Broxap to vote against Board at EGM

[CAVALIER]

I have sent a proxy to a mate today and I must admit that the form is a tad confusing. It almost makes you give it to Bratt and you have to do some crossing out/insertions.

[The Wonder of You]

Makes you wonder if the form has intentionally been designed to be confusing therefore getting alot of spoiled voting form on the day!

[Conrad]

Can Mo come to a similar agreement with Robbie, ie buy his shares after the egm in exchange for his proxy.

 

He can if Robbie wants to sell them.

[davehartshill]

My dads boss is associated through business with bill bratt, and says bratts had enough and that the egm is the end for v2001. My dad says mr bratt didnt look too great the last time he was in their place of work a few days ago.

[Bails]

Makes you wonder if the form has intentionally been designed to be confusing therefore getting alot of spoiled voting form on the day!

 

Bratt isn't that clever!!!

[Ben]

My dads boss is associated through business with bill bratt, and says bratts had enough and that the egm is the end for v2001. My dad says mr bratt didnt look too great the last time he was in their place of work a few days ago.

 

There is a sting in the tail here with them giving MA a 3 year contract somethings not right.

[MarkB2]

There is a sting in the tail here with them giving MA a 3 year contract somethings not right.

 

Scorched earth policy?

[MrSmithPVFC]

I fear RW, if he does support Mo, may abstain on the no-confidence in the board and vote in favour of removing 24.9% rule. So he doesn't upset pro V2001 supporters, but can say he used his vote to try to help facilitate change.

This would do nothing. We need Robbie to vote no-confidence in board, the removal of the 24.9% rule is a pointless exercise even with RW's support, as it is not achievable if the board wish to keep it.

Robbie supporting Mo is only good if he is willing to do what is necessary to make things happen - Robbie has to vote, or have a proxy vote no-confidence in board, nothing less is going to help.

[Ben]

Makes you wonder if the form has intentionally been designed to be confusing therefore getting alot of spoiled voting form on the day!

 

I am getting a bit paranoid now if I :(have filled it in correctly

[Birches Head Fred]

I am getting a bit paranoid now if I :(have filled it in correctly

 

If you put Bill Bratt as your proxy then you did.

 

 

 

 

(I'll get me tin hat).

[Ben]

If you put Bill Bratt as your proxy then you did. :yes

 

Sorry Bill its looks like I have voted against you===

 

 

 

(I'll get me tin hat).

[Edge81]

I fear RW, if he does support Mo, may abstain on the no-confidence in the board and vote in favour of removing 24.9% rule. So he doesn't upset pro V2001 supporters, but can say he used his vote to try to help facilitate change.

This would do nothing. We need Robbie to vote no-confidence in board, the removal of the 24.9% rule is a pointless exercise even with RW's support, as it is not achievable if the board wish to keep it.

Robbie supporting Mo is only good if he is willing to do what is necessary to make things happen - Robbie has to vote, or have a proxy vote no-confidence in board, nothing less is going to help.

 

RW has as much right as every shareholder (including the 4 V2001 supporters) to express his opinion. He has put his money in, he can choose to do whatever he wants to

[Tone]

I fear RW, if he does support Mo, may abstain on the no-confidence in the board and vote in favour of removing 24.9% rule. So he doesn't upset pro V2001 supporters, but can say he used his vote to try to help facilitate change.

This would do nothing. We need Robbie to vote no-confidence in board, the removal of the 24.9% rule is a pointless exercise even with RW's support, as it is not achievable if the board wish to keep it.

Robbie supporting Mo is only good if he is willing to do what is necessary to make things happen - Robbie has to vote, or have a proxy vote no-confidence in board, nothing less is going to help.

 

Robbie's support for the change of the 24.9% rule is definitely more critical. I believe that requires a big majority - 75%?

 

I would have thought that there's enough support for the no-confidence vote without him, if everyone turns up.

[CAVALIER]

I am getting a bit paranoid now if I :(have filled it in correctly

 

Wouldn't surprise me.

[grebovale]

On the ROBBIE proxy ....... Might BB feeding someone false information to find out who the mole is at PVFC ......... if so the informant as been found out ...Or am I been paranoid .........:woot: