Jump to content

Shares: What are the Board Hiding


NLVMalc

Recommended Posts

I have just received a copy of the share register.

 

However, there is no share information on the form.

 

What are the board hiding?

 

I will be contacting my credit card company and demanding payment back.

 

I was very specific in what I was asking for and Port Vale FC have taken my money under false pretences, not fulfilling the contractual agreement we entered into.

 

My email to Bill Lodey below

 

Good morning Bill

 

In accordance with the 2006 Companies Act I am writing to obtain a copy of the register of members of Port Vale (Valiant 2001) Football Club Limited. As required with this section 116 request I can confirm the following:

 

The organisation requesting the information is North London Valiants.

 

I Malcolm Hirst of 3, Rolleston Close, Petts Wood, Orping, Kent BR5 1AN am the person receiving this information on behalf of North London Valiants.

 

The information is to be used for the following proper purposes:

- general representations about the general activities and management of the company; and

- communications in connection with the exercise of member rights under the Companies Act 2006, such as gathering support for a requisition, circulating a member’s statement relating to resolutions to be put to a shareholder meeting.

 

I confirm that the information is not to be disclosed to any other persons.

 

I appreciate you have five working days to relate this information back to North London Valiants but would appreciate if the information set out below could be provided at the earliest opportunity as we seek to make plans to contact shareholders immediately if the proposals set out by Mark Sims are rejected.

 

Shareholder Data required (in electronic form)

 

1. Name and address

2. Full Postal Code

3. Number of shares held

4. Contact telephone number

5. Contact email address

 

I wish to thank you in advance for your assistance.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Malcolm Hirst

On behalf of North London Valiants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest thecharlatans
Can you receive people's addresses etc,

 

Data protection act??

 

i'm pretty certain you can't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest thecharlatans
Names and share holdings are ok.

 

why on earth is Malcolm asking for addresses and phone numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, whatever the new deal is Malcolm, can't we as fans match or better it? either pooling cash ourselves or shall we say "obtaining a silent secret millionaire or millionaire's" to sponsor a takeover via a loyal trusted supporter or even better supporters club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you receive people's addresses etc,

 

Data protection act??

 

2006 Companies Act, Section 116. And note the statement:

 

I confirm that the information is not to be disclosed to any other persons

 

I think you are looking for conspiracies and reasons to have a go at Malcolm which are uncalled for mate, and I think you owe Malcolm an apology, and that goes for you to Charlie Boy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 conclusions;

 

1. They don't want us to know who bought Lee's shares.

2. There are significant shareholdings that the board used to vote with at the EGM that they haven't legally transferred and as such the EGM results would need to be adjusted and they would be gone, or Oliver at least.

 

I am going with number 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 conclusions;

 

1. They don't want us to know who bought Lee's shares.

2. There are significant shareholdings that the board used to vote with at the EGM that they haven't legally transferred and as such the EGM results would need to be adjusted and they would be gone, or Oliver at least.

 

I am going with number 2

 

I'd actually go for 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard back from Marcus at the meeting;

 

ML & PD didn't know that the shares hadn't been included;

 

GO said that the information was the legal minimum - is this GO's idea of a new era of openness and transparency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard back from Marcus at the meeting;

 

ML & PD didn't know that the shares hadn't been included;

 

GO said that the information was the legal minimum - is this GO's idea of a new era of openness and transparency?

 

why give the legal minimum and not the helpful maximum? i wonder:rolleyes:

 

and as PD and ML 'didnt know ' are they now going to rectify this and send you what you wanted? did Marcus ask that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF

×
×
  • Create New...