Robbie Update

[Trentham Lakes Valiant]

With a large shareholding comes a large responsibility. If RW abstains then he turns the Boards % from c31% to c39% making it all but impossible for us to force change via an EGM. In real terms, his abstention is as good as voting with the Board.

[CAVALIER]

I think Robbie has a major obligation here for what's best for his club. It's ok fence sitting but it achieves nothing.

He surely wants us to move on. If he didn't expect to have any responsibility he should have just donated the money towards ground sponsorship etc. He's now a critical character.

Come on Robert, get those splinters out.

[Tone]

With a large shareholding comes a large responsibility. If RW abstains then he turns the Boards % from c31% to c39% making it all but impossible for us to force change via an EGM. In real terms, his abstention is as good as voting with the Board.

 

I agree.

 

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

[geosname]

I dont see what his obligation or responsibility is.... he would have both if he were a director... as a mere shareholder he has an option to vote.... he chooses not to exercise that option.... if he chose to vote with the board would you want him to vote?

[fairportnick]

Starve the *******s out.

[grebovale]

Am hoping ROBBIE changes his mind but slagging of wont help,singing his name might,so keep it up lads but louder,personally I didn't hear his name been chanted,come to think of it after 15 mins last night I didn't hear much singing at all,I'll go and have me hears checked out...

[Tone]

I dont see what his obligation or responsibility is.... he would have both if he were a director... as a mere shareholder he has an option to vote.... he chooses not to exercise that option.... if he chose to vote with the board would you want him to vote?

 

If he doesn't vote it is almost tantamount to a vote with the board anyway.

 

He has a moral obligation and responsibility to the club he claims to love, as the biggest single shareholder.

[geosname]

If he doesn't vote it is almost tantamount to a vote with the board anyway.

 

He has a moral obligation and responsibility to the club he claims to love, as the biggest single shareholder.

 

He has an obligation and responsibility to do what he thinks best....if that is to abstain then he should do it as should any other shareholder.... or are you saying he has an obligation/responsibility to vote against the board?

[WV]

There are people who want him to vote against the board and some that want his vote for the board. RW can do as he pleases without fans saying he has a responsibility to vote. I wonder what fans would do if he did vote in the boards favour?

 

Also, what happens if RW votes against the board and Mo gets in and ****s it up. People would expect RW to get us out of any future mess saying he was the one who cast the deciding vote. RW has done enough for Vale imo

[Tone]

He has an obligation and responsibility to do what he thinks best....if that is to abstain then he should do it as should any other shareholder.... or are you saying he has an obligation/responsibility to vote against the board?

 

I think he has an obligation to use his shareholding when there is an important vote. He needs to think about each issue on its own merits and either say specifically that he abstains on that issue or vote one way or the other. His shareholding is too big to leave the future of the club to a group of people who have, in total, not much more than he has himself. It is irresponsible.

[Tone]

There are people who want him to vote against the board and some that want his vote for the board. RW can do as he pleases without fans saying he has a responsibility to vote.

 

It is as a shareholder myself, not just as a fan, that my opinion is that he should use his vote.

[WV]

It may be irresponsible in the eyes of those who NEED his vote. What would the reaction be if tommorows news is that RW is to vote in favour of the board?

[Bea Smith]

I think he has an obligation to use his shareholding when there is an important vote. He needs to think about each issue on its own merits and either say specifically that he abstains on that issue or vote one way or the other. His shareholding is too big to leave the future of the club to a group of people who have, in total, not much more than he has himself. It is irresponsible.

 

In other words, you know best and must decide for him.

Just like the people who want to tell him how he should spend his money.

It would be great if we could direct people in which way to vote, but not right, he has to make his own decision. Thats responsible, whether you and I like that decision or not.

[Trentham Lakes Valiant]

It may be irresponsible in the eyes of those who NEED his vote. What would the reaction be if tommorows news is that RW is to vote in favour of the board?

 

TBH, if he looked at the situation and wheighed up the pros and cons and decided to vote with the Board I would, of course, be disappointed. However, I would have more respect for him than I do at the moment. To me, it seems like he can't be bothered and that is a poor show from any shareholder, let alone one who own a fifth of the Club.

[Guest Tony Dyche]

There are people who want him to vote against the board and some that want his vote for the board. RW can do as he pleases without fans saying he has a responsibility to vote. I wonder what fans would do if he did vote in the boards favour?

 

Also, what happens if RW votes against the board and Mo gets in and ****s it up. People would expect RW to get us out of any future mess saying he was the one who cast the deciding vote. RW has done enough for Vale imo

 

You make some good points. As disappointed as I am with this non decision I did not expect any different. He must however realise that such a large abstention prohibits either side getting a resolution passed effectively.

If he does not want to take sides and become politically embroiled, perhaps there is a way he can cancel his shareholding?