EGM to be called

[Howjy04]

There needs to be a massive turnout of shareholders and a good few amount of large ones to succeed I fear.They still must be squitting themselves.===

[Animal]

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?

 

No..he could vote himself on the board too.

[Bede]

Malc - is a clause possible on the vote of no confidence to reveal which way the board vote?

 

ie, if the board win the vote but if their vote is disclosed and shows that the fans minus the board's votes would have passed a vote of no confidence, this would then give a true reflection on whether the shareholders acutally have any faith in the current board.

 

It's rather dodgy to allow the board to vote in a vote of no confidence for themselves and if they do, we should at least be shown a true reflection.

[WV]

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

 

 

 

Is that how it works in business though? I could buy £100 worth of shares in Vodafone but I wouldn't expect the same amount of input as somebody with 1000x more shares than myself.

[Animal]

I think the General meeting is realistically just a good method of putting more pressure on the board.

[Howjy04]

What's the betting there's a block on shares sales for the next few weeks .

[HappyClapper]

A vote of no confidence isn't really a legal resolution.

 

If a resolution to remove a director is put forward, he as a shareholder could vote...what would happen in a two director company where one tried to vote off the other??

 

Its my understanding from what I've read about the Vale AGM's (or what others have posted about AGM's in general) is that if a director is up for re-election he has to leave the room during the ballot from the same source I believe that those directors cannot vote for themselves.

 

I would imagine that the same process would apply in a vote of no confidence - Bratt wouldn't be able to vote for himself but could vote for Jackson, Oliver, Lloyd etc.

[Animal]

Its my understanding from what I've read about the Vale AGM's (or what others have posted about AGM's in general) is that if a director is up for re-election he has to leave the room during the ballot from the same source I believe that those directors cannot vote for themselves.

 

I would imagine that the same process would apply in a vote of no confidence - Bratt wouldn't be able to vote for himself but could vote for Jackson, Oliver, Lloyd etc.

 

There isn't a resolution to call a vote of no confidence...Its not in the articles because the Result has no legal implications...if all shareholders (minus the board) want to express their opinion in the form of a vote they can...doesn't mean anything from a company law point of view though.

[grebovale]

ANIMAL..... you seem to be well up with the info,if you don't mind me asking ,whats your profession?

[Animal]

ANIMAL..... you seem to be well up with the info,if you don't mind me asking ,whats your profession?

 

Not telling...you'll stereotype me as boring

[Mellor!]

Would they still have 31 percent with Thompstone and Humphreys leaving the board though? They could well now be with us. What kind of share holding do they have? And would it give a good percentage swing in our favour, if they were to vote against the current board?

[grebovale]

Not telling...you'll stereotype me as boring

 

GEEK ......... :cool::cool:

[Andyregs]

As much as I want the board gone, and the EGM is a great way forward, I think its a crazy idea for one man one vote. If that was the way the club was run, then it would be an even bigger barrier to investment that the crazy 24.9% rule. Who would invest £5 million if they only get the same power as someone who has £50 worth. Its the same logic that shows why anyone would be crazy to invest their money into the club and allow V2001 to stay in place. And as much as I support Mo and LB, if he does invest £1.2 million, I don't for one minute expect a £50 shareholder to be given the same amount of power as himself.

Great move to keep up the pressure, and show the shareholders wishes, but anything other than One share one vote will leave the process open to criticism. We have to give them no way out. Its an all or nothing tactic, but thats where we are.

[Animal]

GEEK ......... :cool::cool:

 

I've had worse insults!

[grebovale]

As much as I want the board gone, and the EGM is a great way forward, I think its a crazy idea for one man one vote. If that was the way the club was run, then it would be an even bigger barrier to investment that the crazy 24.9% rule. Who would invest £5 million if they only get the same power as someone who has £50 worth. Its the same logic that shows why anyone would be crazy to invest their money into the club and allow V2001 to stay in place. And as much as I support Mo and LB, if he does invest £1.2 million, I don't for one minute expect a £50 shareholder to be given the same amount of power as himself.

Great move to keep up the pressure, and show the shareholders wishes, but anything other than One share one vote will leave the process open to criticism. We have to give them no way out. Its an all or nothing tactic, but thats where we are.

 

Totaly agree with you unfortunately .......I suppose the EGM will be just to show the feelings of the majority,we must try and get all 900+ shareholders there ...