paulcarm-Have I got this right?
The initial result of the ballot was that fans voted to surrender their majority shareholding. This was the result that DFCSS did not want. 200 further votes turned up. It is still not entirely clear why this happened. EMG made the decision to scrap the original result released to the media and add the newly found votes. EMG is made up of DFCSS members and so cannot be called independent. A final result, to retain majority shareholding, was released which was one DFCSS was happy with.
If this is right then it cannot be said that the decision to add the extra votes was an impartial one.
No you haven’t, and the implication of corruption in the question is completely unfounded.
Dundee FC Supporters’ Society consists of thousands of members. The Society Board (if that’s what you’re referring to) made it clear that there were a variety of views among the directors and that this was one reason to put such an important decision to the membership.
The Society Board is not “happy with” any particular vote. Our intention, and indeed our legal obligation, was to leave the decision to the members. The EMG was independent of the Society Board and received no guidance or influence whatsoever regarding the conduct of the ballot or their decisions subsequent to the discovery of additional ballot papers.
duas-Electon Management Group
So therefore the Election Management Group were all DFCSS Members.
That can't be true surely?
Correct, it’s not true. As per the best practice guidelines laid down by Supporters Direct, the Chair of the EMG is an independent party, Stuart Galloway (of Dundee City Council). The others on the EMG gave up their right to vote in order to remain impartial. The EMG has served us on previous occasions without complaint.
The dfcss put up the rules of the ballot
They then added ballots received after the closing date
Not a day late but a week late
Sorry but that leaves no mandate
It's divisive at best and I hope like you that folk from both sides of the argument have a look at themselves cos have no doubt this will fkin escalate without some common sense
The Society did not add ballots. The Society is obliged to abide by the decision of the EMG. We certainly will look at the processes, and what lessons can be learned for the future.
ywolf-1 Do d4l carry on with their agenda on the back of this vote?
What agenda?
Do d4l admit it was a misjudgement and inform us how much this all cost?
We were legally required to carry out a postal ballot on this issue. There are lessons to be learnt for sure (see questions 1 and 3 for example). We did have the option to send notification only by email and via the local press but took the decision to write out given the importance of the subject – something clearly not reflected in the turnout. However, the cost (approx £1600) would have been the same regardless of how many ballot papers had been received, and regardless of whether any or all were late.
Will the remaining 3500 fans get a say at some future date?
Out of a total membership of 4,347, those over 16 (3,687) were all sent a ballot paper, and every individual, corporate or club member with an email address was also mailed (over 1300 emails sent). Letters and ballot papers were also made available online, and there was considerable publicity in the press and at Dens. The “remaining” fans had a say this time, but chose not to vote.