diluted.

Having set this precedent more shares could be issued without the approval of the membership and our new constitution must prevent this, as our club should remain in the ownership of our fans.

First of all, I think that the decision to undertake the share issue without seeking formal approval from the Dons Trust membership was wrong. Though I have no doubt that the Board acted with the best of intentions, I firmly believe that any decision to change the ownership structure of AFC Wimbledon should only be taken with majority agreement of the members.

Aside from that I did have reservations about the share issue, because in the absence of the Dons Trust Board providing any evidence to the contrary, I thought that there were other ways to generate the money. Ceding control of any part of the club, however small, should only have been done as a last resort when all other avenues have been explored.

However as far as I am concerned the decision over the share issue has been taken and cannot be reversed. Whether or not I agreed with it then is immaterial as I am committed to making it work for the members of the Dons Trust. And were a decision to be taken in the future, either by the membership as a whole or by the Board, I would accept it as the result of a democratic process and would do everything in my power to make it work.

I do not own any shares myself. This is partly due to my personal financial situation (I graduated two years ago and am presently repaying student debts) and also because I have no yearn to own shares beyond the share I own through my Dons Trust membership. Rather I am committed to raising money for the Stadium Fund so that the Dons Trust can use the money to pay off the debt directly or buy shares itself – whatever the Board deems to be appropriate. For example, my family hired out the car park of Carshalton High School for Girls for the game away to Raynes Park Vale in April. This not only provided our fans with somewhere to park but also contributed in excess of £500 to the Stadium Fund. In addition I stewarded at the match away to Chipstead in October for which they paid us £100 towards the Stadium Fund. I will be volunteering to steward at any other away games where the opposition promises to give a donation to the Stadium Fund for my services.

I had some reservations.

100% behind it. Nobody showed us a realistic alternative.

As a Dons Trust Board member I have been privileged to witness at first hand the process that was followed over the purchase of the Kingsmeadow lease, the formation of the plc and the share issue.

I have seen the level of work, analysis, commitment and involvement of expert advice that has gone into that effort in a period of over 6 months. Any reservations I might have had before that were soon allayed by the professional approach demonstrated by the leading players in that effort. It took this full process for me to be convinced that this was the best approach for us. Uppermost in my mind was the need to ensure that control of the club and the Trust's assets were not diluted by the issue. When I was satisfied of this and that due diligence over the purchase and plc set-up, plus member consultation had all been carried out, I became an enthusiastic advocate.

Being a non-executive director of AFCW plc, it would have been very hard for me to support it in any other way than enthusiastically.

I supported it enthusiastically and was happy with the idea – especially in the absence of any other way of raising the necessary amount to purchase Kingsmeadow in the time we had to seal the deal.

I did support the share issue with reservations and my reservations are: The Dons' Trust has the Major share holding and no one person or organisation can come along and take My club from me. We have to protect our future and I urge those who have not bought shares to do so immediately, otherwise we could become vulnerable.

I think once the vote in the theatre was passed for the DT board to go and investigate options and then when they came back with the share issue I feel that we all had to rally behind it.

Enthusiastically because it raised no cost finance (if a dividend is not paid) for the purchase of KM and because after the issue the DT remains firmly in control

Enthusiastically

The Finance Working Group did an enormous amount of research about the best way to raise money. The share issue was not based on a whim or a prejudice, but on many hours of research, including two surveys of fans' attitudes. The FWG team who did the work are a very talented group of members and it was our unanimous view that the share issue was the best way to raise the necessary money. We also recruited “doubters” to the group in order to make sure that we had a rigorous challenge.

After coming to those conclusions, based on all that work, then of course I was enthusiastic. I shall be interested to read the views of the current DT board about this, since the entire board, less one person who did not attend (and is no longer a board member) and one who did not vote at all, voted in favour of the issue after hearing the evidence.

Finally, I believed that we had the sanction of the members to go ahead and so we did – and it has been a great success, well in excess of any comparable issue by any other club.