Shareholder Results

[Birdy]

So in that case the headline "77% of Port Vale shareholders have no confidence in the current board" is utter bull*****.

 

The same could be said of any local or general election. The country is run on a party that gained 36.1% of the national vote (of which around 60% of the electorate voted). We do not live in a country that dictates who should or shouldn't vote, it's our choice.

 

The stat mirrors all of our three polls be it 8, 100 or 350+. We cannot make shareholders vote, it is their right not to as well as their right to vote.

 

We do expect excuses as their is no depth or factual evidence to the pro board argument.

[Caz or caz123]

A brilliant response. Well done to all concerned.

 

 

It'll be interesting to see what the results will be from the Clubs own poll.

[banbell]

The same could be said of any local or general election. The country is run on a party that gained 36.1% of the national vote (of which around 60% of the electorate voted). We do not live in a country that dictates who should or shouldn't vote, it's our choice.

 

The stat mirrors all of our three polls be it 8, 100 or 350+. We cannot make shareholders vote, it is their right not to as well as their right to vote.

 

We do expect excuses as their is no depth or factual evidence to the pro board argument.

 

Totally agree with you their pal, just pointing out that the headline that accompanies the article is totally inaccurate and misleading.

[Howjy04]

This is the massive elephant in the room.

 

To remove the board you'd need 51% of votes cast.

 

Saying 77% of shareholders means nothing, it's not a one shareholder one vote system.

 

It's great work by NLV and it shows what we all know, most people want them out.

 

Big question, do the 80% of shareholders who responded they would use their vote to call an egm have the required shares to do so? If so then it really gets interesting. Hopefully the "further statement" to come indicates that's the next step.

hinted at that on the Vale to poll supporters thread .answered as a yes.===

[valetillidye]

So in that case the headline "77% of Port Vale shareholders have no confidence in the current board" is utter bull*****.

 

no its not bull****

 

How often do you see adverts for things that say something like "reduces wrinkles in 99% of cases" for example and then 3 pages on there is a bit of small print that says "of 30 people sampled

 

I had to do some work on marketing last year as part of my role and did a course on surveys, as other people have said - a 40% response rate is an absolutely phenomenal result

 

When I first read about with NLF were doing I kept my fingers crossed that we could maybe get close to 30% as even that would buck the usual trend !

[Guest Aub]

Actually, the good thing about a PVFC poll is that the newer shareholders since the 2008 list are more likely to be anti-board. So any erosion of the anti vote by the reasons I gave in my previous post will be countered by more anti voters being able to vote this time.

[Sonny]

Congratulations to all at NLV for conducting the Poll

 

Which ever way you read the result it shows that those who did vote gave

 

the board a ****** nose,it will also give them food for thought.

 

I dont think the board will do a Poll, and if they do it will be weeks away,

 

Bratts pronouncements tend to get lost in the mists of time, and he does

 

tend to forget what hes said.

 

If the board do a Poll I hope its done in the same professional way as

 

NLV's ..........Why am I not holding my breath ? ===

[andy jones]

I have a couple of huge concerns ...

 

1) The Questions the Board ask in their poll will not be as unbiased as NLV's.

 

2) There is no independent overview of the Board's poll - who is to say that respondents will be factually recorded.

[IanW]

Totally agree with you their pal, just pointing out that the headline that accompanies the article is totally inaccurate and misleading.

 

No it isn't. Just like any electoral vote for local councils and government. 40% is a very high response and can officially be seen as very accurate.

[Alan Baker]

What marvellous data and made even better by the fact that, I think, it used shareholder info up until 2008.

 

Anyone (150+) who bought after that date and who, I guess that the Club will poll, will almost certainly be anti-Board, if they have any sense.

 

Taxi for Jackson.

[NLVMalc]

On 3rd March I posted ..

 

"...I would make a rough guess that anyone who doesn't give a stuff anyway, will throw it in the bin. Let's say 50% of the "pro-board" lobby.

 

I would also guess that 2-5% of the shareholders have actually died since that time. Some will have moved house. 15% pa... so that is going to be a significant figure.

 

I predict that NLV's get a 47% return and that 77% of those are anti-board/pro-change...."

 

Got lambasted for that, as per usual - but not far off. But there is still an issue with those who saw the poll as an anti-board campaign and threw it in the bin. So I disagree with the following comment.

 

"He concluded that it is unlikely that any club led postal consultation would yeild higher response rates and to that extent the NLV shareholders survey is likely to produce findings which are statistically reliable, valid and representative of the views of shareholders.” An official PVFC poll might up the pro-board vote.

 

On the other hand, I agree with the following...

 

"The survey also shows that enough people have replied and voted to force an egm so it doesn't matter if the board agree with the findings or not, an egm will now no doubt be called. That is where it will get interesting and could make or break the present campaigns.."

 

All depends on the boards stance on one-man, one-vote. And this vote means that Mo Chaudry is unlikely to walk away.

 

Aub

 

I said at the time I thought your guestimates were pretty good ones - mainly because they were pretty close to my own....:D

 

Well done...and thanks for your constructive comments.

[Sonny]

I have a couple of huge concerns ...

 

1) The Questions the Board ask in their poll will not be as unbiased as NLV's.

 

2) There is no independent overview of the Board's poll - who is to say that respondents will be factually recorded.

 

I agree Andrew,

 

If they run a Poll,how will the questions be loaded,and as you know after the farce of the AGM can you imagine the counting procedure,it

would be nice to see if it was done independantly but I dont think they have the courage to allow that.

[billbee33]

Brilliant work NLV, brilliant response shareholders, now lets get an egm, over to you all shareholders, lets get at them.

[Timothius]

This is what worries me though Tim, surely the board will win any egm due to their shareholding. Or are people confident it can be done on 1 share, 1 vote.

 

Andy, it depends on what we are voting on and who votes. If we were voting on something that needed a 51% vote to carry, then I think we stand a good chance, on 75% it would be close. Again it very much depends if major shareholders who have previously been apathetic, actually use their vote. Today and tomorrow will be interesting to say the least.

[Timothius]

So in that case the headline "77% of Port Vale shareholders have no confidence in the current board" is utter bull*****.

 

Here we go, clutching at straws again. There is another thread with a load of questions put to you that you haven't answered, toodle along to that and amuse yourself and then we might take you a bit more seriously.

 

On 3rd March I posted ..

 

"...I would make a rough guess that anyone who doesn't give a stuff anyway, will throw it in the bin. Let's say 50% of the "pro-board" lobby.

 

I would also guess that 2-5% of the shareholders have actually died since that time. Some will have moved house. 15% pa... so that is going to be a significant figure.

 

I predict that NLV's get a 47% return and that 77% of those are anti-board/pro-change...."

 

Got lambasted for that, as per usual - but not far off. But there is still an issue with those who saw the poll as an anti-board campaign and threw it in the bin. So I disagree with the following comment.

 

"He concluded that it is unlikely that any club led postal consultation would yeild higher response rates and to that extent the NLV shareholders survey is likely to produce findings which are statistically reliable, valid and representative of the views of shareholders.” An official PVFC poll might up the pro-board vote.

 

On the other hand, I agree with the following...

 

"The survey also shows that enough people have replied and voted to force an egm so it doesn't matter if the board agree with the findings or not, an egm will now no doubt be called. That is where it will get interesting and could make or break the present campaigns.."

 

All depends on the boards stance on one-man, one-vote. And this vote means that Mo Chaudry is unlikely to walk away.

 

Well done with your accurate predictions, just one point however, if someone received it who was very anti Chaudry or very pro board, surely they would have wanted to have their voice heard? Surely only the apathetic would thrown it in the bin

 

Actually, the good thing about a PVFC poll is that the newer shareholders since the 2008 list are more likely to be anti-board. So any erosion of the anti vote by the reasons I gave in my previous post will be countered by more anti voters being able to vote this time.

 

I thought of that last night and you may well be correct. I doubt, however, such a poll will take place and that any egm will have been called and held before PVFC even get round to their poll.

 

I have a couple of huge concerns ...

 

1) The Questions the Board ask in their poll will not be as unbiased as NLV's.

 

2) There is no independent overview of the Board's poll - who is to say that respondents will be factually recorded.

 

I thought the boards poll was to be run by an outside independent agency Dave? It matters not anyway as the shareholders will now say what happens with the Vale, not the board, they can do whatever they want to as i believe the shareholders will now call anegm and force the issue, time to get canvassing!

 

What marvellous data and made even better by the fact that, I think, it used shareholder info up until 2008.

 

Anyone (150+) who bought after that date and who, I guess that the Club will poll, will almost certainly be anti-Board, if they have any sense.

 

Taxi for Jackson.

 

At last Alan Baker smiles :D Slowly slowly catchy monkey Alan!