Nobody asked for it, but here is my very dull take on the proposed groundshare with London Broncos. If nothing else it has highlighted the continuing problem with the existing Dons Trust constitution.
1
#afcwimbedon #afcw #wimbledon #broncos
1
#afcwimbedon #afcw #wimbledon #broncos
I am no expert on these issues so I apologise for any incorrect assumptions below. Those more involved with the DT may have a more insightful (and accurate) view.
2
2
Is the DTB obliged to take a members vote to decide on a groundshare?
The DT constitution does not mention Plough Lane anywhere with regards to restricted actions. It is outdated and still only refers to Kingsmeadow.
3
The DT constitution does not mention Plough Lane anywhere with regards to restricted actions. It is outdated and still only refers to Kingsmeadow.
3
Would we have a vote on this if we still played at KM?
In my view it is *arguable* that schedule 1 of the DT constitution would have required a vote from the fans if there was a proposal to groundshare with someone other than Kingstonian prior to the Chelsea sale.
4
In my view it is *arguable* that schedule 1 of the DT constitution would have required a vote from the fans if there was a proposal to groundshare with someone other than Kingstonian prior to the Chelsea sale.
4
How so?
By allowing another club to use the stadium it restricts the rights of the football club to use the stadium or facilities (conference rooms, etc) on certain days.
5
By allowing another club to use the stadium it restricts the rights of the football club to use the stadium or facilities (conference rooms, etc) on certain days.
5
A groundshare would arguably amount to less favourable terms existing re the club's rights over the stadium than those that exist presently (as there are currently no such restrictions).
6
6
Even if that is right, it still doesn't apply to Plough Lane. Could the restricted actions requirements re Kingsmeadow be enforced re Plough Lane absent any change to the constitution?
This is a much trickier question. I don't currently know the answer.
7
This is a much trickier question. I don't currently know the answer.
7
As a guess, the intent of the constitution may be relevant here. The DTB has confirmed that any amendments to the constitution ought to provide at least the same level of protection to rights at PL as existed at KM.
8
8
Does the DTB know about the outdated constitution?
Yes. The DTB planned to revise the constituion by summer 2020, prior to moving into Plough Lane.
donstrust.org/2019/05/15/con…
9
Yes. The DTB planned to revise the constituion by summer 2020, prior to moving into Plough Lane.
donstrust.org/2019/05/15/con…
9
Why hasn't the constitution been amended already?
It probably didn't help that when the working group set up do this were debating amendments to restricted actions the "outside investment" issue occurred. The DTB member leading the working group then resigned.
10
It probably didn't help that when the working group set up do this were debating amendments to restricted actions the "outside investment" issue occurred. The DTB member leading the working group then resigned.
10
Shouldn't some of the DT members have raised the outdated constitution before?
They have. At the last SGM. The DTB has responded re this issue prior to the upcoming AGM.
11
They have. At the last SGM. The DTB has responded re this issue prior to the upcoming AGM.
11
What do the DTB say about amendments to the constitution?
The DTB takes the view that amendments are overdue but that "there is no immediate need for a constitutional motion" at the AGM.
The agenda for the AGM was sent out before the email re a groundshare.
12
The DTB takes the view that amendments are overdue but that "there is no immediate need for a constitutional motion" at the AGM.
The agenda for the AGM was sent out before the email re a groundshare.
12
Do the members get a say on amendments to the list of restricted actions in the DT constitution?
Yes - amending the list of restricted actions is a restricted action itself.
13
Yes - amending the list of restricted actions is a restricted action itself.
13
What are the downsides about not having a formal vote about a groundshare?
In my view it doesn't look great that before amendments to the DT constitution regarding PL have been proposed/ debated on/ voted on by DT members, that a groundshare is agreed.
14
In my view it doesn't look great that before amendments to the DT constitution regarding PL have been proposed/ debated on/ voted on by DT members, that a groundshare is agreed.
14
A groundshare is likely to have been part of the debate re amendments to the constituion that have to be made. It may have shaped the constituion of the DT.
If a groundshare is agreed now, any such debate would be otiose.
15
If a groundshare is agreed now, any such debate would be otiose.
15
Also, the gaps in the DT constituion re PL appear to have been caused by the inactivity of the current DTB on this issue. What progress (if any) that may have been made has apparently been disrupted by the "outside investor" issue, a problem many attribute to failings of the DTB
Does it need to be a restricted action for the DT members to vote on this?
No.
Some may argue that regardless of whether this is a restricted action a formal vote ought to take place.
17
No.
Some may argue that regardless of whether this is a restricted action a formal vote ought to take place.
17
Didn't we get to vote by using the email from Joe Palmer?
Again, I'm sure many would argue that this wasn't an informed vote, given the lack of information and absence of debate on the issue.
18
Again, I'm sure many would argue that this wasn't an informed vote, given the lack of information and absence of debate on the issue.
18
But do DT members get to vote on everything?
No, and it is quite right that we shouldn't. However, with important issues it would be preferable to have some clarity from the constitution.
At the moment there is a constitutional vacuum with what can and can't be done with PL
19
No, and it is quite right that we shouldn't. However, with important issues it would be preferable to have some clarity from the constitution.
At the moment there is a constitutional vacuum with what can and can't be done with PL
19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
