Everton Fans Conference 2012 Tonight Recap - Elstone, Jags, Baines, Sharp

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

The founding fathers of the club must have been 'ridiculous' too then, because the original articles of association maintained pretty much that principle (one vote, extending to 2 votes per person only if you had 20 or more shares - a rule of governance changed much later). It was there to ensure no fat cats (as per Houlding when he tried to weild his financial power) could dictate club affairs.

When the club was worth 10 bob you mean?

1 vote per shareholder is an idiotic proposal & it's no wonder the major shareholders took the action that they did in light of the threat of continued egms beogn called.

 

[Chang Elephant]

1 vote per shareholder is an idiotic proposal & it's no wonder the major shareholders took the action that they did in light of the threat of continued egms beogn called.

It is a wonder really, because one vote per shareholder rather than one vote per share could only happen if the major shareholders wanted/allowed it to. Are you saying they're thick ?

 

[Coach]

But....regulation 54 also clarifies that on a poll every member shall have one vote for every share of which he is the holder.

And regulation 46 includes:

"A resolution put to the vote of a meeting shall be decided on a show of hands unless before, or on the declaration of the result of, the show of hands a poll is duly demanded. Subject to the provisions of the Act, a poll may be demanded—
(a)
by the chairman; or
(b)
by at least two members having the right to vote at the meeting; or
(c)
by a member or members representing not less than one-tenth of the total voting rights of all the members having the right to vote at the meeting"

Anything Bill, Earl or Green didn't like from a vote could be squashed with by a poll (one vote per share).

Bad bad bull**** Bill scare story lad....

And this changes the fact that Grayson and Bennett were specifically calling for an EGM based on a show of hands (one vote per person) not a poll (one vote per share) how?

 

[Coach]

It is a wonder really, because one vote per shareholder rather than one vote per share could only happen if the major shareholders wanted/allowed it to. Are you saying they're thick ?

Who, Grayson and Bennett?

 

[steken1]

The founding fathers of the club must have been 'ridiculous' too then, because the original articles of association maintained pretty much that principle (one vote, extending to 2 votes per person only if you had 20 or more shares - a rule of governance changed much later). It was there to ensure no fat cats (as per Houlding when he tried to weild his financial power) could dictate club affairs.

The founding fathers operated in a very different world in a very different scenario DaveK. I'm sceptical of how the club is run but operating a system of governance from the 1800's is unlikely to improve us.

 

[Essex Blue]

It is total nonsense to say people were trying to change a voting system, they just wanted the results of the vote to be reported accurately.

90% of shareholders were against the move to Kirkby by that time, yet it was reported as if a majority of shareholders were in favour of the move, as the results were calculated on the basis of one vote per share, and not one vote per shareholder.

Nobody thought that they could gain control of the club through canvassing the opinions of minor shareholders. The issue arose on how the vote was reported.

 

[Coach]

It is total nonsense to say people were trying to change a voting system, they just wanted the results of the vote to be reported accurately.

Really?

"We eventually hope to force a show of hands vote to determine if shareholders remain confident in the ability of the board of directors to act in and secure the best long term interests of Everton Football Club"

 

[Essex Blue]

Really?

The EGM was all about Kirkby, it was never a vote to "determine if shareholders remain confident in the ability of the board of directors to act in and secure the best long term interests of Everton Football Club"

This accusation that there was a concerted effort to change how decisions are made at Everton is about a week old. It was an unrealistic fantasy of maybe a few people. The objective behind the vote was to show that the vast majority of shareholders were against the move, anyone who thought this would be a means of ruling the club and making decisions were living in dreamland.

In fact it is so ridiculous that I don't even know why the club are bothered about it, but I suppose it gives them an excuse not to hold any form of general meetings.

 

[Coach]

The EGM was all about Kirkby, it was never a vote to "determine if shareholders remain confident in the ability of the board of directors to act in and secure the best long term interests of Everton Football Club".

Even though the person calling the EGM said it was and the second EGM's stated purpose was worded thusly?

5. To have a show of hands to pass a resolution, on receipt of the answers given by the board to the aforementioned questions, in relation to the shareholders confidence in the ability of the board to act in and secure the best long term interests of Everton Football Club

 

[Slavan]

was out early this morning at 5am, spotted kenwright searching for a buyer (24/7 he meant it)

 

[Chang Elephant]

And this changes the fact that Grayson and Bennett were specifically calling for an EGM based on a show of hands (one vote per person) not a poll (one vote per share) how?

It changes the BillyBull****myth you're spreading that AGM's were stopped because shareholders were threatening to take them/EGM's over. Because that could never happen given major shareholders/the chairman could easily block any such move and continue AGM's/EGM's with polls (one vote per share) on any and every subject they wanted them on.

Unless you're saying Bill is some sort of retard and didn't know this ??

 

[Coach]

It changes the BillyBull****myth you're spreading that AGM's were stopped because shareholders were threatening to take them/EGM's over. Because that could never happen given major shareholders/the chairman could easily block any such move and continue AGM's/EGM's with polls (one vote per share) on any and every subject they wanted them on.

Unless you're saying Bill is some sort of retard and didn't know this ??

That's like saying there is a power to stop armed robbery therefore the Great Train Robbery never happenend.

Whether or not the majority shareholders had the power to stop Grayson and Bennett does not change what Grayson and Bennett actually tried to do i.e. call an EGM based on one vote per person.

Unless you are saying that the mere existence of that power wiped events from history?

 

[chicoazul]

I've had a bevvy with Bennett and he's a cracking fella.

 

[Chang Elephant]

That's like saying there is a power to stop armed robbery therefore the Great Train Robbery never happenend.

Whether or not the majority shareholders had the power to stop Grayson and Bennett does not change what Grayson and Bennett actually tried to do i.e. call an EGM based on one vote per person.

Unless you are saying that the mere existence of that power wiped events from history?

I'm saying there was no reason to stop AGM's/EGM's, they could/should have continued on the basis of whatever voting procedures the major shareholders wanted......

It's that simple