Robbie To Abstain on Future of Vale

[Twitters]

I take it from that witless response Twitters that you have purchased hardly any shares yourself.

 

And why would the board reject a potential share purchase? From my limited knowledge on Vale they are activly encouraging as many people as possible to buy up the unsold new shares which were released so that any new buyers could have a say in the running of the club.

 

I don't believe that purchasing shares would be a worthwhile expenditure at this time when I have a wedding and mortgage to cover. I don't want to end up living in a camper van on someone's drive thanks!

 

The fact you even ask that question shows you are ******** about Port Vale which is why no-one treats you with respect. You're not a Vale fan, you're a ****** ****** who has no idea what is going on. As for having a say in the running of the club, the last two AGMs proved that is meaningless.

[butt lane vale fan]

I take it from that witless response Twitters that you have purchased hardly any shares yourself.

 

And why would the board reject a potential share purchase? From my limited knowledge on Vale they are activly encouraging as many people as possible to buy up the unsold new shares which were released so that any new buyers could have a say in the running of the club.

 

You will find they do have the right to reject share purchases.

[X-Valiant]

Ex Vice Chairman Dave Smith is the key to Robbie.

It was Dave Smith, not Bill Bratt, that got Robbie Williams to invest in the Vale in the first place due to Mr.Smiths fantastic relationship with Robbie & his Mum, Jan.

Legal Beadle, can you see if Dave Smith can have any influence regarding Robbie's vote/proxy?

[BRIT1974]

Hi Guy just received this official update from Robbies team:

 

 

Dear PV FC Board and Fans,

 

Back in 2005, I invested in Port Vale at a time when the club came to me needing money.

 

I was very happy to help, the club is a big part of my childhood and roots. I made it very clear at the time I made the investment that as I live in Los Angeles, I would not be able to follow The Vale closely enough to be involved in anyway in the running of the club or called upon to be involved in any future decision making. That position has not changed and I do not feel well informed enough or close enough to the current debate to vote either way. I will therefore respectfully be abstaining from any vote on the future ownership and running of the club.

 

Robert Williams

 

 

Firstly just wondering how you got this info and secondly if true it just goes to show how weak he really is.

If the figures being banded around in regards to this are true then can his decision be seen as actually vindicating the board rather than not backing them as some seem to think.

I really don't understand how the figures work but it looks to me that abstination actually plays into the boards hands, if so he's shown himself for a right **********!!!:bomb::bomb:

[NLVMalc]

Firstly just wondering how you got this info and secondly if true it just goes to show how weak he really is.

If the figures being banded around in regards to this are true then can his decision be seen as actually vindicating the board rather than not backing them as some seem to think.

I really don't understand how the figures work but it looks to me that abstination actually plays into the boards hands, if so he's shown himself for a right *********!!!:bomb::bomb:

 

NLV have been keeping Robbie informed as a shareholder - the statement came back from his team.

 

The statement put's paid to the notion that the board have Robbie's proxy as they have claimed - that is a whole new area for discussion. This undermine's the board position, he was willing to support them in the past, but is unwilling to now.

[Alexpvfc]

Hi Guy just received this official update from Robbies team:

 

 

Dear PV FC Board and Fans,

 

Back in 2005, I invested in Port Vale at a time when the club came to me needing money.

 

I was very happy to help, the club is a big part of my childhood and roots. I made it very clear at the time I made the investment that as I live in Los Angeles, I would not be able to follow The Vale closely enough to be involved in anyway in the running of the club or called upon to be involved in any future decision making. That position has not changed and I do not feel well informed enough or close enough to the current debate to vote either way. I will therefore respectfully be abstaining from any vote on the future ownership and running of the club.

 

Robert Williams

 

 

 

This is bad news because without Robbie's backing nothing might not change, for crying out loud Rob just give your dad the proxy!

[Guest Sandyfordvalefan]

To be fair he did say at the time he didn't have the time for Vale so fair play but if he's still not bothered and seeing his 24.9% is basically worth nothing (and what £250,000) to him anyway why doesn't he just give them away, either to Phil, Mo, Wilkes, A Fan's trust or split them between all the season tickets holders - least that way we'd have a bit of democracy.

[Bluedevil]

By abstaining, its likely the board will cling onto power, followed shortly by administration, which could put innocent people at the club out of work.

 

You are the majority share-holder, you need to act.

[TylerB]

I know he bought shares in the club, but he has, or had, more money than sense.

 

Mr Williams is every bit a Vale die-hard as I am. :rolleyes:

 

That said, at least he's bothered to respond.

[valiantms]

Here is the shareholding as of 30/6/2010

 

Bratt - 8834

Jackson/Meigh - 30000

Meigh - 10004

Oliver - 6212

Lloyd - 10000

Mudie - 100

 

Total - 65150 shares from the total issued of 232598. This is 28%.

 

Robbie holds 49800 shares - 21.4%.

 

Which leaves the remaining shareholders owning 50.6% of the shares.

 

With Robbie on board we have a good chance. Without him, things don't look good.

 

We should also consider the possibility that the board are purchasing further shares to strengthen their position in advance of the EGM.

 

Yes...percentage of those voting, not total shareholders

 

So, crunching some numbers to find the remaining number of shares if Robbie abstains, and the percentages, I get....

 

Remaining shares.......

Board - 65,150

other shareholders - 117,648

Total - 182,798

 

Percentage of remaining shares.....

Board - 65,150/182,798*100 = 35.64%

Other shareholders - 117,648/182,798*100 = 64.36%

 

If we then use NLV survey of shareholders as what people will vote for, 77% voting against the board (although this is assumming all other shareholders don't abstain and shares are evenly distributed between shareholders voting either way) we get

 

117,648/100*77 = 90588.96 shares

 

Which is only 49.55% of remaining shares voting against the board. This will be even less if we consider the amount of remaining shareholders who might abstain, unless all of those abstaining are board supporters, but that is unlikely.

 

This figure might also change on the distribution of shares between pro/anti-board people, but I cant calculate that as I don't have access to shareholder info (amount each person holds) and how they intend to vote, keep in mind the NLV survey was based on one man one vote, not on one share one vote.

 

Without Robbies vote this battle is lost via an EGM, or at least that's what the figures suggest :(

 

Please be gently with me if I have fudged them figures up at some point, but it doesn't look good.

 

So, starve them out it is ===

[Dave Roberts]

This is bad news because without Robbie's vote things may never change. He needs to be made fully aware that his actions are threatening the very future of PVFC. Whatever his reasoning he can simply give his proxy to any of his trusted friends and say, vote as you feel is best. In that way he won't get stick. If Phil taylor had his proxy his vote could be put to good use. As useful as his £250k was when he put it in, it is now a millstone around the club's fture and if he doesn't see the need to vote or have any interest, then perhaps he should transfer his shareholding to someone who will pay for it and will use the vote, Mo via Taylor? It has to be done.

 

Eg up mate.Robbie is backing the board ere and there's nowt we can do about it.on top if this both horsefield and grew have both said today on valiant world that the protests against the board are hurtin player moral.you can't stop now tho youve done brill so far and if it means us gettin relegated to the conference itll be worth it just to get rid of the board

[buffwa]

Has Robbies proxy ever been used??

[Dave Roberts]

Just been on the blower to my mate who's pals with someone who nosRobbie and he rates Robbie is 100% behind the board and has loads of respect for the work they've done.****in waste of money them black and gold scarves were now

[Birches Head Fred]

Robbie has refused to use his vote and thus seen to be helping the board and getting slated left right and centre.

Robbie DOES NOT VOTE

 

However, let's look at 'Joe Bloggs'. He has NO shares so again DOES NOT VOTE. Thherefore is Joe helping the board and should he not be slated left right and centre?

 

Glass Houses springs to mind.

 

10 Vale fans purchasing £100.00 worth of shares = £1,000.00 worth of votes.

20 Vale fans purchasing £100.00 worth of shares = £2,000.00 worth of votes.

100 Vale fans purchasing £100.00 worth of shares = £10,000.00 worth of votes.

1000 Vale fans purchasing £100.00 worth of shares = £100,000.00 worth of votes.

2000 Vale fans purchasing £100.00 worth of shares = £200,000.00 worth of votes.

 

Who needs Robbie?

[George is here]

Cracking point and one I cant get my head around!!!! All these people who appear to be sitting on internet message boards moaning about the current regime at vale, how many shares/money have they actually invested in the club???? Surely it would be far easier to buy between you existing shares and oust the current board yourselves, instead of bleating on the internet 24/7 and attempting to orgainise half-baked "protests" at Vale Park.

 

Only a lunatic would buy shares and give money to the current regime.