What happened to D4L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Returnofrros

It wouldn't change anything re Nelms but it would signal a change in direction from D4L.

If there has been no change of direction then I agree a complete waste of time other than highlight that the D4l committee have no intention of holding Nelms to account at all.

BCram imho rather simplifies the matter by making it about Elvis.....it isn't....the unrest with Nelms and the running of the club has went back years now.

Granted there have now been small improvements in the last few months but the suspicion remains for many......myself included.

D4L though seems to be a complete busted flush.

---

The D4L no confidence vote on JN, was meant to be a joint venture with the DSA,
then we find out that three board members on the DSA are empoyees of JOHN NELMS ! therfore it is unlikely that a no confidence
vote on JN would ever take place. D4L are on their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deecom

The D4L no confidence vote on JN, was meant to be a joint venture with the DSA,
then we find out that three board members on the DSA are empoyees of JOHN NELMS ! therfore it is unlikely that a no confidence
vote on JN would ever take place. D4L are on their own.

---

See post 2 Deecom, according to Islay the vote took place.

Is Islay wrong or am I reading that wrong.

I've also stated in conversations with acquaintances about the conflict of interest I see by being an employee of Nelms and a board member of DSA......if as Nelms has stated many times it's only DSA he recognises over and above the 2nd biggest shareholder

YES the D4L vote took place just as ISLAY described, but the DSA were meant to do the same, and looks like that did not take place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deecom

YES the D4L vote took place just as ISLAY described, but the DSA were meant to do the same, and looks like that did not take place.

---

Thanks for clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deecom

The D4L no confidence vote on JN, was meant to be a joint venture with the DSA,
then we find out that three board members on the DSA are empoyees of JOHN NELMS ! therfore it is unlikely that a no confidence
vote on JN would ever take place. D4L are on their own.

---

In my opinion employees of John Nelms should not be DSA board members. However the problem the DSA has is that the same board members remain in place every year because none of the secretary’s of the individual DSA affiliated supporters are prepared to put their name forward to be elected to join the DSA board. As a result it is more of the same every year with the DSA board members never complaining about the running of Dundee Football Club by John Nelms come what may providing the DSA get their allocation of tickets for away games every season.
In my opinion the DSA will end up sleep walking into a financial disaster when Tim Keyes stops bankrolling Dundee Football Club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deecom

The D4L no confidence vote on JN, was meant to be a joint venture with the DSA,
then we find out that three board members on the DSA are empoyees of JOHN NELMS ! therfore it is unlikely that a no confidence
vote on JN would ever take place. D4L are on their own.

---

At the Dee4life SGM on Saturday 28th February 2026 it was reported by the Chairman that several Dee4life directors had a meeting with several DSA board members but the Chairman did not tell us what was discussed or the outcome of the meeting. The Dee4life Chairman further added that the next meeting with the DSA is due to take place in June 2026.