For what it is worth, I dont think a coherent alternative was presented for either vote. Much will depend onthe terms of the takeover now, but for what it is worth, my view remains that a reluctant yes vote was probably the best outcome for the club at the time. You may have a different view. It is frankly irrevelant now.
While I may express a final view when the takeover details are announced for academic interest, what is relevant now is the future and trying to support hte club through what will be difficult financial times with significantly less cash available to fund the business. the supporters of the club will need to exhibit a fair bit of understanding in what will be some difficult days ahead.
The only area in which the past decisions are relevant tothe future is conditioning any future decisions. In the hypothetical scenario that in the future a new potential investor comes forward, I would trust that the the Trust members consider the bestinterests of the club at the time rather than base that decision solely on looking back to whatever their opinion may be of a prior regime.
If either vote had gone a different way. If there had been a no vote in 2004 maybe Hayes would have walked away and we would have had to cut our cloth a bit sooner. We may not have had the on field... more
for the 2009 vote, you missed out the most probable scenario. That was had the vote gone against Hayes taking ownership, the he would put the club into administration, as was spelled out by the Trust ... more
A noteable feature of the 'movement for change' in both 2004 and 2009 were the explicit threats that without change we were on the way to hell in a handcart. The main issue therefore was whether you... more
to what the new investor was looking to do, and how much cash would be required in what format. I would seek to assess his background and history and connections with the club. I would then seek to... more