Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater – a message for Dave Felstead

[Valiant62]

The availability of Robbie's proxy to the supporters club is clearly a game changer. Dave's (aka Andy Jones?) views are pretty well documented, but I believe his responsibility is to only represent them in his own vote if he has shares and to make genuine attempts to start from scratch in getting a consensus from those who make their voices heard tomorrow, and vote with that majority whether he likes it personally or not. We're all assuming an outcome of that meeting but I think Dave should suspend that assumption.

If the vote does go in the direction of change, again, from a personal point of view, I'd like us to make the most of this golden opportunity.

I still subscribe to the general principles of V2001 and would like any interim board to explore the best way of reconstructing the club structure to re-establish some of those values. When the Mo =24.9, Mark = 24.9 offer was on the table, that was the outcome I most liked the look of. Chaudry has money and has been a net success, but like any entrepreneur has some failures in amongst that. The going will get tough at some point and entrepreneurs do often walk away at that point. I hear all the assurances but if he's successful in getting in it will take a while for me to build trust and that trust will come when he responds to a crisis, not when things are going well. Mark Simms' pockets aren't as deep, but for me he carries the credibility of having supported the club in an altruistic manner in the past. I'd like Robbie to maintain a 24.9% interest with his proxy given to the supporters club. There would be issues to guard against in that scenario around the supporters' club's representiveness and accountability and I think that may involve revisiting the checks and balances in how that is assured, but the outcome of that sort of model would give us the “old V2001” (if it ever existed) back.

The question is, would people settle for less money from Chaudry and would he settle for less than 51% control.

I reckon this time next week, we'll have an interim board. If that happens, I really want to see them put the brakes on and have a wide ranging discussion / negotiation about the way forward. It will be a great opportunity - if we hand over 51% to Chaudry, that's a pretty final sale of the family silver (admittedly for the greatest short term investment) and might not be the best long term sustainable deal we can get. I hope we don't rush into bed with him without getting a ring on our finger.

[wayneamyloo]

The availability of Robbie's proxy to the supporters club is clearly a game changer. Dave's (aka Andy Jones?) views are pretty well documented, but I believe his responsibility is to only represent them in his own vote if he has shares and to make genuine attempts to start from scratch in getting a consensus from those who make their voices heard tomorrow, and vote with that majority whether he likes it personally or not. We're all assuming an outcome of that meeting but I think Dave should suspend that assumption.

If the vote does go in the direction of change, again, from a personal point of view, I'd like us to make the most of this golden opportunity.

I still subscribe to the general principles of V2001 and would like any interim board to explore the best way of reconstructing the club structure to re-establish some of those values. When the Mo =24.9, Mark = 24.9 offer was on the table, that was the outcome I most liked the look of. Chaudry has money and has been a net success, but like any entrepreneur has some failures in amongst that. The going will get tough at some point and entrepreneurs do often walk away at that point. I hear all the assurances but if he's successful in getting in it will take a while for me to build trust and that trust will come when he responds to a crisis, not when things are going well. Mark Simms' pockets aren't as deep, but for me he carries the credibility of having supported the club in an altruistic manner in the past. I'd like Robbie to maintain a 24.9% interest with his proxy given to the supporters club. There would be issues to guard against in that scenario around the supporters' club's representiveness and accountability and I think that may involve revisiting the checks and balances in how that is assured, but the outcome of that sort of model would give us the “old V2001” (if it ever existed) back.

The question is, would people settle for less money from Chaudry and would he settle for less than 51% control.

I reckon this time next week, we'll have an interim board. If that happens, I really want to see them put the brakes on and have a wide ranging discussion / negotiation about the way forward. It will be a great opportunity - if we hand over 51% to Chaudry, that's a pretty final sale of the family silver (admittedly for the greatest short term investment) and might not be the best long term sustainable deal we can get. I hope we don't rush into bed with him without getting a ring on our finger.

 

well said -great post

[Fosse69]

The availability of Robbie's proxy to the supporters club is clearly a game changer. Dave's (aka Andy Jones?) views are pretty well documented, but I believe his responsibility is to only represent them in his own vote if he has shares and to make genuine attempts to start from scratch in getting a consensus from those who make their voices heard tomorrow, and vote with that majority whether he likes it personally or not. We're all assuming an outcome of that meeting but I think Dave should suspend that assumption.

If the vote does go in the direction of change, again, from a personal point of view, I'd like us to make the most of this golden opportunity.

I still subscribe to the general principles of V2001 and would like any interim board to explore the best way of reconstructing the club structure to re-establish some of those values. When the Mo =24.9, Mark = 24.9 offer was on the table, that was the outcome I most liked the look of. Chaudry has money and has been a net success, but like any entrepreneur has some failures in amongst that. The going will get tough at some point and entrepreneurs do often walk away at that point. I hear all the assurances but if he's successful in getting in it will take a while for me to build trust and that trust will come when he responds to a crisis, not when things are going well. Mark Simms' pockets aren't as deep, but for me he carries the credibility of having supported the club in an altruistic manner in the past. I'd like Robbie to maintain a 24.9% interest with his proxy given to the supporters club. There would be issues to guard against in that scenario around the supporters' club's representiveness and accountability and I think that may involve revisiting the checks and balances in how that is assured, but the outcome of that sort of model would give us the “old V2001” (if it ever existed) back.

The question is, would people settle for less money from Chaudry and would he settle for less than 51% control.

I reckon this time next week, we'll have an interim board. If that happens, I really want to see them put the brakes on and have a wide ranging discussion / negotiation about the way forward. It will be a great opportunity - if we hand over 51% to Chaudry, that's a pretty final sale of the family silver (admittedly for the greatest short term investment) and might not be the best long term sustainable deal we can get. I hope we don't rush into bed with him without getting a ring on our finger.

 

The EGM is not about MC, it is about sacking the directors and electing a new interim board, who will then invite investment. I dont expect a rush, I am happy with MC, but that is another day.

[Shropshire_Valiant]

A fair post mate! I agree on the joint chaudry/sims bid to a point. For me that was bratt and the boards ultimate last chance unfortunately they blew it with lies, bull**** and hypocrisy in their response. This is why I'm totally against any of the principles v2001stand 4 fullstop, as the current board have abused them beyond belief! I don't want my club in this situation ever again!

[valetillidye]

lets get Tuesday out of the way first

[AVIM]

I hear you, but Mo's investment and indeed his business plan is dependent on the 24.9% ruling being removed. He wants nothing less than total control of the club and having seen how the current lot have been chucked out, who can blame him?

 

He has 3.8m to lend the club in convertible debt. This can only go ahead with the removal of the 24.9% rule.

 

Mo in means the end of the v2001 "ethos" (if it ever really existed at all). But many would argue that is in the best interests of the club.

[VantaaVale]

Wouldn't there be a problem with resurrecting the Mo/Mark joint 24.9% bid, because Mark would be on the interim board?

 

That was the bid I actually felt more comfortable with also.

[the old bycars tea bar]

a good post above which i mostly agree

 

dave will do the right thing for the club after taking on board all the relevent information that i'm sure of

[Birdy]

Mo in means the end of the v2001 "ethos" (if it ever really existed at all). But many would argue that is in the best interests of the club.

 

With all due respect that ethos was never practised, if it was we wouldn't be in the position that we are in. A fantastic ideology that can work and is working for some smaller clubs, but the board ruined that beautiful dream.

 

It is unclear how it will turn out with Mo, but I am willing to give that a good shot otherwise we will end up with nothing.

[valetillidye]

With all due respect that ethos was never practised, if it was we wouldn't be in the position that we are in. A fantastic ideology that can work and is working for some smaller clubs, but the board ruined that beautiful dream.

 

It is unclear how it will turn out with Mo, but I am willing to give that a good shot otherwise we will end up with nothing.

 

100% agree with you

[AVIM]

With all due respect that ethos was never practised, if it was we wouldn't be in the position that we are in. A fantastic ideology that can work and is working for some smaller clubs, but the board ruined that beautiful dream.

 

It is unclear how it will turn out with Mo, but I am willing to give that a good shot otherwise we will end up with nothing.

 

Agreed. We won't really be going from a fan owned utopia to mo, so I dont really have a problem with it. If the vote goes against the board then we should be doing our best to get Mo in asap. And that means lock, stock and barrel. 51% might as well be 100%, so just give him the lot if he is prepared to pay 5 quid a share.

[Stone Valiant]

The V2001 ethos died the day that Jackson joined the board.

 

He brought in the 24.9% ruling

He brought in the limits on shares owned by directors

He brought in the right for him to veto anyone else from purchasing shares in the club

 

If this board is removed by our vote, it will not be us removing the V2001 ethos, that was already removed long ago when Jackson came in and silenced us ordinary supporters with a smaller share.

 

And in that respect, Jackson and his minions have proven that the V2001 did not work, because it could be corrupted to nwork against the fans and not to work for them in protecting them and the club they love from power hungry charlatans

[saintvaliant]

The ethos of V2001 is just like the purest form of socialism.

 

A utopia. One that in practice is corrupted all too easily by the personal ambitions of men.

 

I see the future as a combination of a wealthy investor and fan ownership. Mo has the financial clout and acumen and the contacts the club requires. The fans still have the opportunity to continue buying shares - something I would certainly be up for doing.

 

What V2001 has shown is that the utopia is a house built on sand. It will do the job for a period, but ultimately it will come crashing down on itself.

[Stone Valiant]

Agreed. We won't really be going from a fan owned utopia to mo, so I dont really have a problem with it. If the vote goes against the board then we should be doing our best to get Mo in asap. And that means lock, stock and barrel. 51% might as well be 100%, so just give him the lot if he is prepared to pay 5 quid a share.

 

I wouldn't go that far. Even as a majority shareholder with 51%, some aspects of the running of the club are too serious to be ruled by one man, even by Mo's own admission. Mo would not want 100%!

 

You need protection by having other investors and other shareholders that can be called upon in times of need. At most, Mo wants 74% of the club and has for example stated that any vote to sell or remove Port Vale from the ground should only be done with at least 75% fo the shares in order to protect this position

 

(This alone proves Mo's intentions for the club to remain where they are at Vale Park and for the ground to be owned by no-one but the club)

[Fosse69]

a good post above which i mostly agree

 

dave will do the right thing for the club after taking on board all the relevent information that i'm sure of

 

RW has only given his proxy for this EGM, not the next one.