Shareholder Results

[Stuart Salt]

Hi Ben, as has been mentioned before, we will be releasing a statement on Thursday detailing our next actions following on from the release of this information.

 

Watch this space.

 

Stuart - NLV

[Birches Head Fred]

So whats the next step from here?

 

I'm not sure Ben, I suppose it will depend on wether or not there are sufficient 'Votes' available to force an EGM.

 

We will have to wait and see.......TIK TOK. ;)

[Burslem Academicals]

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

 

No the headline should read that in a highly representative poll of shareholders the statistic from the numbers who cast their vote is

that there is an 82% VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE in the V2001 Board

and furthermore to remove the Board you need 51% of votes cast.

The Chairman Bill Bratt has clearly stated that if the fans do not want

him he will stand down and so the press awaits a statement from the

club that the Chairman has resigned.......so the headline should read

"BRATT RESIGNS following an 82% VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE."

[Birdy]

Oh wait, where is Colininthebox and his buddys official statements.

 

I have to say, I am concerned about the other 60%. If the majority of these didn't feel strongly enough to send it back, they will most likely just agree to the current situation. Obviously some will not have received it etc, but to say the rest of the shareholders will yield the same averages I just cant agree with.

 

Out of the other 59.5% who didn't vote, I would argue that a large number of that wouldn't vote at an AGM/EGM, won't reply to the boards mail out and aren't interested in the politics of the club. They just want to watch their team, the rest is irrelevant to them. I know many people like that regarding Port Vale and political life in general.

 

One thing that is consistent is the three polls NLV have conducted, the results are the same and have no confidence in the board to do the right thing. That roughly equates to feelings on here and PVO, conversations on the terraces and in the pubs and comments in the Sentinel and on Radio Stoke. The felling of supporters is pretty consistent and we have to acknowledge the 15-25% who are pro board in all this too, that statistic is consistent who ever you ask, wherever you ask and to how many you ask.

[Shropshire_Valiant]

Spot on Birdy! Well summed up!

[Valiant1981]

Out of the other 59.5% who didn't vote, I would argue that a large number of that wouldn't vote at an AGM/EGM, won't reply to the boards mail out and aren't interested in the politics of the club. They just want to watch their team, the rest is irrelevant to them. I know many people like that regarding Port Vale and political life in general.

 

One thing that is consistent is the three polls NLV have conducted, the results are the same and have no confidence in the board to do the right thing. That roughly equates to feelings on here and PVO, conversations on the terraces and in the pubs and comments in the Sentinel and on Radio Stoke. The felling of supporters is pretty consistent and we have to acknowledge the 15-25% who are pro board in all this too, that statistic is consistent who ever you ask, wherever you ask and to how many you ask.

 

Fair point.

 

I forgot to say, a huge well done/thankyou to NLV for gathering this data. I am sure a lot of your own time and resources went into it.

[VantaaVale]

I have to say the coverage given to the poll by the Sentinel is absolutely shocking. I smell a (b)rat(t).

 

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/vale/portvalenews/Port-Vale-Poll-setback-board/article-3335832-detail/article.html

[Birdy]

I have to say the coverage given to the poll by the Sentinel is absolutely shocking. I smell a (b)rat(t).

 

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/vale/portvalenews/Port-Vale-Poll-setback-board/article-3335832-detail/article.html

I think they are doing a bigger story tomorrow.

[Barcroft]

40% is an excellent turn out for this sort of thing.

 

I think we can safely say the 60% who didn't bother to vote either don't know enough about what is going on, or didn't care enough to return their voting forms. Therefore it would seem that the most passionate and in-the-know shareholders want to get rid of Valaint 2001 and sell the club to Mo.

 

We can also safely assume that those who have gone out to purchase shares are largely very pasisonate fans who responded to Bill Bratt's plea to 'invest'.

 

And I can't see how anyone would vote in the boards poll of shareholders if they haven't voted in this one, except for the minority who couldn't be contacted. Unless of course the envelope comes stuffed with propaganda letters.

 

What I can't figure out is why the board has chosen to spend money on repeating a poll which has allready happened. There have been calls for the board to carry out this poll for months, so why wait until a poll has allready been carried out by the fans?

[VantaaVale]

What I can't figure out is why the board has chosen to spend money on repeating a poll which has allready happened. There have been calls for the board to carry out this poll for months, so why wait until a poll has allready been carried out by the fans?

 

The old saying "time is money". In this case they are buying time (or trying to).

[Guest W00DY]

I don't think its a bad sentinel story. It states the exact facts in a nutshell.

[Heatwave]

I don't think its a bad sentinel story. It states the exact facts in a nutshell.

 

It does, but any story of this type usually calls for quotes, say from Birdy or someone else at NLV and from the Board - even though it would be met with a stiff 'no comment' from the latter, that would speak volumes to anyone else reading it.

 

I'll be pleased if the Sentinel does make a bigger thing of it tomorrow as Vantaa says but I won't hold my breath.

[Rock]

Your use of the emotive term "dictatorship" is amusing given the Club's current sitaution.

 

Views of everyone considered , yes.

 

Majority decision taken, yes.

 

The current regime are far worse than dictators i am merely asking as there are people who have views different from the B&G stance. Rather than slate them maybe a constructive dialogue should be taken with them.A thread perhaps where posters can ask the B&G team questions without becoming a slanging match.

 

After all we all are Vale fans but some share different views I remember most of those now against the board arguing with me when I stated in 2003/04 that the board was same boss different name and needed getting rid of. I ask this because i am becoming increasingly frustrated as to some peoples attitude towards people who are geniunely for change but have reservations and need persuading.

 

I remember when the B&G announced it was backing Mo's bid I was slated for airing my opinion that I disagreed with that decision, I had emails before from B&G but since that day I have not received anything I also had people quoting my facebook posts offering Mo support asking me what has changed my view since then. The answer is nothing had changed my mind I had my view that backing one bidder was a mistake i aired it.

 

 

I still support B&G so please don't come back and patronise me with you have the club you deserve. I deserve like any other Vale fan to have my views aired. To dismiss people in this way is no different to how V2001 have treated fans since the start. Yes there are idiots who are winding people up and are posting for Bratt etc, but there are those of us who are behind change but have reservations & questions.

[the old bycars tea bar]

fantastic work, get the egm called chaps

 

i wonder if the board would show up for the egm, they would probably send that stokie with their proxy

[Bede]

Questions are all good Mark, reservations are also fine. What isn't fine is to say I dunner like Mo but conner / wunner say. There is a massive list of reasons against the board / pro Mo but still not a single sensible argument against him.

 

I'm not saying don't not support him but people get attacked such as Markie G because they don't offer a constructive debate about why Mo may not be good to take the club on.