Future EGM

[Phil.j.B]

Eh?

 

 

I've just read Marky's post 5 times and still can't decipher it:blink:

[Stone Valiant]

Mo Chaudry advocated people not purchasing season tickets. He offered a 10% discount below the April price to those people who did not renew before the EGM.

 

Starve Them Out Statement:

 

"With Port Vale releasing 2011-2012 season ticket prices last week, Starve Em Out approached Mr Mo Chaudry to back our initiative. He generously responded by guaranteeing that every fan who signs the Starve Em Out pledge not to renew their season ticket will be able to purchase one at 10% below the current cheapest price available, once he takes over the club".

 

Also in conversations I have personally had with Mo the same was implied. I think the exact words were "sacrifices need to be made".

 

BL, the subject on this thread is about another EGM, not Mo Chaudry. I see once again that the tactics are to pervert the subject matter in question to change the debate about Mo did this and Mo said that. The subject of a new EGM has absolutely nothing to do with Mo Chaudry, so lets have no more mention of that please. Do not derail the debate from the subject on which it is intended!

 

Please stay on topic!

[BycarsLane]

Your initial post implies that it was Mo that initiated SEO.

 

Please provide a quote where I say this.

 

I could save you time and tell you there isn't one, but good luck!

[BycarsLane]

BL, the subject on this thread is about another EGM, not Mo Chaudry. I see once again that the tactics are to pervert the subject matter in question to change the debate about Mo did this and Mo said that. The subject of a new EGM has absolutely nothing to do with Mo Chaudry, so lets have no more mention of that please. Do not derail the debate from the subject on which it is intended!

 

Please stay on topic!

 

Stone Valiant,

 

I disagree and I am certainly not trying to derail the thread at all. If you read through my original posts you will see how I mention my concern that the results of a second EGM would be far less favourable unless we had the support of a major backer such as Mo. After all, what has changed since 1st June apart from the board consolidating their positions and Rob Lee switching sides.

 

The subject of a second EGM also has everything to do with Mo considering that he would likely be a major investor in the club should the present board be ousted (as this is the only obstacle in his way at the moment). Whilst admittedly the EGM would first be about getting our club back, should change be successful this time around and an interim board be appointed (highly unlikely), within days the interim board would be considering Mo's formal bid. Therefore the EGM and Mo Chaudry are interconnected with one another despite what you say.

 

I see that you are trying to divert the attention away from Mo Chaudry. Maybe it would be cynical to suggest, but perhaps this is a ploy by certain OVF members to ensure that a future EGM does not focus on Chaudry's bid. Debate surrounding the last EGM focused too much on Chaudry the man and this probably lost pro-change the EGM in the end as people didn't trust his motives.

[nowag]

Hi Dad,

 

In the wake of the EGM I have been contacted by a fair number of elderly shareholders who advised they were confused with the voting form, and in particular believing that having voted no confidence in the board as a whole they did not need to then vote no confidence for each individual director. This might explain why the large discrepancy in the number of votes. If you total up the number who voted in the general no confidence vote you will find it strangely more than the total who voted in the individual votes.

 

If you think about it, it is illogical having voted no confidence in the board as a whole for the shareholders to then vote 3 of the protagonists back on.

 

If therefore there is to be another EGM then my advise to NLV is to keep to voting form as simple as possible.

 

Regards.

 

Everyone that wanted change just needed to vote 'for' all of the resolutions, the problem was the first [special] resolution had more parts to it which needed to be split up, Also on the paperwork supplies by NLV they should have asked every shareholder to vote 'for' all of the resolutions, [like the Jackson 5 said in there paperwork to vote 'against']

[tisdeano]

I've just read Marky's post 5 times and still can't decipher it:blink:

 

me neither, all very strange

[Stone Valiant]

Stone Valiant,

 

I disagree and I am certainly not trying to derail the thread at all. If you read through my original posts you will see how I mention my concern that the results of a second EGM would be far less favourable unless we had the support of a major backer such as Mo. After all, what has changed since 1st June apart from the board consolidating their positions and Rob Lee switching sides.

 

The subject of a second EGM also has everything to do with Mo considering that he would likely be a major investor in the club should the present board be ousted (as this is the only obstacle in his way at the moment). Whilst admittedly the EGM would first be about getting our club back, should change be successful this time around and an interim board be appointed (highly unlikely), within days the interim board would be considering Mo's formal bid. Therefore the EGM and Mo Chaudry are interconnected with one another despite what you say.

 

I see that you are trying to divert the attention away from Mo Chaudry. Maybe it would be cynical to suggest, but perhaps this is a ploy by certain OVF members to ensure that a future EGM does not focus on Chaudry's bid. Debate surrounding the last EGM focused too much on Chaudry the man and this probably lost pro-change the EGM in the end as people didn't trust his motives.

 

Incorrect!

 

The first EGM had nothing to do with MO, it was all about removing the current board to place an interim board in position that would consider potential alternative investments (even though at that time the principle investment opportunity was from Mo)

 

The second EGM would be solely conentrated on removing the remaining members of the board, for whom there has already been a vote of no confidence.

 

You were the first in this thread to bring up Mo, no-one else! The EGM's have nothing to do with Mo otherwise his name or reference to his bid would be explicitly stated as an actionable part of the minutes and agenda - They were not the first time around and they would not be a second time around!

 

And as for your statement:

 

I see that you are trying to divert the attention away from Mo Chaudry. Maybe it would be cynical to suggest, but perhaps this is a ploy by certain OVF members to ensure that a future EGM does not focus on Chaudry's bid. Debate surrounding the last EGM focused too much on Chaudry the man and this probably lost pro-change the EGM in the end as people didn't trust his motives.

 

I am trying as a voluntary administrator to keep a thread on topic, and it would be very cynical and I would suggest that this is yet another ploy to divert voters away from the real agenda of any EGM, which is not about Mo Chaudry, as stated above, but about:

 

1. The removal of Bill Bratt from office

2. The removal of Glenn Oliver from office

3. The removal of Mike Lloyd from office

 

I hope I have made my point clear on the matter. No can we please return to the topic at hand as I have with my final 3 bullet points! maybe you would like to discuss those more?

[Burslem Academicals]

The EGM was not about Mo Chaudry and the EGM now being called by NLV is certainly not about Mo Chaudry either.

If the next EGM has a simple "No Confidence" vote that is properly worded this time such that it cannot be ignored and it is a vote of no confidence that removes Bratt,Oliver and Lloyd then change is possible.

Remember the Board lost the vote of no confidence and should resign but have ignored it so this time a vote of no confidence that removes the Board

needs to be put to shareholders.

It is a Boardroom trick to try and make the EGM about Mo when it is only about this Board and an in house issue...funny how the Board stooges are already saying the EGM is about MO when they have been saying Mo is not interested and has gone away.

The Directors who survived did so with the smallest margin and their behaviour since has been so disgusting that they will have lost a lot of

the minority support they had.

If anything the new EGM should return the same vote of no confidence only this time not left open ended such that the Board can ignore it and just continue...this time the vote of no confidence should be a categorical vote

of no confidence such that Board of Directors are collectively voted off.

[Howjy04]

BA.Didn't NLV request that at the first EGM ?But were refused by Lodey.He insisted that the individuals voting had to be carried out aswell.However it was worded the first time they should have gone.I believe Shareholders are now more knowledgeable about the facts now and the abstainers may well turn against the current directors,IMO of course.

[Stone Valiant]

BA.Didn't NLV request that at the first EGM ?But were refused by Lodey.He insisted that the individuals voting had to be carried out aswell.However it was worded the first time they should have gone.I believe Shareholders are now more knowledgeable about the facts now and the abstainers may well turn against the current directors,IMO of course.

 

As I understand it!

[BycarsLane]

Incorrect!

 

The first EGM had nothing to do with MO, it was all about removing the current board to place an interim board in position that would consider potential alternative investments (even though at that time the principle investment opportunity was from Mo)

 

The second EGM would be solely conentrated on removing the remaining members of the board, for whom there has already been a vote of no confidence.

 

You were the first in this thread to bring up Mo, no-one else! The EGM's have nothing to do with Mo otherwise his name or reference to his bid would be explicitly stated as an actionable part of the minutes and agenda - They were not the first time around and they would not be a second time around!

 

And as for your statement:

 

 

 

I am trying as a voluntary administrator to keep a thread on topic, and it would be very cynical and I would suggest that this is yet another ploy to divert voters away from the real agenda of any EGM, which is not about Mo Chaudry, as stated above, but about:

 

1. The removal of Bill Bratt from office

2. The removal of Glenn Oliver from office

3. The removal of Mike Lloyd from office

 

I hope I have made my point clear on the matter. No can we please return to the topic at hand as I have with my final 3 bullet points! maybe you would like to discuss those more?

 

If you think that the EGM's and Mo are not connected then that is up to you. The fact of the matter remains though that if the board had been ousted at the last EGM, and an interim one put in its place, then in all likelihood Chaudry would now be chairman of Port Vale and the sole owner. There were no other 'potential alternative investments' on the table at the time and there still aren't. If the board are ousted Mo Chaudry is the only person waiting in the wings and willing to take over.

 

I was the first person to bring up Mo's name but only because I said we needed his support to win another EGM as I now feel pro-change no longer have the momentum required to win outright. We need people with major shareholdings to support change and in order to do this new shares may have to be bought.

 

In regards to the 'EGM's have nothing to do with Mo' then why was Mo at the first EGM at all if that was the case? I remember seeing him sitting in there as well as hearing him speak outside.

 

And I did not suggest that a future EGM would be about Mo Chaudry. I stated that I think some people on OVF realised that last time too much focus was put on Chaudry "the man" and that people will try second time around to focus less on Mo and more on the task of removing the board as this probably lost pro-change the first EGM.

 

I will leave the Mo matter there. But I think to say there is no relation between Chaudry and a second EGM is incorrect as this is clearly not the case.

 

Oh, and in regards to you being a 'voluntary administrator' .... keep up the good work!

[Burslem Academicals]

The NLV called the EGM and set the agenda therefore the wording should stand and if Bill Lodey wants to set an agenda and word the resolutions then Bill Lodey needs to get the backing to call his own EGM.

So essentially the vote of no confidence voted them off and the individual votes voted three back on when the individual votes were not part of the EGM agenda as called by the NLV....is this legal.

Also as there is an admission in writing from Rob Lee that the shares were "SOLD" and paid for "immediately" at the eleventh hour then the shares

were not eligible in the EGM vote and likewise the Board should be gone.

 

The new EGM should be a simple single issue vote of no confidence that

categorically removes the three Directors Bratt,Oliver and Lloyd who had

a vote of no confidence which they ignored and should resign...the vote of no confidence should not be open ended it should be final....an EGM with one question or resolution and that has got to be a vote of no confidence that removes the three Directors that ignored the last vote of no confidence.

[N.kent]

If you think that the EGM's and Mo are not connected then that is up to you. The fact of the matter remains though that if the board had been ousted at the last EGM, and an interim one put in its place, then in all likelihood Chaudry would now be chairman of Port Vale and the sole owner. There were no other 'potential alternative investments' on the table at the time and there still aren't. If the board are ousted Mo Chaudry is the only person waiting in the wings and willing to take over.

 

I was the first person to bring up Mo's name but only because I said we needed his support to win another EGM as I now feel pro-change no longer have the momentum required to win outright. We need people with major shareholdings to support change and in order to do this new shares may have to be bought.

 

In regards to the 'EGM's have nothing to do with Mo' then why was Mo at the first EGM at all if that was the case? I remember seeing him sitting in there as well as hearing him speak outside.

 

And I did not suggest that a future EGM would be about Mo Chaudry. I stated that I think some people on OVF realised that last time too much focus was put on Chaudry "the man" and that people will try second time around to focus less on Mo and more on the task of removing the board as this probably lost pro-change the first EGM.

 

I will leave the Mo matter there. But I think to say there is no relation between Chaudry and a second EGM is incorrect as this is clearly not the case.

 

Oh, and in regards to you being a 'voluntary administrator' .... keep up the good work!

 

Was there a business plan set up before the EGM last time detailing the calendar for change ?

ie; The board are ousted then an interim board would be set up (containing whom)

Are there any other potential backers available for dialect other than Mo.

Where is the funding coming from whilst the interim board sort out this backer.

Who will chair this interim board and who will the board consist off because surely they have to be independent off any potential backers for fear off a personal agenda.

[tisdeano]

Where is the funding coming from whilst the interim board sort out this backer

 

Where is any funding coming from now ?

[Stone Valiant]

Lets break this down in simple terms for you

 

If you think that the EGM's and Mo are not connected then that is up to you. The fact of the matter remains though that if the board had been ousted at the last EGM, and an interim one put in its place, then in all likelihood Chaudry would now be chairman of Port Vale and the sole owner. There were no other 'potential alternative investments' on the table at the time and there still aren't. If the board are ousted Mo Chaudry is the only person waiting in the wings and willing to take over.

 

That is just a matter of co-incidence. The remit of the interim board would have been to open up bidding to any and all interested parties, meaning that past parties like Newton, for example, could re-apply, so your assumption that Mo would have had control is not necessarily true

 

I was the first person to bring up Mo's name but only because I said we needed his support to win another EGM as I now feel pro-change no longer have the momentum required to win outright. We need people with major shareholdings to support change and in order to do this new shares may have to be bought.

 

No we don't, and this is by Mo's own admission, he has stated that only the fans and current shareholders can influence the outcome of this. There is nothing he can do. He is not a shareholder and is being blocked from doing so, even with just 1 share, by the current incumbents. So no new shares at any value, to any amount would ever be bought by Mo because the board would not sanction it

 

In regards to the 'EGM's have nothing to do with Mo' then why was Mo at the first EGM at all if that was the case? I remember seeing him sitting in there as well as hearing him speak outside.

 

Mo was there because he believed he had Rob Lee's proxy. He was actually stopped at the door and prevented from entering initially (which is when and how he initially found out about the double cross). He only got in because of the pressure put on security by current shareholders also there at the time and the possibility of bad press as a result

 

And I did not suggest that a future EGM would be about Mo Chaudry. I stated that I think some people on OVF realised that last time too much focus was put on Chaudry "the man" and that people will try second time around to focus less on Mo and more on the task of removing the board as this probably lost pro-change the first EGM.

 

At least we agree on something, however, I highlight again the following two quotes in the same post from yourself:

 

And I did not suggest that a future EGM would be about Mo Chaudry

I was the first person to bring up Mo's name but only because I said we needed his support to win another EGM

 

and again with

 

I will leave the Mo matter there. But I think to say there is no relation between Chaudry and a second EGM is incorrect as this is clearly not the case.

 

But with the latter I challenge you to find anything in the formal agenda of the last EGM that quoted Mo's name or Mo's bid, and I would challenge you to do the same for the next agenda

 

Oh, and in regards to you being a 'voluntary administrator' .... keep up the good work!

 

Thank you :cool:

 

P.S. Good debate by the way