I quite agree the golden share should always remain with DFCSG.Spyman wrote:Surely want we want really, in an ideal world, is any investors to provide initial funding for improvements to the facilities (whether at BM or elsewhere) to allow us to progress on the field and generate some off-field revenue.
We don't necessarily need someone to pump in money year after year endlessly - like Boorman says above you are then solely at the mercy of when this person/people get bored or run out of money or whatever.
If someone came along with the initial investment to get us a Football League ground and perhaps the funds to take on a couple of full-time members of staff to run the club day to day (with a view to those positions generating revenue to self-fund in say 3 years), then we could perhaps become 'sustainable' based on sponsorship and gate receipts in the Conference or perhaps League 2.
As far as the 'golden share' issue goes, surely one of the key aspects of any agreement needs to be that the golden share remains the property of the DFCSG thereby at least protecting the football club if any new investors (whether 51% or 49% shareholders) were to move on. If the investors are well intentioned I can't see why they'd have a problem with this.
I would question the motives of any investor not agreeing to this.