Thetownend.com

We're a small sub section of the vote I'm sure, but will give us some idea of where people are going with it.

Well, I think we're all going to find out how much of an echo chamber we really are here.

I pressed yes by accident and can’t undo my vote. Whoops  :D

hopefully it was this poll you pressed the wrong button on and not the actual one ;)

Admin errors, they can happen to the best of us

Thankfully I clicked no in the one that matters

To your point, if the views on this forum were indicative of the nation's we would still be in Europe...and it wouldn't even have been close....

I've changed the poll settings so you can change your vote if you want.

So what you're saying is that Clem should consider making wild promises that are never going to kept and enough people will fall for them?

Ah.

Forum probably likely to be closer to the wider town fan base than the United kingdom population though, I would suggest.

Undecided here. Giving myself a few extra days to gain a bit more peace with my decision before I hit the button.

I voted no, which was not an easy decision as I'm desperate to see the ground re-developed, but as many others have said I just can't trust the current group to do this to an acceptable standard, have too many unanswered questions and a business plan which with the current state of the club is in fantasy land.

Worried how this will turn out though, hopefully it ends the stubbornness of the ownership and look to finally move on, but think it'll just be used as an excuse to lower budgets and really bleed the club dry, if it can be done any further.

For me in principle I like the idea, its a (probably) needed upgrade to the County Ground.

If anyone else were in charge I would fully back but the whole funding thing is a major concern with the accounting mastermind Clem behind it all.

I trust (no pun intended) Clem with financials about as far as I could throw him.

Looking at a yes vote of about 15% based on those figures but it's bound to be much closer. Like most I'd predict something more like 60/40 no.

It's interesting how many online polls skew one way but are often the opposite of what happens in real life.

I guess for all the sneering about them echo chambers are a very real thing.

It's what you might call Hobson's Choice.

I'm in favour of almost any redevelopment but fear for our future whichever way the vote goes.  However I vote will probably turn out to be "wrong" with Morfuni supposedly  at the helm.

I want the current ownership - whatever it is - gone.  However precarious, I would rather suffer short term to recapture a sense of direction.  My instinct is that a No vote will more likely lead to that, whatever the quite significant short term pain.  But will it?

Yes vote down to about 12%.

It won't be anywhere near that low in reality but I'm hoping this means it isn't particularly close.

Seems very unlikely they'll get 75% of the turnout saying yes

The fans will get blamed and be called non fans etc. Blah, blah

Oh I'm sure we will.

Then unreasonable

NO from me, and I added the following note:

The actual plans look fine, but I have no faith in the current STFC owner and leadership group to fulfill the project.

It’s a no from me based on the untrustworthy Ozzie. How’s Clem going to repay the loan to all concerned if results are poor, Ollie’s long gone and we’re languishing near the bottom of league 2 again and there’s no interest in the corporate boxes when we’re playing the likes of Harrogate and Barrow etc……..unless of course he has a plan B😁

I think the "fans" should accept that with good grace as well - it's the whole point of us being part custodians, to ensure the club and ground have a long term future, not just be a toy some fly by nights can play with.  If you want to get your slice of cake from us, fucking make sure you engage and sell us on the idea, not a week or two or platitudes and keeping the details hidden behind your backs.  If it is a no vote it should be seen as a warning - work harder, see us as a partner.  I'd want the Trust to actually go public immediately to say we will vote again, and quickly, but the club should put in the effort to convince those who voted no by answering all the questions much more thoroughly.

"You bloody drongo mate, I got you an open letter from James Phipps and Dick Mattick? What bloody more do you want?"

Shit, I just thought I was voting on the plans not whether it could actually happen!!!

Quick question. What about this ownerships track record makes you believe it would be carried out as presented?

Blind faith is my guess as I cannot fathom anything else.

I present Northampton Town for why some drawings alone should not be taken as a plan for development that should be green lighted.

Have now voted No and have amended my Poll response from undecided/yet to vote to No

With a heavy heart - given that almost any development (inc. the proposed one) would be great.

But I have zero confidence that the project - run by Clem under the current hidden ownership - would be implemented honestly, competently, openly or beneficially.

Bump.

Trust Members:  The voting closes at 5pm THIS WEDNESDAY, 11th JUNE.

The very worst outcome would be for apathy to be the decider in the Trust Redevelopment vote!

A no from me.
I commented that I thought redevelopment would benefit the club but that I didn’t trust the owners to carry out the plans successfully.

How many trust members are there out of interest on the potential echo chamber point?

Just shy of 1300 eligible to vote I think i remember

1,260 from the original email unless Bennett's added any more in last minute.

Would mean turnout needs to be at least 630 and 315 is enough to block anything.

So those votes there represent about 5% then to put that in to perspective.

Finally submitted my vote. Same as most on here by the looks of things. No problem with the plans, but need safeguards regarding build quality, ethical procurement and value for money for the club before I can have any confidence in the project.

Have amended my poll vote to 'No' to reflect this.

I voted No, there wasn't any way I could have votes yes, I just could not trust the current lot to get it right and not cause long term damage to the club, I did add in various comments as well around why I voted No as I felt I need to give reasons.

I presume the Trust will print a selection of comments should the vote be a No to backup why it has been voted that way.

It would seem sensible if consensus say ''No''. It would {in an ideal world} make the current ownership more aware of their unpopularity. Alas, I doubt it would change their mindset  ::)

Based on the comments here & elsewhere I think most have voted no due to the people in charge of the club & therefore the development.

It does mean that the only hope Clem has of getting a Yes from the Trust members is to sell up to someone else.

The problem is, if he does sell up would we trust the new owners without any track record, or will it just be another Clem/Power/Jed clone

roughly 15% yes/85% no, but only represents roughly 5% of those eligible to vote.

Now to see how the other 95% voted.

Results on friday

Just hope it was a high turnout with a strong result.

I hope it’s a big No vote, and that the reasons given are lack of trust that the owners can deliver it

I see that the Chelsea group that owns the ground and name of Chelsea have proven to be obstinate bastards to their club at times as well (in a good way I think).

 was tha the The Chelsea Pitch Owners Rob?

Yes, they have blocked moves away from Stamford Bridge in the past, once with a vote that had more than 50% in favour.  They similarly have a 75%+ level to reach to agree proposals.

Results in - its a NO

Shock horror!

Terrible result though 50%/50%. Way off the required 75% but you can see where the arguments are coming.

76% turnout of eligible voters voted.

478 in favour, 477 against.

I think you could call that a split fanbase.

If it was a simple majority system we'd be going ahead by one (1) vote.

Good job it isnt!

Credit to the Trust for the way they have worded the email, framing this as an opportunity to address the issues and move forward with a more open and accountable project remit. Whether you believe that's possible or not, it's exactly what they should be doing as this project is much needed and under competent ownership it would likely have been given significant support from the fanbase.

Yeah it feels like the best possible framing in a difficult situation. We'll soon see if the club fancies taking the olive branch or burning down the grove...

Will of the people innit..... ;)

Let the social media meltdowns begin  ::)


Serious question, what olive branch would be acceptable, SO69 seem to be leading the way and their objective is for Morfuni to flog the club which he shows no intention of doing so its just going to be going round in circles with nothing changing isn't it.

Can definitely see the club using it as a wedge against the trust,  esp. with the majority vote (even if it is just by one) going in favour of the development. Hope they prove me wrong and use it as an opportunity for some self reflection

Pray for the Rob’s

The club won't win over SO69, but don't need to. With enough safeguards in place (let's start with proof of funds, appointing an independent project manager and committing to a second vote before shovels hit the ground) then I think they get to 75%.

Correct, thats sadly how i see it as well. Meanwhile the club suffers.

What is actually going on with S069, as expected its momentum somewhat stalled when Holloway started getting results. I've somewhat withdrawn from monitoring everything day to day as it so tiring, but is there action planned, what is the strategy?

Because as you say Horlock, forcing Clem to leave is the aim.

In its current state, the club suffers regardless.

Better there be a movement to actively try and change that rather than just letting it suffer in my opinion.

They have just done a pod on the loathed strangers about future plans

They need to communicate beyong the pod if they are going to get the support they want. What was the TLDR from said pod?

On the first issue, working in the sector, I'm not sure what people expect them to provide in terms of proof of funds, unless they are planning to self fund, which would (rightly) set all manner of red flags off and hares running until it gets planning permission and they go out to the lending market they will have literally no clue exactly who is funding and under what terms?

Secondly no idea how an Independent Project Manager would work, they will always be acting in the interest of whoever is paying them (or they bloody well should be!) so its going to be hardly independent.

Second vote will have to happen whatever happens so that would be a start.

Stubborn ownership meets lost fan base, so basically rock and hard place.  

Not listened yet, am going to when i go for my walk in a bit

A 50/50 split is no victory. I am alarmed it was that close.

The fan base is so split, and it absolutely shouldn’t be.

I look back at the likes of Blackpool and most recently Reading. How they were all in it together and their communities have grown stronger as a result.

I fear we’ll never achieve this.

The result is another reminder that we live in an echo chamber.

That's 50% of Trust members, who (on the whole) are more engaged, informed and anti-Morfuni than the wider fanbase at large. Unless Adam Hart and Zav Austin contributed 300 of those votes, it suggests that the "NO" vote is, taking the wider fanbase, in a minority.

Enough people have been convinced that he 'saved the club' and that if he left, there would be nobody interested in buying the club. A large number of these people refuse to listen to any views or valid, provable evidence that does not align with their mindset

This.

There will be a plethora of reasons why people voted yes (or no in fact), apologies, but a huge part of the problem with the split in the fanbase is being, I suspect, driven by the condescending and provocative language used by parties on both sides of the argument just making the potential for a conciliation between all sides nigh impossible.

Pray for Dick Mattick's garage.

Whilst I 100% agree there's a lot of fans like this, I just didn't think they would represent roughly 50% of voting trust members. I had perhaps hoped, that the majority of the people you described were of the older demographic, with less access to the goings on behind the scenes and who may not have even been trust members.

I can imagine the club will be surprised they received as many yes votes as they did. You would expect them to have a statement already line up, giviing their reaction to the vote. The tone will be interesting..

I have no idea what the next steps are - prooving source of funds and apointing an independant project manager is a bit ridiculaous imo and will make things harder for the club progress - Like, I bet no other ownwers have to work under these conditions. But also, I can't see the required swing from No to Yes in another vote - regardless of what Clem says or who pens an open letter, unless Clem leaves?  and someone else is given a clean slate..

I also think the development could be derisked by starting on the stratton bank and I could switch my vote - they don't get the ROI, but less chance of ruining the one good stand.. what could go wrong...

You have to think there's probably a lot of, dare I say it, older trust members who don't see all the online stuff.

Was there a large uptake of trust membership this last year?  :sherlock:

I am sure the well-oiled PR machine is in full swing.

If they provided a conciliatory tone, they don't lose any votes and may swing a few their way.

But my bet is that the tone will be aggressive, loosely refer to unhelpful fans groups, talk about saving the club, and entrench existing views.

Is there not an option where the funding when work commenced is held in 3rd party bank account and money drawn down to pay contractors. The JV could have visibility of that account to give transparency.

To me the club just need to work a bit harder to convince more of the Supporter base. The business plan and Q&A Responses were at the last minute.

Do that work up front, be clear on the message and a business plan covering all scenarios not pie in the sky Championship football.

This is an echo chamber, with burgeoning conspiracy theories.

Reminds me of another vote that didn't go the way some people on here wanted - it's old people, it's ill informed people, it's a fix.  Give it five minutes and it'll be Russian interference.

I suspect that a number of people who voted yes, just wanted to see some much needed development and positivity on the ground.  They probably had a load of concerns, but ultimately the vote was on the development and it's needed.  It doesn't mean they are uber Clem fans, far from it.

It's firmly back in the hands of the club.  How they react will be interesting and informative.  Hope they respond positively, but their natural response in the past has been to lash out.

If you're right, there will be a push to flood the Trust with new members who are less likely to have a dim view of the owners' associations & their perceived competence to deliver something like this.

Re the redevelopment, our votes are worth the same as anyone else's. We're not special. They don't need to win us over.


We won't rest until he goes. We've made that very clear.

Club statement :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/news/2025/june/13/club-statement--don-rogers-stand-redevelopment/

Unusually, I think that's the most sensible thing they could have said. They needed to respond, and needed to do it gracefully and promptly.The best thing they can do now is respond procatively to the concerns that have arisen in the fanbase due to their own words and actions.

I agree.  I'm pleasantly surprised that they haven't bristled at not getting it through.  For the owners' part, they're probably pleasantly surprised that they attracted as much as 50% support.  It was the right statement to make today.

Indeed, I'm not sure what people expected them to say?

Very much this for me.


Reading had their fair share of happy clappers calling people "not real fans" as well according to twitter, but they are dwafed by our contingent.

^^ this

It would be a big mistake to assume the people who voted yes are all happy with the current ownership of the club.

Like a lot of fans, I was really on the fence with the vote but eventually voted yes because I decided to vote purely on the merits of the proposed development.

I get why people say you cant separate the development issue from the ownership, but in that case, when would you ever vote yes?

If the vote had taken place during Clem's first season as owner I expect the vote would have been a big majority in favour even if the proposals had less merit.

You could end up in a situation where good proposals are voted down because they are put forward by bad owners, and bad proposals are voted through because they are put forward by good owners (or newly installed owners where you dont yet have enough time to know how good they are).

So, that's why I decided to just vote on the merits of the proposals alone. I completely respect others decision to go the other way.

I'd also like to know this. I'm suspicious.

It should be both, if we're voting responsibly.

Indeed

For the purchase of the ground, there were 1093 voting members, an 87.9% turnout and 99.8% in favour, from the same group of Trust members.

Membership is up a little, but the voting number was nearly identical (961 purchase, 955 redevelopment).

This group *will* vote in favour of things if the sentiment changes. I don't see it happening, but I think almost all of us want redevelopment in the right circumstances.

They certainly need to go on a charm offensive but this time  with substance.
Bucket hats and pulling pints won't cut it this time

At the present time I cant see how the club can swing it back in their favour without huge change, I'm sure outside of the trust there is probably a equally split in the fan base.

Their statement is the right one to make and they need to decide on their next move, they have put work into wanting the exec area and probably are not going to give up without a fight.

There needs to be big changes to win over the fan base and I'm not convinced the current incumbents have it in them to look in the mirror and make positive change.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Understanding that overlap of on-field issues with off-field issues affecting results seems to be the greatest challenge.   I, for one, would just like to be a Swindon supporter and enjoy matches and forget about off-field issues, but for the last half century that has simply not been possible.  For example, the funding of the North, now Arkells - John Trollope, stand combined with questionable managerial appointments destroyed the best team in the history of the club.  How can the point be put across that concern over off-field issues isn’t being disloyal to the club quite the contrary, and that favourable on-pitch results will only be sustainable if the club is well run. The  SO69 group seem to be viewed as party poopers rather than party sustainers.  

I think they can and should, overcome those concerns.

Funding - while knowing which bank or financial institution is going to lend the funds cannot be known, the terms under which the club accepts funding from Clem/Axis should absolutely be made very clear ahead of a second vote - we still have idea how  the share purchase funding/loan is documented for example.  Estimates on how much, and a breakdown, as far as possible, on what the funds are being used for.  There should also be a much more detailed and realistic business case presented.  I'd question, at this stage with a no vote on the books, whether the boxes are viable given their initial business case.  I can't be sure because of the lack of detail, but relying on Championship football to pay this back in 6 years is a pipe dream from where we are right now.  That seems like it is almost beyond a best case, and the work involved seems likely a big element of the cost vs. adding an external structure from new.

Oversight - I believe the JV should act as the Project Manager, appointing someone with experience into that role.  Therefore acting on behalf of the freeholder and not independent, but the club still have a role in that.  The fans have representatives who will be able to review progress, funding releases etc. but only those on the JV board, not published in the Adver.  That should give the club and contractors some confidence that commercially sensitive information is not shared, while giving the fans a degree of protection as part owners.

I think those three/four elements would get a vote through.  I would vote yes, even if I am not sold on Clem being a responsible owner.

Unsurprisngly, its the one’s that didnt vote that are screaming the loudest.

Nobody to blame but themselves. Idiots.

Trust members taking some stick on the STFC Facebook page.

I don't see that as real life on that page

Neither do I just a little humour whilst relaxing and drinking a cold beverage!

The irony being they could have joined and had a say

The Trust could also leverage this moment to broaden the Voting Share population - having a say in the ownership and development of the ground is critical.  People can get involved and shape these decisions.

I think it was more a case of "Let's acknowledge the result of the vote, and then find out what Clem thinks about it over the weekend".

Yes, it was definitely a more ‘tell us what you really think vibe

Probably the same ones who didn’t vote on Brexit or the last General Election.

Usual bollocks from the blinkered lot. Clueless.

Oive supportarded the clarb far 62 yaaaars, I shald gart a vote.

https://x.com/so69fangroup/status/1933450223579259258

And now the adver seems to have got hold of plans for blocks of flats behind the DR stand, the DR statue would surely be the centre piece, I'm sure they will be called Don's flat :>)

That would be awful and I can't see it getting planning approval for so few, and Shrivvy road residents would object, what happened to the thoughts of building a hotel into one corner etc

The master plan by the previous architects was leaked a few weeks ago….

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vQSsnjFxGLUV7P32QatW1EacSHcOejmY/view

The idea of adding residential to make money is understandable, what is not clear, is how that works when the club is a leaseholder already - how do you build and sell residential when you don't have the full freehold.  Presumably the flat owners would be secondary leaseholders somehow?

I presume this study explains why KSS were binned off - it looks a lot more scary than they have ended up with!  But it does give us insight into the thought process behind the "master plan", that residential is a key component at some point.

The residential side just seems short term gain (probably very little gain for the actual football club) for a lot of long term pain. It restricts what you can do in the future and it’s another 155 properties possibly objecting to future plans or making noise complaints.

Rental

Which is a real long term play.

I voted no- like many on here i do not have faith in this ownership managing something competently as big as this.

Main driver for my no vote though were the funding and business case. As has been said on here we need complete transparency on the source of funding and the terms. Also the business case based on championship football is a pipe dream- no way do they get ROI in 6 years.

With a shortage of properties anything is possible especially if it’s for social housing.

I see it that way.

ROI for a £3M outlay is £10k per week profit, every week for 6 years. No chance.

The odd thing is you don't really need a 6 year ROI - capital financing is usually over 10+ years, so you determine the annual payments (nobody is shelling out the capex out of pocket upfront!) spread over the term of the agreement.  That way you know what extra costs you are absorbing, and then build a business case that gives you that amount and more.  It's the more bit that then moves the club forward, or if the case can't do that, you don't invest.

They should probably also aim for a return on capital above any repayment of capital. Although I'm most curious whether the capital even exists in the first place.

The houses are an absolute disgrace and shows the real motivation. The joint venture shouldn't allow it even if redevelopment gets the go ahead.

What about the fanzone :D

I'm getting at the Clem fans who seem to think we'll be instantly quids in. The plan is a good idea for long term, the real long term.

This made me laugh from that bloke who supports Clem and wanted to wear australian hats in support each game


Who cares where money comes from? Jesus fucking wept.

Reading the Facebook comments I think they should be named 25% Football.80% Bollocks :D

It's "the trust" fault. And the "outrage hats".

How hard is it to have paid £20 and have a vote if you are that bothered.

I can't go on there. I'll fucking rage. Can't be dealing with it.

It really is chalk and cheese to this place😁

I do admire how you are going into bat against these people Batch. Its really really straightforward yet you've got dozens of people wittering on about the same thing.

I find it cathartic. It's utterly futile of course.

I'm 99% sure Rob Clarke is just a troll.

The best wind up I fell for was KingstonRobin in MOS, which turned out to be Sutton

Either that or he has serious mental issues.

The other Rob reckons its perfectly normal business practice to be issued CCJ’s and that every club has them

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

So what is it that the Trust DOES want - if it’s not ground redevelopment, as per the club’s recent proposal?

(despite of course Trust members voting in favour, albeit by a tiny and insufficient majority).

I have never been a member of the Trust, mostly because I’ve always thought the shared ground ownership was a bad idea, and likely to deter the majority of future owners from wanting to get involved - especially having seen the outcome of this vote, and what happens to club progress when the fans decide they don't like its plans.  

We have created a fairly unique situation where we are wedded to an owner that it appears half of fans have decided they no longer like or trust. It’s easy to blame Clem for most things, but I think it’s actually a failure of the fanbase to allow itself to get backed into a corner like this.

For me the Trust needs to do more than demonstrate good governance and comms - which it undoubtedly does - it needs to demonstrate a VISION for the future that most/all fans can get behind. The 50/50 split on the redevelopment vote literally benefits nobody - club, team, owners or fans - and I think may act as a deterrent to potential new owners.

Of all the shit stuff that seems to have happened over the last few years, a county court judgment is probably the last thing to raise a wry smile .

 it's all a bit depressing at the moment .

Not an ounce of this is the fans fault. Not one iota.

We've been on a consistent diet of shit sandwiches for over a decade now, its just a shame about half of our fan base are happy to keep eating them with a smile on their face because an Australian bloke shook their hand once and wore a bucket hat.

Chelsea fans own their ground, entirely.  Have Chelsea struggled to attract investment?  Don't go down the route of them being bigger, a Premier League club, because levels of investment are also relative. 

While having real estate may well attract some investors, football clubs are hot property in several markets right now.  You do not need to believe me, but I know for a fact people have and still do show an interest in the club despite the current ground ownership situation.  The biggest challenge to outside investment is the clubs ownership situation.

Anyway, seeing this as a one and done vote is silly.  There are many of those who voted against it that could be persuaded even with the current ownership.  They need the right safeguards put in place and for the club to put some real time and effort into the plans beyond some concept art and a business case that looked like it had less than a day spent on it.

I would love for this to be true, but none of the rumours about new ownership have materialised so far, whether pedalled by those in the know or pure fantasy.  To my knowledge STFC is regarded as a poor investment opportunity among buyers, with “who wants to catch a falling knife” being a commonly held view.

and why is that?

Peoples lack of understanding is doing my head in

One bloke on fb just said ‘dont know why the trust bought the ground if they cant afford to maintain it’

I have now had to explain this is the purpose of the JV that club are supposed to pay rent to!

I don’t know, but I think buying a club that operates a JV on ground redevelopment with a fanbase that has a record of rejecting proposals could be regarded as more of a threat than an opportunity to a potential new buyer.

How many proposals have the fanbase rejected🤔

Are you deliberately ignoring Rob’s point that Chelsea fans own their ground? A lot of grounds aren’t owned by clubs themselves, it’s the leasehold duration that matters.

The fans voting no this time will be viewed no differently than a planning application being refused, it can be remedied by consultation and amendments to the plans.

No, but are there any league one or two clubs that share ground ownership with fans that have recently received significant external investment?

My wider point is that, for a club already known for mediocrity, bad governance and a history of dodgy ownership, we can now potentially add ‘difficult fanbase’ to the list.

So, if the Chelsea owner(s) decided to redevelop the stadium (that the fans own) who / how would it be signed off? What’s the process?

…is it the same as ours?

What difference does it make if it’s shared ownership with fans or owned by the council? An owner of the ground is always going to have a say in what gets built on the ground. All the joint ownership stops is the ground being sold off for housing by dodgy owners, it doesn’t restrict a competent owner carrying out a legitimate redevelopment.

Fans owning the ground also means the club pay a well below standard rent and get to use the rent they do pay towards ground maintenance. That is a good deal that nobody else is getting.

The JV is a fantastic thing and if it scares off potential owners, good. We shouldn't be looking for Clem to sell to absolutely anybody, that's how we got into this mess, repeatedly, ever since William Patey's fire sale.

I mean, technically it could restrict a competent owner carrying out a legitimate redevelopment - if the voting went against it…

But so could the council or any other owner of the ground, it’s no different to that.

I think the difference is that the council would have a fairly objective process to consider and validate a proposal, whereas what’s happened here seems to be “we like the plans but don’t trust the owner to deliver them”.

I remember a lot of talk about the Trust doing “due diligence” into Clem when he took over from Lee Power.  Did that due diligence stretch to his expertise in property development?

The due diligence at the time was a sham as it was done by James Spencer and co and they believed everything Morfuni said. They completely ignored his failing U.K. business and other red flags.

Back on point, Oxford are another good example. They’ve now got wealthy owners despite the ground being owned by Kassam who is almost impossible to deal with. Yes they’ve given up on the Kassam now but it didn’t stop them buying the club to begin with.

Agreed, and this relates back to my original comment. IMO we (the fans) have veered wildly from believing everything Clem says (including the old Trust leadership, who I acknowledge aren’t in place now) to kicking out proposals largely due to emotional reasons. I am not a Trust member so couldn’t vote, but if I was I would have voted yes and backed the Trust to hold the owners to account to deliver them.

The problem is that I think the trust are pretty powerless to hold them to account once the yes vote is made. At least in the proposal in its current form.

I get there is a tendency to treat everything coming from the club as bull, and that risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In this case, and I can only speak for me, the vote came down to the risk of them cocking it up and leaving things worse than not starting in the first place. I based that on what I've seen them deliver and the struggle to do the basics right. And also the half truths they they've provided over four years.

In reality we financially probably wouldn't see a benefit for a decade, but we can't do nothing either.

Why oh why couldn't Clem have been the clean break fresh start I thought he was.
-------------
On another note, I voted in the understanding houses were not part of the consent vote.

I've seen some comment online from some that thought it was.

What's going on there.

Chelsea fans have already blocked a development when Abromivich was involved, and while I do not know their ownership structure in detail, it did seem they also required a 75% vote in favour to get is passed.

Ground improvements should be a no-brainer, who wouldn't want them?  Also, speaking for myself, all I want to do is watch football and forget about non-field issues.  Unfortunately, an ownership that has proved over the last four years to have been lacking makes that impossible, especially for a club that has decades of a history of finacial issues. It is not the Trust's job to police the ownership, that is the job of the EFL.  If all comes to grief, it's the fans who will suffer.  Simply put, a large percentage of the fans don't trust the ownership to be responsible stewards. That's the real issue.

Fuck me  :crash: :suicide:

I'm absolutely sick of this shit. Blaming the fans for being fucked in the ass constantly. Fed up with it completely.

Just wow, that sums up probably as much as half out fanbase though, ignorant and ill informed.

Taken from the Facebook crowd, caused quite a reaction, which just goes to show how divided the fanbase is !

" In the light of the recent game of politics played by Trust STFC could somebody show me a potential chairman who might take over the club knowing in advance that he and his board will be held hostage by Trust STFC at any given opportunity?
If I had a few million to throw about on a football club I certainly wouldn't put it into a club where "the fans" have voted against their own development out of a desire to manipulate the ownership of the club. "

 :suicide:

That particular person appears to be have a severe division between his own braincells.

I see people talk about the Trust like it is a business, like it has wealthy investors, like it has the same rights as the wives of investors that own a chunk of the club.  The trust is 1300 fans with a handful of volunteers that sit on the board. organise things and converse with the club owner.

What is it that the Trust DO want?  The Trust, i.e. the 1300 fans that had an opportunity to count have made it completely clear what they want.  Half of the 1300 represented either are in favour of the redevelopment, not in favour, or couldn't be bothered to cast their vote.  But it was clear what they want in the summary of the comments that was shared by the Trust board:

Trust in the owner and leadership of the Club – concerns over not caring what supporters think (despite significant feedback, no changes were made to the submitted plans and concepts), poor communication, history of misleading statements, sole focus on hospitality suggests that the leadership is out of touch with the regular supporter who feel disconnected or ignored, doubting whether the project serves their interests;
 
Funding – it took multiple attempts for the Club to clarify where the funding is coming from, concerns over increasing debt to the owner, concerns over funding reliability and what happens if it dries up, history of late payments to suppliers, current funding issues evidenced by the recent County Court Judgment;
 
Business Plan – demonstrates how risky an investment this is if it requires two years in the Championship to make it pay, unclear why unrelated revenues were used within the payback (i.e. sponsorship income), unclear how hospitality revenue was calculated, how the project outlay links to the payback and future sustainability of the Club;
 
Design and Deliverability – concerns over the ability to deliver and the contractual mechanisms to “keep the Club honest”, suggestions to derisk the project by phasing the design and aligning it with progress on the pitch (i.e. hospitality floor now, executive boxes later), commitment to improve other supporter facilities in other stands, many references to protecting against the Northampton Town situation;
 
Masterplan – no overall masterplan was provided – how does this project fit into the bigger plans and timescales for the stadium, concern over residential development and how this was communicated, many requests to address the basics before undertaking major projects, concerns that redevelopment of the stadium will end after a single project.

You are right in saying that through the JV we are wedded to the owner - but remember that the trust was the driving force in working with the Nigel Eady Trust (a wealthy FAN) in purchasing the home that said wedded couple are living in.  That arrangement has reduced the monthly outlay for the owner by 50% and that 50% is and has been earmarked to be re-invested into the ground and club that one half of the wedded couple co-ordinated funding for.  Is it not realistic for thathalf of the JV to be communicated to by the other half, to not be treated with disdain, to have a home that is safe and has running water and food, and maybe some nice clothes and trinkets to purchase occaisionally.  Is it fair and reasonable for one half of the JV to blame the other half for not agreeing with their plans to add a conservatory on to the house that they organised payment in full for when they haven't explained how they are going to pay for it, what the realistic business plan is, and how that conservatory is going to really benefit, and what is the wider plan of the redevelopment?  and after not really talking to and engaging well with them for the past 3 years?

The VISION is not on the Trust to create, the VISION is on the club to create, and bring the fans along on the journey of that vision.  The result of the vote shows that they haven't done that, and probably haven't been helped by the fact that they have been treating the fanbase with so much disdain for so long, eventually even a mistreated animal is going to turn and not put up with it any longer.

I would say that based on the feedback, the majority of the No voters were in favour for the general idea of the redevelopment, who wouldn't, we are desperate for it, but does the wedded partner feel loved by the other, nah not really..

The reason this vote didn't go through sits squarly with the ownership, not the No voters, not the Yes voters, not the Trust, not the OSC, the DSC, the weird business group, the club historian, the SO69 or the numerous Pro Clem groups..  Clem has bought the club and is the current custodian which means it's up to him to look after it and the fans that put their money into it.  He got it for a song, effectively bought the debt, and now wants to add to that debt without a coherant plan as to what comes next apart from building a statue of him.  Maybe he should go on Dragons Den.

here's a link
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/chelsea-pitch-owners-history
My cousin was involved with CPO for years, they seem to manage OK