Adams Out!

[Jinkin John Jeffers]

Can anybody clear this up for me

 

Robbie wanted to sponsor upto 4 people on the board at 50k each and were turned away as it is not allowed under V2001 rule's. Yet Ameriturf can have 2 sponsored reps for there 400k "investment" if this is the proposal then Robbies offer should not have been turned down??

[Princey]

What you seem to miss is that quite a few of the folk on here that post have shares - and if they are rogue fans, then they are also rogue shareholders.....over 90% of shareholders are rogue according to your logic....

 

Yes but those shareholders have just voted and democratically kept 3 board members in. Now they want them out.

They wanted Adams to stay last time and only dont want him now as it doesnt suit there cause. Same with a position on the board, just whinging for whingings sake..

They need to lighten up a bit, if things aint right by say Xmas time then that will be fair enough to have a little whinge...

But straight after a "called for" EGM and then a casting vote along with the managers return to the club and no ball being kicked yet then this is not all bad news, in fact non of it is..

[tisdeano]

Yes but those shareholders have just voted and democratically kept 3 board members in. Now they want them out.

They wanted Adams to stay last time and only dont want him now as it doesnt suit there cause. Same with a position on the board, just whinging for whingings sake..

They need to lighten up a bit, if things aint right by say Xmas time then that will be fair enough to have a little whinge...

But straight after a "called for" EGM and then a casting vote along with the managers return to the club and no ball being kicked yet then this is not all bad news, in fact non of it is..

 

But you agree Bill should resign ?

[Burslem Academicals]

Football reasons is a lie....look at the big picture and a deal for 53% control

despite an EGM vote of no confidence that removed Bratt&Co from power....

set against the real emergency of not having left back cover in the off season

and Adams had ample time to sign up Sutton and Roberts on contracts offered.

If it was football reasons then the resignation of the three Directors and

record investment would be football reasons and acting to protect and aid

the "consortium" make a deal for 53% control with no mandate against the

wishes of 90% of the clubs owners that voted the Board out of power at the EGM is way beyond football reasons.

[Santa]

Yes but those shareholders have just voted and democratically kept 3 board members in. Now they want them out.

The vast majority of shareholders (ie people who own shares) voted against the board.

 

A minority of 6 board supporters pooled 75,000 shares between them and swung the vote in their favour.

 

Princey, do you accept the wishes of the majority who voted to accept Ordinary Resolution 1?

[Adavale]

Some people are going well over the top here, cant be arsed to read through all the pages but the head line alone really ****** me off and i now believe that some people have gone from being anti board to anti PORT VALE FOOTBALL CLUB and are just finding problems with everything anyone connected with the club does. I personally am not a supporter of the current board and cant wait to see the back of them, but i am & always have been & more importantly always will be a true & loyal supporter of PORT VALE FOOTBALL CLUB, so my advice to the doom & gloom merchants is to get over it and start supporting the club you all claim to LOVE.............

[Fosse69]

Yes but those shareholders have just voted and democratically kept 3 board members in. Now they want them out.

They wanted Adams to stay last time and only dont want him now as it doesnt suit there cause. Same with a position on the board, just whinging for whingings sake..

They need to lighten up a bit, if things aint right by say Xmas time then that will be fair enough to have a little whinge...

But straight after a "called for" EGM and then a casting vote along with the managers return to the club and no ball being kicked yet then this is not all bad news, in fact non of it is..

 

90% of shareholders against, hardly democracy

[the old bycars tea bar]

just think a walsall fan a chairman a dodgy insurance man, a hippy and a ex stokie blade on the board as well

 

and a carpet shop on the lorne street to boot

 

 

it's all great:D:D:D:D

[Princey]

The vast majority of shareholders (ie people who own shares) voted against the board.

 

A minority of 6 board supporters pooled 75,000 shares between them and swung the vote in their favour.

 

Princey, do you accept the wishes of the majority who voted to accept Ordinary Resolution 1?

 

Not saying its right or wrong.

Once you get some people with more power than others with there vote then its usually going to end up with warped figures and tears one way or another. What if we had just 2 shareholders, one with 1 share, the other with a zillion shares ?. I know whos vote would count ina ballot.

Until it is 1 vote for 1 fan (or just season ticket holders even) then the best and "fairest" result we can get is the one we get.

Its like the arguement against 1 man having overall power.. His word is the end of it all, ala Abramovich..

[MagicFlask]

Yes but those shareholders have just voted and democratically kept 3 board members in. Now they want them out.

They wanted Adams to stay last time and only dont want him now as it doesnt suit there cause. Same with a position on the board, just whinging for whingings sake..

They need to lighten up a bit, if things aint right by say Xmas time then that will be fair enough to have a little whinge...

But straight after a "called for" EGM and then a casting vote along with the managers return to the club and no ball being kicked yet then this is not all bad news, in fact non of it is..

 

You really didn't read what I wrote. I said over 90% of shareholders, not all of them. The fact that the vote of no confidence was passed seems to suggest to me (but obviously not in your part of the universe) that the shareholders had no confidence in the current board.

The only reason the board weren't totally removed is because of some very twisted voting decisions.....and because they own more shares than anyone.

OK, that's the way the rules are, but please don't be fooled into thinking the vote against was "a few rogue fans".....

 

I don't mind Adams staying as manager, but he should never ever be a Director - and he's made it totally clear that it wasn't his idea, and that he was asked. He seems to have no real idea what the job involves, either, if you read or listen to what he says.

 

So whoever asked him must have been a current director, and the fact that he's being sponsored by a Director who's just been voted out by the "rogue shareholders" suggests that they are still working to exclude everyone they can from their little party.

 

What casting vote was it, by the way? I don't recall one....

Just a question - are you actually a shareholder?

 

You'll be whinging if the Vale end up in the Blue Square - or spend any more years in League 2 - and who will YOU blame???

[Princey]

You really didn't read what I wrote. I said over 90% of shareholders, not all of them. The fact that the vote of no confidence was passed seems to suggest to me (but obviously not in your part of the universe) that the shareholders had no confidence in the current board.

The only reason the board weren't totally removed is because of some very twisted voting decisions.....and because they own more shares than anyone.

OK, that's the way the rules are, but please don't be fooled into thinking the vote against was "a few rogue fans".....

 

I don't mind Adams staying as manager, but he should never ever be a Director - and he's made it totally clear that it wasn't his idea, and that he was asked. He seems to have no real idea what the job involves, either, if you read or listen to what he says.

 

So whoever asked him must have been a current director, and the fact that he's being sponsored by a Director who's just been voted out by the "rogue shareholders" suggests that they are still working to exclude everyone they can from their little party.

 

What casting vote was it, by the way? I don't recall one....

Just a question - are you actually a shareholder?

 

You'll be whinging if the Vale end up in the Blue Square - or spend any more years in League 2 - and who will YOU blame???

 

Hope i answered most of this in replying to Santas post...

I am not a shareholder, and have no intention of being one, along with the vast majority of supporters.

But if my euromillions numbers come in then i may have a say in a bit of it !!

[MagicFlask]

Hope i answered most of this in replying to Santas post...

I am not a shareholder, and have no intention of being one, along with the vast majority of supporters.

But if my euromillions numbers come in then i may have a say in a bit of it !!

 

Why have you no intention of being a shareholder? It's supposed to be a fan owned club, or so we were told....the V2001 charter promised it, and that's why I had shares...it cost my ex £100 quid as a birthday present, so not exactly euromillions involved.

Or maybe it's not MEANT to be fan owned, unless you are one of the select few fans......and the rest of us are just there to make up the numbers....

 

If your euromillions did come up, there's no guarantee you'd be allowed to buy shares now anyway.....the Board have the absolute power to decide....or Mark Sims would be a shareholder by now....

[Santa]

What if we had just 2 shareholders, one with 1 share, the other with a zillion shares ?. I know whos vote would count ina ballot.

The 24.9% rule would prevent such a situation from occuring.

 

That said, the spirit of the 24.9% rule is being trampled all over at the minute. A ruling cabal was never meant to have so much power that it could suppress the majority of supporters.

 

What about Ordinary Resolution 1, surely the board have to honour that now?

[Princey]

Why have you no intention of being a shareholder? It's supposed to be a fan owned club, or so we were told....the V2001 charter promised it, and that's why I had shares...it cost my ex £100 quid as a birthday present, so not exactly euromillions involved.

Or maybe it's not MEANT to be fan owned, unless you are one of the select few fans......and the rest of us are just there to make up the numbers....

 

If your euromillions did come up, there's no guarantee you'd be allowed to buy shares now anyway.....the Board have the absolute power to decide....or Mark Sims would be a shareholder by now....

 

Thats partly my point.

Who on here would want me or anyone else to own the club all by themselves ??...And the more people who make a decision (1 vote/share each) is the fairest way to deal with it all... Never gona happen tho...

[Guest valiant1876]

how can u be so stupid.......he wants to get the ball rollin and get on with next season..........get a grip!!!