Possible legal challenge confirmed

[Jimmy]

LB you know though that this will not go away and the first sign of failure and some people will be throwing it all back. You will see the comments of the claims made before the take over and then the comments like "what if we had left v2001 in charge?".

 

Personally I have reached the point where I just want it settled one way or the other - fairly that is. I really worry about the impact this will all have on the teams performance on the pitch.

 

Well fairly IMHO is the wishes of the majority and that includes the shareholders plus the majority shareholder (RW) who put his trust in the fans in a NON stagemanaged meeting which attracted nearly 500 VALE fans with different views at BGWC at the weekend.

 

The fans unaminously voted the present Board out lock,stock, and barrell.

 

Forget these loopholes and stuff........The wishes of the REAL fans is change.

 

Bratt stated on TV last week if the fans wishes are he resigns he WILL.

 

 

William Amos Bratt do what you preach NOW.

[Valiant Haze]

Has Charles Machin, the former PVFC director been spoken to ? Him being a Barrister would surley only help matters and proceedings. This EGM may as well have been carried out in a courtroom.

 

Bill Bratt, you are a complete and utter disgrace and i will have no problem saying that, and much more, to all of your several faces. You are supposed to be a Vale supporter.......... don't belittle the tag.

[markymark]

Dear Markymark,

 

Do you not agree the board represent the shareholders, and that if the shareholders vote in a certain way that the board has a moral and legal obligation to respect and accept that decision?

 

The bickering to which you refer only occurs if the board DO NOT accept the decision of the shareholders.

 

It is not about both sides - it is simply about the board not accepting the decision of the majority.

 

Regards

 

Yes, so long as it is a fair process.

[CAVALIER]

From Bennett's quotes, it looks to me like he's trying to muddy the waters a little by confusing the Companies Act with the Articles of Association.

 

The club's articles stipulate that there need to be four directors in place, however the legal minimum is two.

 

Its all ******** Santa. He is talking about clarity of the law and got it wrong. Wonder how much Plant is behind this too?

[ChrisR]

What would happen then,if they are all voted off?

 

I've no idea!

[TheLegalBeagle]

LB I thought I answered your question in the post underneath. However I will go back and check.

 

Dear Markymark,

 

Apologies if you did. There is a delay between posts.

 

The questions is:

 

Do you not agree the board represent the shareholders, and that if the shareholders vote in a certain way that the board has a moral and legal obligation to respect and accept that decision?

 

Regards

[Loggerheads Sage]

Dear BD,

 

The directors will claim they bring this suit on behalf of PVFC and look to PVFC to bankroll their litigation.

 

Paul Bennett claims to represent PVFC and not the directors.

 

Regards

 

I don't get this LB, surely if they are voted off as Directors any actions that they then want to take are as individuals and shareholder? IF I as a shareholder wanted to take legal actions against the Vale, surely I would have to pay my own costs? Obviously I bow to your far superior knowledge in this sphere, just my thoughts here.

[markymark]

I beg all fans who can get there Wednesday to turn up and protest outside the ground

 

But this sort of action is actually just basically inviting people to turn up for a fight and to "smash the place up". You have seen people make comments like this and this is not what we need.

 

I really do worry about what is going to happen on Wednesday and that is not the vote. At the end of the day everyone is doing what THEY believe is right for the club - we don't all agree, however we have to respect their opinion and debate that with words, not aggression.

[markymark]

Dear Markymark,

 

Apologies if you did. There is a delay between posts.

 

The questions is:

 

Do you not agree the board represent the shareholders, and that if the shareholders vote in a certain way that the board has a moral and legal obligation to respect and accept that decision?

 

Regards

 

Yes I do if all is above board and fair. It would have been better if RW had actually cast his own vote and showed what he thought - after all he has that obligation as a shareholder to make a decision and not just pass it off to a group, who may or may not represent all the supporters.

[werstayinup]

But this sort of action is actually just basically inviting people to turn up for a fight and to "smash the place up". You have seen people make comments like this and this is not what we need.

 

I really do worry about what is going to happen on Wednesday and that is not the vote. At the end of the day everyone is doing what THEY believe is right for the club - we don't all agree, however we have to respect their opinion and debate that with words, not aggression.

 

Has that happened at previous protests????? I have invited nobody to smash anything up.

 

I will however hold my hand up and say all the **** they are coming up with to hide the books and all the lies(like being for us all,stand down etc) is making me very angry indeed and i hope i calm before Wednesday when i look at their smug and arrogant faces.

[Loggerheads Sage]

I beg all fans who can get there Wednesday to turn up and protest outside the ground

 

We must be very careful here. By all means turn up BUT THERE MUST BE NO TROUBLE, THREATS ETC. IMO if Bratt gets half a chance he will abort the GM and by the time it could be rearranged he will have issued 24.9% to the Americans - the Board will then have 53%+ and we will never be able to remove them. This is our 1 and only chance - we mustn't mess it up!!

[Santa]

Dear BD,

 

The directors will claim they bring this suit on behalf of PVFC and look to PVFC to bankroll their litigation.

 

Paul Bennett claims to represent PVFC and not the directors.

 

Regards

Funny that.

 

When a shareholder contacted him in January with regard to the way in which last December's AGM was conducted, he refused to enter into correspondence, saying that he was representing the directors, and that shareholders with grievances should take independent legal advice.

[young sage]

But this sort of action is actually just basically inviting people to turn up for a fight and to "smash the place up". You have seen people make comments like this and this is not what we need.

 

I really do worry about what is going to happen on Wednesday and that is not the vote. At the end of the day everyone is doing what THEY believe is right for the club - we don't all agree, however we have to respect their opinion and debate that with words, not aggression.

 

No body has said anything about smashing the place up stick to facts no scaremongering.Everyone as a fan has the right to peaceful protest which the vast majority have stuck to.

[Jimmy]

Yes I do if all is above board and fair. It would have been better if RW had actually cast his own vote and showed what he thought - after all he has that obligation as a shareholder to make a decision and not just pass it off to a group, who may or may not represent all the supporters.

 

Ask yourself why he did not give his proxy to the Board then. Rather than give it to any individual group he gave it to the SC.....Yes the fans.

[deanleese]

Yes I do if all is above board and fair. It would have been better if RW had actually cast his own vote and showed what he thought - after all he has that obligation as a shareholder to make a decision and not just pass it off to a group, who may or may not represent all the supporters.

 

Two forms of offence in that post...

 

The suggestion that the supporters club will do anything less than use all avenues to reach as many shareholders and supporters to ascertain their views.

 

The tiring view that the supporters wanting change are still in the minority.