Jump to content

Shareholders Must Decide on any Deal


NLVMalc

Recommended Posts

Whatever deal or prospect of a deal ML & PD come back from the USA with this MUST go to the shareholders for approval. If not the club will sink further into turmoil.

 

The board lost a vote of no confidence and currently only hold the following amount of shares:

 

Mike Lloyd.........5.3%

Bill Bratt...........4.8%

Glenn Oliver......4.3%

..................... --------

Total.............. 14.4%

 

Under these circumstances there is no way any deal can go forward without being put to the shareholders.

 

The Port Vale Supporters Club, holding Robbie’s proxy, have a greater percentage of shares (21.2%) than the current board.

 

The ‘talk’ from Mike Lloyd has been about being transparent and open. However, to date this has only been ‘talk’. The trust between the board of Port Vale and the fans has been broken and can only be improved by action.

 

I agree with ML that everyday decisions cannot be put before all the shareholders. This next decision is not a small or insignificant.

 

If ML & PD do not put any deal to the shareholders then we will know that there is no intention of being open and transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
You raise a very interesting point. Perhaps it would be better if a representitive of the Vale supporters club decides on the investment issue.

 

OS, but even Robbie's proxy, along with the board's shares only amounts to roughly a third of the vote.

 

Interesting for me would be the thinking at present of the 'voters' who managed to keep the board at the helm. I wonder how they perceive the new investment. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OS, but even Robbie's proxy, along with the board's shares only amounts to roughly a third of the vote.

 

Interesting for me would be the thinking at present of the 'voters' who managed to keep the board at the helm. I wonder how they perceive the new investment. ?

 

BHF

 

That's a very good point; would the board still command the same amount of support from the shareholders for this takeover, which, in effect is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OS, but even Robbie's proxy, along with the board's shares only amounts to roughly a third of the vote.

 

Interesting for me would be the thinking at present of the 'voters' who managed to keep the board at the helm. I wonder how they perceive the new investment. ?

I know what you are saying Fred and it is a sad state of affairs that the people who are running the Port Vale asylum have such a small shareholding so in truth have no right to decide our possible fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Loyd/Bratt/Oliver have only 14.4% and a vote of no confidence while Mark Sims was elected by the shareholders but prevented from being on the Board because they refused to let anyone see the books and do due dilligence and as somebody who has put more into the club than the Board combined and being sponsored by Robbie Williams 21.2% it should be Mark Sims that decides over this investment......an EGM needs to be called to stop this investment and it needs to be put to shareholders along with the offers from Sims and Chaudry to each invest 24.9% within the articles and constitution.

Why has the Black&Gold been suspended when the club has not been sold and "Starve Em Out" originally meant not just Bratt and Oliver but also Lloyd.....once this Board have got that extra 24.9% the old gang will have 55% and will be the untouchables....400k is not 5 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if it was you, Malcolm, or if it was Dave Felstead, who posted a few days ago. In another thread (probably the one about them leaving on a plane on Sunday) I suggested that surely the board would put the deal to the shareholders. I was told that at Baddeley Green WMC, Mike Lloyd made it clear that the deal he was talking about it would not be put to a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason it WONT be put to the shareholders is because chances are the shareholders will vote against the deal (as it wont be what it says on the tin). And the ONLY reason Lloyd is not insisting Pratt and Glenys go now (to unite the fans) is because he needs their YES vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the "feedback relating to the open meeting" thread and it was Andy Jones (Dave Felstead) who responded:

 

At the meeting last week Mike Lloyd and Perry Deakin stated very clearly that the Directors, not the Shareholders, will have the decision on this investment.

 

Was he correct or not?

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...