Agenda for Sundays Open Meeting at BGWMC

[Alan Baker]

Glenn Oliver may still come. I hope he does and if he does I would hope he is treated with courtesy.

 

Why?

[Stone Valiant]

The agenda does nullify a lot of the questions that have been posted for me to ask on peoples behalf, which does leave to wonder if they have been doing there homework and convassing views by reading this site and others first. However, I shall attempt, where I am not happy with a response or feel it does not fully answer a persons question, to delve deeper into any such issues.

 

Additionally, as the agreement of the meeting is to delve deeper into the future of Port Vale (possibly agreed by the board to nullify questions about MC and MS) it open wider the remit to question about the future investment and I shall do so vigourously.

 

Myself and Pete T shall be attempting to record the meeting (with Dave's permission) in order to provide a transcript to Rob of the answers given which can then be published to you all through the news stream on this site.

[Stone Valiant]

convassing

 

 

oops! Freudian slip? :rolleyes:

[fairportnick]

Why does the future of the club have to be within the 24.9 % rule. It has always been my view that this rule compromises the clubs long term future.

[AVIM]

So why was an announcement made on the official website on 23 May saying a deal had been done with Ameriturf? If this deal is not with Ameriturf, why were we told lies before the EGM. If it is with Ameriturf, why the secrecy now about even uttering their name?

 

It shouldn't have been, thats my point. It should have stayed confidential until it was a final, done deal. But now we have a new team driving the bus in deakin and Lloyd. We shouldn't hold them to doing things the way Bratt and Oliver did.

 

 

In December 2003, when Mr Machin was attempting to bring investment into the club through the Vantis group, Mr Oliver wrote:

 

"My own position is that I've consistently supported, publicly and privately, the rights of the shareholders to be the final judges of any proposal which would have a major effect, if implemented, on the structure and ownership of Port Vale."

 

Does he no longer believe that and if not, why not?

 

Mr Oliver is no longer driving the bus, so its irrelevant what he thinks at this stage. But I can't believe you think that GO doesn't ever tell fibs? Also, lets not forget the shareholders voted GO and BB and ML back onto the board at the EGM (or failed to remove them, same diff).

 

 

 

How do you know this if all discussions have remained confidential as you state?

 

I dont know, just a guess based on two directors are leaving (bratt and oliver), in addition to MA at some point. So the club will need at least 3 replacements. Either all 3 from the investors, or two plus fans rep / simms etc.

 

I expect ML to stay on as director.

[Memphis]

Myself and Pete T shall be attempting to record the meeting (with Dave's permission) in order to provide a transcript to Rob of the answers given which can then be published to you all through the news stream on this site.

 

Shouldn't be difficult to set up recording through the PA.

[Jacko51]

Why does the future of the club have to be within the 24.9 % rule. It has always been my view that this rule compromises the clubs long term future.

 

We asked Mr Lloyd last week how many other clubs in the Football League were restricted by a 24.9% rule. The answer, of course, is none. We pointed out to him that a number of clubs seem to be successful despite the lack of this restriction in their Articles.

[1517sharps]

The agenda does nullify a lot of the questions that have been posted for me to ask on peoples behalf, which does leave to wonder if they have been doing there homework and convassing views by reading this site and others first. However, I shall attempt, where I am not happy with a response or feel it does not fully answer a persons question, to delve deeper into any such issues.

 

Additionally, as the agreement of the meeting is to delve deeper into the future of Port Vale (possibly agreed by the board to nullify questions about MC and MS) it open wider the remit to question about the future investment and I shall do so vigourously.

 

Myself and Pete T shall be attempting to record the meeting (with Dave's permission) in order to provide a transcript to Rob of the answers given which can then be published to you all through the news stream on this site.

 

I have a digital dictaphone if needed.

[andy jones]

The club did not input into the agenda.

 

I find it strange that no-one seems to be commenting on the last 3 or 4 segments.

 

Could you have imagined us being able to even think that this would have been possible under Bratt and Jackson?

 

It is essential that we bring considerable new investment into PVFC and the Board have to be seen to be acting in the best interest of the club. - see seperate thread re: SC statement over Mark Sims.

[doggone]

Two or three.

 

Why can't Robbie sponsor Two or Three then

[Edge81]

Hi Dave,

 

I was just wondering if you had confirmation from the club over who is attending from the board?

[doggone]

When asking about share movements since the EGM we need to find out the truth about Broxap's share deal - was there free sponsorship thrown in (if not then we need to have their name removed from around the ground)

[the old bycars tea bar]

The club did not input into the agenda.

 

I find it strange that no-one seems to be commenting on the last 3 or 4 segments.

 

Could you have imagined us being able to even think that this would have been possible under Bratt and Jackson?

 

It is essential that we bring considerable new investment into PVFC and the Board have to be seen to be acting in the best interest of the club. - see seperate thread re: SC statement over Mark Sims.

 

Dave have either lloyd or deakin indicated they would agree to the final segments you speak of?

[Santa]

A couple of shareholders have suggested they'd be happy to get rid of their shares and I was wondering if there could be some discussion around supporters donating their shares to the SC (if the club will allow such transferrals) or handing their proxies over.

 

If nothing else, it would make five hour general meetings a thing of the past.

 

Now the SC has the proxy of the club's largest shareholder, it currently controls about one fifth of the club's shares. Fans need to be encouraged to get involved on the basis that it isn't a talking shop as such but an organisation with some clout.

[Stone Valiant]

Decide on a joint objective that will bring harmony back to the club.

 

Create and agree a forward plan clearly showing time limited benchmarks to be achieved in order to reach a successful conclusion of the joint objective.

 

Debate the concept of and potentially agreeing to creating a joint supporters / club officials project group to monitor the above and ensure that benchmarks are achieved within the allotted timescale.

 

Closing statement from the Meeting Chairman

 

Dave,

 

I had noted, but wondered if anyone else would. I have highlighted the bits in bold for people to make special note of, especially the one word - joint!