Proxy Envelopes Delivered

[werstayinup]

Would be interested to hear why you think 50/50. I would have thought nearly all the forms returned to the club would be handing their proxy to the chairman. Why goto the trouble of following the NLV advice re crossing out/replacing of names and then ignore the bit about were to send the form? Just the same as I cant imagine anyone naming the chairman as their proxy and sending the form to NLV - it makes no sense.

 

Not all fans would know to send them to NLV:rolleyes:

 

Going off your posts over the past few months you appear very pro board and anti change,is this true?? nowt wrong with that if you are.

[AVIM]

Not all fans would know to send them to NLV:rolleyes:

 

Going off your posts over the past few months you appear very pro board and anti change,is this true?? nowt wrong with that if you are.

 

I thought NLV wrote to the same shareholders that the board did? So I assume they would know. And if they didn't, why would they send their form to the club giving their proxy to NLV if they hadn't read the NLV letter? Anyway, the question to the OP was how he came up with 50/50.

 

And what was pro-board or anti-change about my question!? What a strange thing to say.

[werstayinup]

I thought NLV wrote to the same shareholders that the board did? So I assume they would know. And if they didn't, why would they send their form to the club giving their proxy to NLV if they hadn't read the NLV letter? Anyway, the question to the OP was how he came up with 50/50.

 

And what was pro-board or anti-change about my question!? What a strange thing to say.

 

Nothing,i just wanted to see if you would answer the question that i have been asking the other pro board folk on here if you were,as they seem to keep missing it.

[NLVMalc]

Would be interested to hear why you think 50/50. I would have thought nearly all the forms returned to the club would be handing their proxy to the chairman. Why goto the trouble of following the NLV advice re crossing out/replacing of names and then ignore the bit about were to send the form? Just the same as I cant imagine anyone naming the chairman as their proxy and sending the form to NLV - it makes no sense.

 

Firstly, the reason mention above. A number of proxies would have gone before we went out letter. The default position is to send them back to the club.

 

Secondly, I am confident on the data we have from our survey indicating a high level of support from individual shareholders backing change. There has been nothing in the public forums to suggest any significant change of mind from the shareholders. If anything opinion seems to have hardened

[AVIM]

Nothing,i just wanted to see if you would answer the question that i have been asking the other pro board folk on here if you were,as they seem to keep missing it.

 

Whats the question?

[AVIM]

Firstly, the reason mention above. A number of proxies would have gone before we went out letter. The default position is to send them back to the club.

 

Secondly, I am confident on the data we have from our survey indicating a high level of support from individual shareholders backing change. There has been nothing in the public forums to suggest any significant change of mind from the shareholders. If anything opinion seems to have hardened

 

I think most turning up on the day will be pro-Mo, so if you are right then that would translate into a victory by a country mile.

 

I guess we only have to wait a couple of days to find out!

[werstayinup]

Whats the question?

 

Give me some valid reasons why not to want Mo and Mark over V2001?

[AVIM]

Give me some valid reasons why not to want Mo and Mark over V2001?

 

Oh.. That old chestnut. :)

[Tommy McLarens Boots]

I thought NLV wrote to the same shareholders that the board did? So I assume they would know. And if they didn't, why would they send their form to the club giving their proxy to NLV if they hadn't read the NLV letter?

 

NLV stated on here that they would stand as proxy voters for shareholders who couldn't make the EGM. This statement was made after the forms had been delivered to shareholders homes but before NLV's letters were sent out. Consequently a number of people I know sent their proxys to the club but nominating NLV. Hope this makes sense.

[werstayinup]

Oh.. That old chestnut. :)

 

Yes,so are you able to answer it:unsure:

[AVIM]

NLV stated on here that they would stand as proxy voters for shareholders who couldn't make the EGM. This statement was made after the forms had been delivered to shareholders homes but before NLV's letters were sent out. Consequently a number of people I know sent their proxys to the club but nominating NLV. Hope this makes sense.

 

Makes sense!

[Stone Valiant]

Oh.. That old chestnut. :)

 

Well you have to agree that I have not heard one constructive statement, agenda or plan for what the current board have fopr Port Vale, and most certainly not to the extent and detail of the business plan laid out by Mo!

 

I would just like for once to hear from the Board why it should be them, rather than statements as to why it should not be anyone else...

 

All very negative!

[melv]

Oh.. That old chestnut. :)

 

.... and your answer is?

[AVIM]

Yes,so are you able to answer it:unsure:

 

Ummm. I can try on their behalf I guess!

 

- The know over the unknown, less "personality" risk.

- Many of the problems of the past have been overcome. A new professional CEO, new sales and marketing staff, a good/great football manager installed, some new investment. None of these things have been given time to see how they pan out.

- The removal of the 24.9% rule, giving overall control to one person. If Mo gets in he wont be accountable because of his controlling shareholding. There will be no EGM to oust him if it goes pear shaped.

- Dilution of current shareholders through the use of convertible debt issued to Mo means shareholders wont share in any upside of Mo's risk taking, but will share fully in the downside.

- A divorce lawyer as CEO.

- Potential danger of bad relationship between MA and MO - we know MA gets on well with the current lot

 

I dunno, I suppose I could think up some more! But its all imaterial now, the vote is upon us.

 

For what its worth, I think there are arguments both for and against Mo's takeover. I personally feel that the weight of argument is clearly in favour of Mo, but I can see that that there are at least points on which an anti-Mo argument can be based.

[Guest TommyMac]

Ummm. I can try on their behalf I guess!

 

- The know over the unknown, less "personality" risk.

- Many of the problems of the past have been overcome. A new professional CEO, new sales and marketing staff, a good/great football manager installed, some new investment. None of these things have been given time to see how they pan out.

- The removal of the 24.9% rule, giving overall control to one person. If Mo gets in he wont be accountable because of his controlling shareholding. There will be no EGM to oust him if it goes pear shaped.

- Dilution of current shareholders through the use of convertible debt issued to Mo means shareholders wont share in any upside of Mo's risk taking, but will share fully in the downside.

- A divorce lawyer as CEO.

- Potential danger of bad relationship between MA and MO - we know MA gets on well with the current lot

 

I dunno, I suppose I could think up some more! But its all imaterial now, the vote is upon us.

 

For what its worth, I think there are arguments both for and against Mo's takeover. I personally feel that the weight of argument is clearly in favour of Mo, but I can see that that there are at least points on which an anti-Mo argument can be based.

 

 

Well at least you have tried which is more than the board or any of its supporters have done previously.

 

If I may offer a counter to your points......

 

The know over the unknown, less "personality" risk.

The 'known' has not historically worked (unless the mere existence of the club can be deemed success) and sometimes in life you have to take a leap of faith to fulfil your potential. I feel PVFC under the right stewardship has great potential.

 

Many of the problems of the past have been overcome. A new professional CEO, new sales and marketing staff, a good/great football manager installed, some new investment. None of these things have been given time to see how they pan out.

The new CEO and sales and marketing staff have so far achieved very little but as you say they have had little time. I'm also of the belief they would not have been appointed if not for the protests. Too little too late I'm afraid. One decent managerial appointment out of seven is it? This does not give me much optimism for the next appointment. The investment by AGS, if genuine, is again too little too late, certainly not enough to sustain a challenge on the Championship and barely enough to cover the annual losses.

 

The removal of the 24.9% rule, giving overall control to one person. If Mo gets in he wont be accountable because of his controlling shareholding. There will be no EGM to oust him if it goes pear shaped.

Chaudry stated on saturday he would be willing to invest at 24.9%. Personally I'd rather he had full control but he is confident he will have a board of investors all pulling in the same direction for the good of PVFC. I'm sure he isn't so naive to not realise the power of the fanbase with or without shares.

 

Dilution of current shareholders through the use of convertible debt issued to Mo means shareholders wont share in any upside of Mo's risk taking, but will share fully in the downside.

Surely with Chaudry's financial clout and business plan any risk to the shareholders is significantly less than it is now. He has stated any director's loans will not become repayable until the club is in a position to start making those repayments. He stands to lose a lot of money if things go wrong

 

A divorce lawyer as CEO.

A 'divorce lawyer' who has acted for many football players and clubs and I would hazard a guess has considerably more contacts than our previous or current CEO.

 

Potential danger of bad relationship between MA and MO - we know MA gets on well with the current lot.

MA is a good manager for PVFC. We could do a lot worse and IMO we could do a bit better. Whether MA has the success this time around remains to be seen but no employee is bigger than the club. MC has said he wants to work with MA. If MA does not want to work with a bigger playing budget under MC, then so be it.

 

Once again I appreciate you putting forward a case for the board and at least you didn't mention Mo selling the ground :D