Redevelopment vote

[TheSpiritof69]

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%.

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.

[tans]

Club statement

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

[reeves4england]

Club statement

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.

[Ardiles]

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.

[horlock07]

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.

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

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

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

Very much this for me.

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.

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.

[ahounsell]

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.

^^ 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.

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

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

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

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

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).

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

[Matchworn Shirts]

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

Indeed

[Nemo]

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.

[Matchworn Shirts]

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

[Power to people]

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.

[Crozzer]

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.

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.  

[RobertT]

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.  

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.