|
|
Post by dave on Nov 29, 2008 8:57:15 GMT
I went along to the AGM last night so I could see the democratic process in action and it was an interesting night.
Firstly over 100 shareholders turned out for the meeting and I felt all conducted themselves pretty well considering the highly charged atmosphere at times.
The accounts for 06/07 were rejected on a show of hands by 42 votes to 41 and now will be looked at again by the Auditors, with the Social Club £36,000 write off causing the most concern.
Then came the election of Directors...
The process on the night was well managed and fair (albeit lengthy). The votes were obviously checked and verified as the counting took somewhere near 90 minutes to conduct.
The results were not to the liking of all obviously, and the main SAG protaganists walked out as soon as they were announced leaving the EGM proposal in utter confusion with nobody seeming to know if the EGM was still going to happen.
After all the criticism of Simon Williams for throwing toys out of the pram, Derek Jones and Barry Ward's reactions were very disappointing for me.
Personally I felt there was room for a Board incorporating people from both factions, and that is how I voted, but I have to accept in a Poll I only have limited voting power and the shareholders have now spoken.
In my view the new board of Directors has their mandate, and it is up to shareholders to now hold them to account on the promises they have made about being open, transparent and accepting help in turning the Club around.
No doubt the corruption allegations and whinging will continue from some quarters, but I do not see what this will achieve. The results as shown on another thread were pretty emphatic and as independant scrutineers (March and Edwards) have been involved, would probably hold up in court, if "Millionaire" Derek Jones and his colleagues challenged them using the due process of law.
Finally congratulations to Colin Layland who received almost universal support from all sides and polled the most "for" votes of any candidate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2008 11:46:37 GMT
Everything went as planned and as expected.
Remember, for the majority of shareholders, if they're told who to vote for, thats the way they vote. For instance, 60,000 odd votes were cast in favour of a guy called Clifford Slade, 30,000 against, yet he didnt turn up for the Supporters Trust meeting, and didn't even attend the AGM, and who most shareholders don't even know, they've voted for or against someone they wouldn't even recognise. I voted against him simply because he didn't have the courtesy to turn up. But thats the election process for you too. I have to say that I never realised that an against vote actually counted as a negative vote. Was there an option of not voting either for or against? For instance I voted against one Director when actually I'd have preferred not to, although I couldn't vote for!
Many of us left the meeting yesterday feeling extremely satisfied, believe me, I certainly did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2008 12:02:42 GMT
Three of the newly elected directors failed to show up last night. No apologies were sent or explanations given. Poor.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Nov 29, 2008 12:11:38 GMT
I'm too depressed at the moment to write anything!
Jem, areyou sure you left the meeting feeling satisfied?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Nov 29, 2008 12:28:32 GMT
I regard the meeting as a travesty of justice and a coup by the current Board of Directors, who used the voting strength of their multiple shareholding to give themselves a mandate, or that's no doubt how they see it. Us little shareholders, despite - I suspect - voting for the SAG, never had a chance.
However, now that the result is known I am prepared to buckle down and support the club in any way I can and draw a line under events up to that point. That's if, after Wednesday's meeting between the Chairman and RBS, we still have a club to support.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2008 12:36:56 GMT
niels, yes i am. Firstly I knew which way the vote was going to go, so that didn't really surprise me at all, apart from the lack of support for Prescott, I thought he had a few more friends. Secondly, I got two unexpected surprises!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2008 12:59:44 GMT
Last night actually reminded me of what fun it used to be to watch the city. Having a laugh with some old pals and meeting some new faces - almost enjoyable in other circumstances.
|
|
si1268
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 147
|
Post by si1268 on Nov 29, 2008 13:59:05 GMT
I'll not go back until the club is run and owned by the supporters... so I'm never going back.
Nothing changed last night and nothing will change. Sorry Jimbo but one day the penny will drop... (maybe not).
Predictions:
Fat man to still be running the antisocial club at a loss for ever.
Half the elected board to be never seen again.
Catering to remain crap for ever.
Never moving to Nunnery Way and going bust..
There's other stuff but I can't be bothered.
I can't believe anybody was actually suprised by last nights results?
I really have got to stop looking at this site now and get this f**k**g joke of a club out of my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by rushwickdon on Nov 29, 2008 14:06:47 GMT
Sorry Jimbo but one day the penny will drop... (maybe not).
It'll be a brass button, Si- the pennies will have dried up too
|
|
harley
Squad Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by harley on Nov 29, 2008 15:27:02 GMT
I did think that Hampson ran the meeting in a fair manner giving the SAG members and likeminded shareholders plenty of time to put their concerns forward. I could be cynical and say that if he had an idea of the number of proxy votes cast for and against then he knew that whatever was said would have no impact on the result. However, he is now on record promising transparency in the finances of the Social Club and wanting ideas or volunteers to increase income streams. Now isn't the time to walk away but to show Hampson and Hallmark the calibre of the people ignored in years gone by.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2008 21:40:32 GMT
No doubt the corruption allegations and whinging will continue from some quarters, but I do not see what this will achieve. The results as shown on another thread were pretty emphatic and as independant scrutineers (March and Edwards) have been involved, would probably hold up in court, if "Millionaire" Derek Jones and his colleagues challenged them using the due process of law. I wonder just how independent the scrutineers really were. I went down to the Christmas Fayre today, and popped into the Tudor House, hoping to see Jim Panter and give him my regards, and who should be helping out at the Tudor House?? One of last nights independent scrutineers!!! |
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Nov 30, 2008 11:28:06 GMT
But as the proxy votes received in the office had already been 'counted' by the Company Secretary allegedly to assist the Independent Scrutineer, and then the Chairman confirm that this was indeed inappropriate one has to question why their was a need for a WCFC officer to be involved in this process.
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Nov 30, 2008 12:46:54 GMT
As we know proxy's have been used to the clubs benefit (shall we say) before.
None of really expected it to be different this time around.
It is the process prior to the scrutineers counting I am most interested in.
counters only count, scammers always scam!!!
Hampson was the chairman (elect) prior to the AGM and yet he took the role of chairman, A Hayward-Wright is the company secretary (elect) prior to the AGM and was amusing the position when replying to emails from trust members so how come Lancaster was still meddling with the election process prior to him going on holiday? I agree it wasn't appropriate for the company secretary to go through the proxy's with a calculator totting up the results.
Lets say it was appropriate though for arguments sake then would it not have been more appropriate for the new company secretary (A H-W) to help out the IA's as he wasn't going away on the day of the AGM so could have offered some continuity, this is supposedly the new dawn!
The question was asked at the AGM why the social club debt had been written off, well allegedly the debt had to written off as any social club data wasn't available for audit as these details were off site shall we say and the holder was off ill.
It doesn't matter how many new faces are on the board when you still have the catalysts of the situation still involved.
smoke and mirrors folks please wake up! this is not a time for falling into line its a time to find out what certain people are so desperate to keep hidden from view and it needs to be done very quickly if the club is to be saved.
Please don't just dismiss this post as sour grapes or a rant from someone with an axe to grind because its not!
I want to be involved again with wcfc helping out where I can but I will not play any part in this charade, when the truth comes out most of you will be shocked, some wont as they have suspected it and the rest wont care because its only the football you are interested in.
If you are genuine fans start asking the awkward questions for yourself.
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Nov 30, 2008 12:47:27 GMT
As we know proxy's have been used to the clubs benefit (shall we say) before.
None of really expected it to be different this time around.
It is the process prior to the scrutineers counting I am most interested in.
counters only count, scammers always scam!!!
Hampson was the chairman (elect) prior to the AGM and yet he took the role of chairman, A Hayward-Wright is the company secretary (elect) prior to the AGM and was amusing the position when replying to emails from trust members so how come Lancaster was still meddling with the election process prior to him going on holiday? I agree it wasn't appropriate for the company secretary to go through the proxy's with a calculator totting up the results.
Lets say it was appropriate though for arguments sake then would it not have been more appropriate for the new company secretary (A H-W) to help out the IA's as he wasn't going away on the day of the AGM so could have offered some continuity, this is supposedly the new dawn!
The question was asked at the AGM why the social club debt had been written off, well allegedly the debt had to written off as any social club data wasn't available for audit as these details were off site shall we say and the holder was off ill.
It doesn't matter how many new faces are on the board when you still have the catalysts of the situation still involved.
smoke and mirrors folks please wake up! this is not a time for falling into line its a time to find out what certain people are so desperate to keep hidden from view and it needs to be done very quickly if the club is to be saved.
Please don't just dismiss this post as sour grapes or a rant from someone with an axe to grind because its not!
I want to be involved again with wcfc helping out where I can but I will not play any part in this charade, when the truth comes out most of you will be shocked, some wont as they have suspected it and the rest wont care because its only the football you are interested in.
If you are genuine fans start asking the awkward questions for yourself.
|
|
