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 believed this or not.
As you say in your last paragraph, the constitution would have survived with greater commitment. Whichever way you divvy out voting rights in such an organisation however, the vast majority will always be acquiescent leaving a self-serving clique to come to the fore, as indeed happened with Beeks et al. They then proceed to act as if they were the board of a Plc and rely on the inertia of their membership to essentially do what they please. I wish there were a way of avoiding this, but sadly I think we'll all be back at square one in x years time.
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
I don't entirely disagree Pam Sadarka,Wed Jun 13 13:52
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... 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