Those unpaid shares...

[gavcradd]

I've seen a lot of discussion on here about the shares issued to Deakin and Miller and whether they'll be able to be used to vote at a future EGM... make no mistake about it, legally they CAN be used. I've just spent a while on the Companies House website and lo and behold, on 28th November £500k of shares were registered but not paid for. These are ordinary shares with full voting rights.

 

Someone needs to get up to the Vale and demand to see the current share holders' register - just to confirm that they are in Deakin and Miller's names (and presumably also Hank the Yank's). If so, someone then needs to get onto Hank and ensure he gives his proxy to vote against the board.

 

On the positive side, nil paid shares aren't free shares - they simply delay payment. I hope Deakin and Miller have deep pockets if admin is on the horizon.

[Dean Lownds]

My fear was the £277k loan was to pay for the shares and secure the parasites positions come the EGM. I.e nearly paid for as Lloyd referred.

 

They must be removed ASAP :mad:

[Jacko51]

I've seen a lot of discussion on here about the shares issued to Deakin and Miller and whether they'll be able to be used to vote at a future EGM... make no mistake about it, legally they CAN be used. I've just spent a while on the Companies House website and lo and behold, on 28th November £500k of shares were registered but not paid for. These are ordinary shares with full voting rights.

 

Someone needs to get up to the Vale and demand to see the current share holders' register - just to confirm that they are in Deakin and Miller's names (and presumably also Hank the Yank's). If so, someone then needs to get onto Hank and ensure he gives his proxy to vote against the board.

 

On the positive side, nil paid shares aren't free shares - they simply delay payment. I hope Deakin and Miller have deep pockets if admin is on the horizon.

 

The SC had the Companies House document (SH01) at their meeting with Miller and Deakin on 1st December. They were told that the shares had been paid for in the previous week! We are led to believe that the Blue Sky shares have been revoked but the other £350k have not. I have emailed Mr Lodey this week to seek clarification but haven't received a reply yet.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

I can't imagine they will have the audacity to try and use thR Blue Sky ones as Deakin admitted they shouldn't have been used previously and I can't see how Deakin's can be as he also admitted he doesn't own any!!

[Leicestershire Valiant]

I can't imagine they will have the audacity to try and use thR Blue Sky ones as Deakin admitted they shouldn't have been used previously and I can't see how Deakin's can be as he also admitted he doesn't own any!!

 

If nil-paid shares can be used, then no-one would EVER have a chance of voting anyone off ANY Board, EVER.

There must be some restrictions to how nil-paid shares can be used, otherwise an incumbent Board of Directors could issue shares to itself and repel all attempts to dislodge them, and this clearly doesn't happen in the real world. (OK, I know the Boardroom at Vale Park is no longer the real world - it seems to be getting more like a cross between Narnia and Golgafrinchan as each moment passes)

[fairportnick]

If nil-paid shares can be used, then no-one would EVER have a chance of voting anyone off ANY Board, EVER.

There must be some restrictions to how nil-paid shares can be used, otherwise an incumbent Board of Directors could issue shares to itself and repel all attempts to dislodge them, and this clearly doesn't happen in the real world. (OK, I know the Boardroom at Vale Park is no longer the real world - it seems to be getting more like a cross between Narnia and Golgafrinchan as each moment passes)

 

Would you issue unpaid shares to yourself if you knew that the administrator would want the cash a few weeks later?

[grebovale]

After all this crap over Deakin and Miller with nil paid shares how can we shareholders vote for another person to become a director ?