AGM Procedure

[creaner]

How is voting carried out at the AGM? Presumably if you have 50 shares then you have 50 "votes" for your preferred choices.
But how does it work in practice? Is there a record taken on how many shares you have as you go in so they can be all counted along with the proxies all ready received then totalled up to give a result a la Eurovision?
In a crowded room with numerous people with differing share holdings how is it monitored so that each vote is recorded? I've asked a few people and the answers range from "don't know" to "show of hands!" which obviuosly wouldn't work or be fair and transparent.
Anybody the wiser?

[suv]

Probably be alphabetical Boddy/Ward

[greenman]

Write and ask 'Harpo'

[creaner]

Nov 13, 2008 18:46:47 GMT suv said:

Probably be alphabetical Boddy/Ward

What I was after was how the votes are counted per individual share holding?

[Deleted]

To be honest, it will be a total disaster, no-one will have proof of who they are, or how many shares they hold. THe whole procedure is open to abuse, its a total joke which simply has not be thought out. not everyone has received their voting forms, so they would have to turn up at the meeting and vote and say "I've got 50 shares, I think, but I might have 100 cos I won on the Superpool I think!" Whats to stop people voting via proxy (after all no-one knows who the shareholders are and what they look like) and then turning up and pretending to be someone else?

[Tim Munslow]

A show of hands would favour the small shareholder, but I foresee a shambles here. The points Jeremy has made above are all that needs to be said really.

It should be an entertaining night if nothing else!

[ac]

Entertaining in a laugh or cry way I think.

[creaner]

Nov 13, 2008 20:28:38 GMT Tim Munslow said:

A show of hands would favour the small shareholder, but I foresee a shambles here. The points Jeremy has made above are all that needs to be said really.

It should be an entertaining night if nothing else!

That's my point, how can a hand owning 50 shares have the same voting power as a hand with 500? Why bother buying loads of shares!
On a similar vein, how do they count the number of votes per proxy or do they wave them in the air!

[Deleted]

Throw them all up in the air and see which way up they land?
Its a circus, so maybe a few flaming swords and squirty flowers thrown into the mix, along with the custard pies and funny car that falls apart!

[greenman]

As their has been a mad scramble to purchase shares by the proposed chosen few in the last few weeks ( hopefully all approved at Board Meetings and paid for, not just on the nod) they obviously think it is a foregone conclusion.

[creaner]

Nov 13, 2008 22:26:37 GMT greenman said:

As their has been a mad scramble to purchase shares by the proposed chosen few in the last few weeks ( hopefully all approved at Board Meetings and paid for, not just on the nod) they obviously think it is a foregone conclusion.

If it's a foregone conclusion then declare the results publicly so there is no misunderstanding.
This the point I've wanted clarification on. Why purchase shares if the vote is a show of hands?
I there a process or not?

[alwaysnextyear]

The last publicly known issued share total was circa 130,000 ? To this total, I would imagine that the shares no doubt bought by the very recent Board appointees can be added ( up to 3,000 per individual ). I strongly suspect that it will then be a case of put your share certificate ( produced on the night ) down then, how many have you got, who have you selected ? eg if someone with 3,000 shares votes for D Boddy, and someone with 50 shares votes against D Boddy then Mr Boddy gets elected. Be in little doubt that shares will count,not individuals. 1 share = 1 vote.
Whilst Mr Hampson appears an interesting choice as Chairman of a football club particularly one which he has barely supported, he will have vast experience of handling an AGM and a potentially stormy one at that, and the legal protocol required as to process and procedure, something that Mr Boddy almost certainly lacks. Call me an old cynic, but if we believe as he said that he was approached months ago, why accept the offer after the AGM and EGM date was announced and not straightaway. Surely with such a " challenge " to face, and such obvious enthusiasm for the job, why wait ? A cynical view might be that's it's a short term appointment to get through a tricky AGM.

[dragon]

Most companies-including the County Cricket Club-elect Directors by a postal vote of all shareholders-such voting invigilated by the Company auditors.Surely someone should propose this at the AGM?

[jimbo]

I have never known it to be the case that you need to take your share certificates to an AGM or EGM. If that were the case, surely all proxy votes would have to be accompanied by one as well.
The procedure has always been a show of hands & the numbers questioned only if it looks a close vote.

[DazaB]

Nov 14, 2008 9:10:53 GMT jimbo said:

I have never known it to be the case that you need to take your share certificates to an AGM or EGM. If that were the case, surely all proxy votes would have to be accompanied by one as well.
The procedure has always been a show of hands & the numbers questioned only if it looks a close vote.

Sounds like the American general election!

[creaner]

Nov 14, 2008 9:10:53 GMT jimbo said:

I have never known it to be the case that you need to take your share certificates to an AGM or EGM. If that were the case, surely all proxy votes would have to be accompanied by one as well.
The procedure has always been a show of hands & the numbers questioned only if it looks a close vote.

So if nine hands with 100 shares were raised against one hand with 1000 then the show of hands would win? And if it is close how do you know how many shares each hand has or even if they're actually shareholders? This is like no election i've ever seen! Still, it's not like there's a lot riding on the outcome.

[Tim Munslow]

The fairest way to handle the voting at the AGM would be to appoint two impartial tellers, like in the House of Commons. It would avoid arguments; otherwise I can see both sides thinking they've won.

I think I'd better bring a flask and some of that coffee with rum in it; it's going to be a long night.

[wh]

Nov 14, 2008 19:55:52 GMT Tim Munslow said:

The fairest way to handle the voting at the AGM would be to appoint two impartial tellers, like in the House of Commons. It would avoid arguments; otherwise I can see both sides thinking they've won.

I think I'd better bring a flask and some of that coffee with rum in it; it's going to be a long night.

and a cup for me please Tim, i'll join you.

[Tony is not to despondent now.]

Surely they will have a copy of the share register there to refer to?

Or will they?

[rushwickdon]

Think you all know my thoughts on this now.

As suv has posted on another thread, it is up to the people putting themselves up for election as board members to outline their vision for WCFC in x years time, to come forward and say "vote for me because.........."

But how many have actually done this? The current board members are obviously hoping that what they have done in the past has caught the eye (well, yes, but.........), coupled with the inaction of the people wanting to take their place.

And there is the rub. Shareholders should vote for Alisdair Double-Barrel and against Dave Boddy because..............well, because what?

Where are the great speeches from the candidates (OK, we are not in the US Parliamentary Elections here, but you know what I mean). Barry Ward has outstanding credentials, of that there is no doubt, but all the others? It even had to be prised out of Mr Hampson at the press conference what he had done in the past, because nobody knew, and he wasn't keen to let everyone know either.

it is a shambolic process that the current board are probably loving, in the knowledge that no-one is going to call them to account before the AGM/EGM, and afterwards it will be too late.

Shareholders, if you want WCFC to continue, MAKE SOME NOISE!!!!

[cogg]

I just cannot believe that even the voting becomes a farce !!

Surely as a shareholder you get some sort of registration number ? Or one per share certificate ordered ?

The voting form has to have this on, a box for how many shares this shareholder holds, and then the boxes for who they are voting for.

The forms are then collated. The number of ticks for, say Dave Boddy, are added up multiplied by how many shares the shareholder has said they have. You then have a total for each Director and the top 'X' get in....

Of course, how in an evening you check that the shareholders are actually shareholders, and that the number of shares they say they own they do, and that the number of shares claimed for across all the voting adds up to less than or equal to the shares issues is another matter, but surely that is what is required

It can't just be a show of hands for 130,000 votes !!??

[Deleted]

Surprisingly it can. I've been doing some research into General Meetings (as part of my agenda!!) and it appears that the default voting method for a General Meeting is a show of hands, regardless of the number of shares that these hands hold. I believe that it has to be demanded by a shareholder if the vote should be on a poll, or if the hand show is to close to call.

Also I don't believe that this is a "first past the post" vote, therefore the Top X with Yes votes are voted in, I believe it is a yes/no vote, so if you get more yes than no - you're voted on.

This is what I believe, I may be wrong, but it is for the board to publish the voting process for shareholders, if there is any ambiguity then any decisions made at the AGM could be anulled. And considering the shambles over the time of the meeting and the three different company numbers on the forms, then this is the most likely course of action at the AGM.

[suv]

I'm surprised to see that the "Proxy" voting forms are not individually numbered?
I was thinking of photocopying my copy a few times and posting them off.

[Deleted]

"I was thinking of photocopying my copy a few times and posting them off."

I hope the current board wouldn't do something like that? Surely not? Especially the ones they have had pre-ticked.

[cogg]

It just beggers belief....

But there again, why am I expecting anything more than this shambles from the people in charge ?

Has anyone as a shareholder written to the Chairman and asjed what the rules for voting are ? Surely someone from the SAG must have done this by now ?

[gobby cow]

Why worry about the voting system, I still dont know if the AGM is 6.30 or 7pm.

What else can you expect from Shonky Dave and his gang!

[Deleted]

Nov 16, 2008 14:52:08 GMT cogg said:

It just beggers belief....

But there again, why am I expecting anything more than this shambles from the people in charge ?

Has anyone as a shareholder written to the Chairman and asjed what the rules for voting are ? Surely someone from the SAG must have done this by now ?

Its not the responsibility of shareholders to ask "how does the voting work?" It is very clearly the responsibility of the Board of Directors to publish this information for shareholders. If they don't do it right?? Well the meeting can be adjourned on the night at the request of a shareholder, and reconvened at the same time, same place 7 days later, or at a time and place agreed upon with the shareholders. Or something like that.

[cogg]

That's just a rubbish answer Jem

As far as I am aware, various shareholder groups have been after an EGM for a considerable time now. They finally get their chance, and with actually a good chance of voting on some new people with new ideas, and you say, because it's not your responsibilty you'll turn up and if it apprears to be 'not right' someone will ask for it all to happen again

But on what basis can you query the votes if you don't know the procedure beforehand ? What chance is there of getting another EGM when this one has taken YEARS to sort out?

This your chance ! Don't f**k it up by being ill prepared....

[Deleted]

Cogg, you're mixing the EGM up with the AGM. I can assure you that all the documentation and process for the EGM will be completed correctly. Everyone is well prepared for the event of the EGM. People have gone to great lengths to ensure that is the case.

What the present Board do for their AGM is their responsibility, if they f**k it all up and end up having the meeting anulled on the night, then so be it, it has no effect on the holding of the EGM whatsoever. Apart from, of course, the fact that those present will have fresh in their minds that the present Board can't even arrange their own piss up in their own brewery!

[birdfeeder]

Nov 16, 2008 22:39:51 GMT cogg said:

That's just a rubbish answer Jem

As far as I am aware, various shareholder groups have been after an EGM for a considerable time now. They finally get their chance, and with actually a good chance of voting on some new people with new ideas, and you say, because it's not your responsibilty you'll turn up and if it apprears to be 'not right' someone will ask for it all to happen again

But on what basis can you query the votes if you don't know the procedure beforehand ? What chance is there of getting another EGM when this one has taken YEARS to sort out?

This your chance ! Don't f**k it up by being ill prepared....

The present Board called the AGM which is a cock up,and the SAG group called for the EGM we will all see who messed up what on the night if it is all done by the book?.