EGM to be called

[Animal]

Surely though voting to remove a director is the same as voting one on, where the director can't vote for himself?

 

Removing a director requires 51% of voting shares....that's it...that director can vote on his future...what if he owned 90% of shares!!?

[Howjy04]

Please see wikipedia Bill Kenright( Everton) an EGM was called by shareholders and the one man one vote method was used stating that was the norm at an EGM.===

[flipster]

Expect the V2001 Directors to suddenly find some cash to buy up enough shares to be safe and block anyone else buying them....

 

What's to stop them buying shares and then the club buying them back once they're safe. Hasn't this discretionary buy back precedent been set by the club buying back Melv's shares?

[Animal]

Please see wikipedia Bill Kenright( Everton) an EGM was called by shareholders and the one man one vote method was used stating that was the norm at an EGM.===

 

Wouldn't that be nice!!...like i said...we can put it forward in the hope the board will accept it.

[saintvaliant]

Great news, an important step towards change.

 

With regards to voting, the board have set a precedent of referring first to a show of hands in the room on motions.

 

Of course, they can then take it to a poll vote however I would expect the first voting to go so far against them that it may well do the job.

[Birdy]

We have been consulting with professionals all week so all the procedure and questions will be done in accordance to standard practices. We wanted to release this information to keep everybody informed with events.

 

Malcolm, the NLV official spokesperson will keep us updated as and when it happens.

[Twitters]

Removing a director requires 51% of voting shares....that's it...that director can vote on his future...what if he owned 90% of shares!!?

 

If it was a vote to elect him though, the other 10% could say no and he'd be off the board.

 

That's what I'm struggling to get my head around, what's the difference?

[Howjy04]

Wouldn't that be nice!!...like i said...we can put it forward in the hope the board will accept it.

 

Sorry .read it again it says ' one share one vote'.ie a person with 50 shares can vote 50 times .===

[Fosse69]

In that case the next and only option is ......

 

 

Starve them out.

 

Do not despair, the board will not vote as one after all we have heard. How about ex-directors and other larger shareholders? After that surely the majority of founder shareholders will be for change.

[ancient mariner]

well done to all concerned.

its a shame that our guardians can't share the same dedication

and the willingness to do right by our club. paul.

[Burslem Academicals]

What is to stop the V2001 buying up enough extra shares to be safe and they can block anyone else buying shares therefore it can be an engineered vote inorder to keep the closed shop.

If Robbie Williams continues not to vote then only 75% of shares at best will be cast and that 30% V2001 holding is all the more powerfull.

As V2001 have 30% then 75% is impossible based on shares so it has to be one man one vote or there is no point.....unless the aim of the EGM is simply to remove the V2001 Board and the £50,000 "incoming" Director rule inorder to set up an interim Board that could then oversee the sale of shares to Mo Chaudry and friends inorder to then do the same as the Board who will vote for themselves and simply engineer 75%.....

If it is not one man one vote it could be a mess but there should be enough to vote Bratt&Co out and then Mo Chaudry along with friends and associates

can invest and hold power.

[Howjy04]

It looks like a show of hands is the only way in.how bizarre 200 people voting against a handful and losing .

[The Man in the Stand]

This might not be as cut and dried as we hoped .........I just cant see Jackson allowing one man one vote.

 

On the plus side Birdy has said they are consulting with the professionals on procedures and questions, so lets keep our fingers crossed.

[WV]

Should someone with £44,000 worth of shares be able to block an investment of £1.2 million plus?

 

 

If I owned £50'000 worth of shares I would want more input than that of 999 people who own £50 worth each. Even in a 999/1 voting situation if the one owns more isn't it fair that the one person should get the overall decision due to a larger investment in total?

 

All this confuses me a bit.

[Burt]

If I owned £50'000 worth of shares I would want more input than that of 999 people who own £50 worth each. Even in a 999/1 voting situation if the one owns more isn't it fair that the one person should get the overall decision due to a larger investment in total?

 

All this confuses me a bit.

 

no. we're all supporters, and those who've parted with their cash in shares should have as much say as anyone.