Possible legal challenge confirmed

[Jacko51]

With regard to the role of Paul Bennett, the club's solicitor.

 

Following the AGM last December, I emailed him to seek clarification on a particular matter relating to the club's failure to comply with FS15 and have the ground revalued. In his reponse, he assured me that he was working on behalf of the Company (PVFC) and as such, took his instruction from the Board of Directors of the company. He told me that he could not respond to my request because I was an individual shareholder and this would produce a conflict of interest. If the current Board are removed at the eGM, I assume they cannot, therefore, instruct Mr Bennett to act on their behalf unless they do so as private shareholders and foot the bill accordingly.

[Vale]

If the current Board are removed at the eGM, I assume they cannot, therefore, instruct Mr Bennett to act on their behalf unless they do so as private shareholders and foot the bill accordingly.

 

and he couldn't do that either because he represents the club so he can't take action against the club by 5 individual shareholders

[fairportnick]

Just an idea , but why dont they vote off Jackson, Bratt and Oliver . Leaving Meigh and Lloyd. Vote on the 3 new directors who will then have a 3-2 majority with the minimum satisfied . Issue new shares to Mo and MS (24.9 % each). Call another EGM change the articles and dump the remaining 2.

[Valiant Haze]

While I understand the need for change and investment I hope that Mo and you all spare a thought for alot of Vale Staff who are generally worried about losing their jobs and i'm not on about the board.

 

I believe the staff have nothing to worry about. Additional recruitment in understaffed areas will be key.

[Guest Mario]

I am feeling a little sick over this, This present Board are a vile shower of *******s who are deliberately trying to **** this Club up. I see troubles ahead for certain idividuals.

 

Bratt and co the majority of fans want you out and its NOT your Club, just go.

 

It's more their club than yours. Wheres your 28%? Or anyone elses for that matter?

[Stevo]

Just an idea , but why dont they vote off Jackson, Bratt and Oliver . Leaving Meigh and Lloyd. Vote on the 3 new directors who will then have a 3-2 majority with the minimum satisfied . Issue new shares to Mo and MS (24.9 % each). Call another EGM change the articles and dump the remaining 2.

 

Was just going to suggest the same :)

[Mr Carter]

It's more their club than yours. Wheres your 28%? Or anyone elses for that matter?

 

I dont think you have quite grasped this have you ?

[davehartshill]

It's more their club than yours. Wheres your 28%? Or anyone elses for that matter?

 

Haha the fans own more of the club than any board member.

 

No fans = no club

 

Do you not get that?

[Guest Mario]

We will see then 1st June

[Warren]

A possible legal challenge to the validity of an interim Board is being flagged up by the club's solicitor:

 

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/vale/portvalenews/Port-Vale-Legal-warning-Vale-interim-board-plan/article-3607879-detail/article.html

 

The requirements of the Companies Act for a minimum number of directors must be met. Directors are responsible for decisions on behalf of the corporate person - the company. Employees only act under delegated authority.

 

If Mike Thompstone has gone through the fit and proper persons test with the Football League he should be appointed. The club will have one director at least and some capacity for moving to the appointment of a permanent set of directors. That might also allow issues about new shareholders to be dealt with.

 

If needed it would make sense for a resolution to be passed at this EGM setting the date for the next one to make final decisions. That way there is a timetable in place to work to and also something Companies House can see will address any deficiencies in director numbers relative to the constitution as soon as possible.===

[davehartshill]

We will see then 1st June

 

We will do.

 

But after the board are booted out of Vale Park I very much doubt you will be back on here.

 

Btw, which board member are you? Is that you again Glenn under yet another disguise.

[Fosse69]

and he couldn't do that either because he represents the club so he can't take action against the club by 5 individual shareholders

 

Am I mistaken, is he not Jacksons personal solicitor?

[baz161272]

Strange quote from someone in law. If everyone felt the same then you wouldn't have a job.

 

Are you also saying LB that you would not suggest a legal challenge if V2001 won the vote and you could find a loophole to exploit?

 

I think this is a case of pot calling kettle

 

But Markymark, that argument does not surfice in this case as BB has repeatedly stated that they would stand down if the majority voted against them....My understanding is that 51% is a majority....so please think before you post a reply because this will only make you look stupid...sorry

[Vale]

Am I mistaken, is he not Jacksons personal solicitor?

 

If he is then the club should not be paying any of his fees and Jacko has said she's communicated in the past and he's stated he acts on behalf of the board of directors - so that should be whoever the directors are

 

But that then ties in with the fact they want two polls now and it seems clear after the first round of voting they will challenge the results and what they mean and that the second round of polling can not go ahead to remove the directors.

 

I really can't imagine the hatred towards them if they do really try and cling on, just what do they have to hide and more importantly what could be the repercussions for our club

[Santa]

The first thing the interim board should do is to sack him, then he can be under no doubt who he should be charging his work to.