Something that might help

[Paul6754]

I agree, but as the Senile have tried constantly to contact him (to no avail) it would seem that he is not too keen ti discuss anything Vale related.

 

If the deal isn't finalised then probably best not to talk to the Sentinal ??

[tisdeano]

If the deal isn't finalised then probably best not to talk to the Sentinal ??

 

it is finalised, perry told us it was

 

how many share holders voted both deakin and miller on board on the back off the fact we had signed this amazing deal ?

[doggone]

it is finalised, perry told us it was

 

how many share holders voted both deakin and miller on board on the back off the fact we had signed this amazing deal ?

 

Only those daft enough to believe anything this board says.

 

I didn't vote for either of them.

[the old bycars tea bar]

it is finalised, perry told us it was

 

how many share holders voted both deakin and miller on board on the back off the fact we had signed this amazing deal ?

 

 

i have just posted the following on another thread it might be more relevent here sorry

 

 

 

just a thought i wonder if the vote for deakin and millers election onto the board would have been different if the shareholders had been fully aware that the deal with hank and bluesky had not been finalised?

 

the fact that it has since become apparent that it has not been finalised does that not make the board morally invalid, were the shareholders misinformed?

 

is this the real reason of putting back the AGM could their seats on the board have been legally challanged ?

 

just geniune questions before i called a moron;)

[melv]

i have just posted the following on another thread it might be more relevent here sorry

 

 

 

just a thought i wonder if the vote for deakin and millers election onto the board would have been different if the shareholders had been fully aware that the deal with hank and bluesky had not been finalised?

 

the fact that it has since become apparent that it has not been finalised does that not make the board morally invalid, were the shareholders misinformed?

 

is this the real reason of putting back the AGM could their seats on the board have been legally challanged ?

 

just geniune questions before i called a moron;)

 

Good question.

[zaza123]

i have just posted the following on another thread it might be more relevent here sorry

 

 

 

just a thought i wonder if the vote for deakin and millers election onto the board would have been different if the shareholders had been fully aware that the deal with hank and bluesky had not been finalised?

 

the fact that it has since become apparent that it has not been finalised does that not make the board morally invalid, were the shareholders misinformed?

 

is this the real reason of putting back the AGM could their seats on the board have been legally challanged ?

 

just geniune questions before i called a moron;)

 

Another question would be had the two board members who were voted on actually bought their shares and was this shareholding used in the vote. i.e. Is there a possibility that they voted themselves onto the board with shares that they didn't actually own.

 

Presumably they must have owned bought at least 50 grands worth each to be eligible.

 

Probably makes no difference now anyway. The PVFC share register is like The Dead Sea Scrolls. Actually, the latter are probably more accessible.