NLV - Egm Update (2)

[Timothius]

Which has the better beer?

 

leopard by a country mile and a great choice

[Burslem Academicals]

Phil Taylor should buy £50k worth just to strengthen the "Balck and Gold" campaign....imagine the bad press if V2001 turned down the legend....if

there is only a need for one Director to form an interim Board of Directors then Phil Taylor who is going to invest under Mo Chaudry anyway could then have the honour of briefly being the Chairman.....and unlike Bratt under the short reign of Taylor as Chairman the club could get the LegalBeagle in as CEO and sort the sale of shares to Team Mo and Taylor would have a great and noble legacy as Chairman.

[Animal]

There is no problem in removing all directors should the required percentage be reached at a general meeting.

 

The problem arises when appointing a new director...I think the Secretary of state would issue a notice enforcing the company/shareholders to appoint a director within a period of time (3 months i think) if it hadn't already done so.

 

The £50,000 rule would be the obstacle

[X-Valiant]

There is no problem in removing all directors should the required percentage be reached at a general meeting.

 

The problem arises when appointing a new director...I think the Secretary of state would issue a notice enforcing the company/shareholders to appoint a director within a period of time (3 months i think) if it hadn't already done so.

 

The £50,000 rule would be the obstacle

 

Once the directors have been removed, does the sale of share become suspended for those 3 months or can somebody buy the shares (like Mo, Mark Sims etc) and then we can vote whoever buys these shares onto the board?

[stupers]

I'm assuming as Robbie is abstaining, that there is little chance of edging the 24.9% rule out at the AGM. But would this set of circumstances be possible?

 

a) The shareholders vote each and every one of the directors off the board (51% needed i believe)

b) They vote an interim board on including Mo Chaudry, Mark Sims, Phil Taylor etc.

c) Mo buys the maximum 24.9% shareholding, Mark and Phil also buy the shares they are looking to buy.

d) Another EGM is called, where these 3, combined with the other shareholders who are pro change vote in favour of removing the 24.9% rule, therefore allowing Mo to purchase the remaining shares he needs to get his majority shareholding.

 

I'm aware I probably run out of shares to purchase at that point, but you get the idea hopefully.

[Birdy]

I think it would be an advantage to get everything in motion at one EGM.

 

With regards to NLV, the full constituted name is North London Valiants (Exiled Valiants). We started and were founded out of North London and grew to a capital and south east supporters club, but as NLV was known amongst the fan base it's stayed.

 

Not to say that it couldn't be up for review, but it's a recognisable name and what risk changing that? The fact that NLV is calling this EGM is not relevant, it could have been any of the other supporter led groups or one individual. The majority of us have one goal and as Port Vale shareholders, we are united in that objective.

[Animal]

I'm assuming as Robbie is abstaining, that there is little chance of edging the 24.9% rule out at the AGM. But would this set of circumstances be possible?

 

a) The shareholders vote each and every one of the directors off the board (51% needed i believe)

b) They vote an interim board on including Mo Chaudry, Mark Sims, Phil Taylor etc.

c) Mo buys the maximum 24.9% shareholding, Mark and Phil also buy the shares they are looking to buy.

d) Another EGM is called, where these 3, combined with the other shareholders who are pro change vote in favour of removing the 24.9% rule, therefore allowing Mo to purchase the remaining shares he needs to get his majority shareholding.

 

I'm aware I probably run out of shares to purchase at that point, but you get the idea hopefully.

 

Yes thats possible. The £50,000 rule would have to be met by each new director and from LB said, I dont think Mo would form part of any interim board.

 

I also dont think this can all be done at one single meeting due to the timing issues and voting rights of newly acquired shares.

 

 

 

Once the directors have been removed, does the sale of share become suspended for those 3 months or can somebody buy the shares (like Mo, Mark Sims etc) and then we can vote whoever buys these shares onto the board?

 

It would be expected that the shareholders appoint an interim board immediately to be honest. However, if for some reason there wasn't a director on the board I very much doubt any such transaction could take place as it would require authorisation from a company director.

[Ben]

I think it would be an advantage to get everything in motion at one EGM.

 

With regards to NLV, the full constituted name is North London Valiants (Exiled Valiants). We started and were founded out of North London and grew to a capital and south east supporters club, but as NLV was known amongst the fan base it's stayed.

 

Not to say that it couldn't be up for review, but it's a recognisable name and what risk changing that? The fact that NLV is calling this EGM is not relevant, it could have been any of the other supporter led groups or one individual. The majority of us have one goal and as Port Vale shareholders, we are united in that objective.

 

Cant see what the fuss is about?

Carry on the good work NLV

[fairportnick]

The turning point will be to remove the directors. Once out they will have lost their power but not their liability under guarantees. I would think at that point they might be very keen to agree a deal.

[VantaaVale]

There is no problem in removing all directors should the required percentage be reached at a general meeting.

 

The problem arises when appointing a new director...I think the Secretary of state would issue a notice enforcing the company/shareholders to appoint a director within a period of time (3 months i think) if it hadn't already done so.

 

The £50,000 rule would be the obstacle

 

What about appointing someone who already has the 50K worth of shares, like Robert Lee? Or maybe even keep Mike Lloyd on to overview the sale only?

[X-Valiant]

What about appointing someone who already has the 50K worth of shares, like Robert Lee? Or maybe even keep Mike Lloyd on to overview the sale only?

 

You dont want Mike lloyd anywhere near this. That guy is only in it for himself

[VantaaVale]

No. Just thinking out aloud.

 

But if there is a shareholder already with the 50K in shares why not approach them first? As long as it is clear that this is an interim director whose sole task is to overview the sale to Mo.

[Fosse69]

Can see this running through next season, and destination Conference in sight. Cannot the cabal see this, no the jolly in USA matters more. I am off for a pint.

[Animal]

No. Just thinking out aloud.

 

But if there is a shareholder already with the 50K in shares why not approach them first? As long as it is clear that this is an interim director whose sole task is to overview the sale to Mo.

 

Trust would be the issue.

[Fosse69]

No. Just thinking out aloud.

 

But if there is a shareholder already with the 50K in shares why not approach them first? As long as it is clear that this is an interim director whose sole task is to overview the sale to Mo.

 

There is one, but I dont know is views on change, Mr Lee .