.png)
Full and life members...
-
dj johnny b
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:04 am
So the meeting (only a week today) involves an "update" and "advised of proposals" but does it also incorporate a vote (which then "ALL" supporters would be made aware of an hour later?)
-
dagger4eva
- Posts: 1735
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:39 pm
As far as im aware, a vote by the full members is not required.
Any future proposals put forward are done so by the board of D&RFC2017 Ltd and would no longer require agreement by the Full Members entity in order to proceed with anything they so wished...
Any future proposals put forward are done so by the board of D&RFC2017 Ltd and would no longer require agreement by the Full Members entity in order to proceed with anything they so wished...
-
VIEW FROM THE STAND
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:53 am
You may well be right D4E, but I’m curious as to why the members were issued with a 26% holding of the new Club. (D&RFC2017)
This obviously leaves all other shareholders with 74% of the Club.
Could it be that, like some other entities, for any motions of major changes to be passed, a 75% majority needs to be achieved, thus providing something of a safety net.
If this is the case, and speculating further, the members would probably vote on-bloc on motions.
This obviously leaves all other shareholders with 74% of the Club.
Could it be that, like some other entities, for any motions of major changes to be passed, a 75% majority needs to be achieved, thus providing something of a safety net.
If this is the case, and speculating further, the members would probably vote on-bloc on motions.
"May the best of your past be the worst of your future"
-
Voice of reason
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:15 am
Alan can probably give more info but fundamental changes normally need 75% approvalVIEW FROM THE STAND wrote: ↑Thu May 10, 2018 5:31 pm You may well be right D4E, but I’m curious as to why the members were issued with a 26% holding of the new Club. (D&RFC2017)
This obviously leaves all other shareholders with 74% of the Club.
Could it be that, like some other entities, for any motions of major changes to be passed, a 75% majority needs to be achieved, thus providing something of a safety net.
If this is the case, and speculating further, the members would probably vote on-bloc on motions.
I wonder what ST and his allies have in mind?
-
RayleighDagger1986
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:01 pm
I'm guessing they'll be a decent turnout for the 8pm slot. Most of us are curious and would like answers. Strangely enough with lots of players out of contract this summer, usually by now there's a released list of those the club is not offering contracts too.
So looking between the lines, if the club survives are we looking to re-sign them all? I doubt that very much
If no intention to keep any, at least the club can allow them every opportunity to find a new club. I mean as an example, do we need Justham and Cousins next season. Just the one keeper should suffice!
So looking between the lines, if the club survives are we looking to re-sign them all? I doubt that very much
If no intention to keep any, at least the club can allow them every opportunity to find a new club. I mean as an example, do we need Justham and Cousins next season. Just the one keeper should suffice!
-
VIEW FROM THE STAND
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:53 am
Alan,thanks for clarifying.
As I mentioned the 26% members holding gives some sort of safety net
As I mentioned the 26% members holding gives some sort of safety net
"May the best of your past be the worst of your future"
-
RayleighDagger1986
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:01 pm
Whats the difference Alan. In what circumstances would be an ordinary resolution?
-
dagger4eva
- Posts: 1735
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:39 pm
Its worth noting that Simmo acts as the full members entity representitive on the board but I'm not exactly sure how it works with him being able to give a vote on behalf of the members without something being put to them first.
Anyhow, I found this which should answer RayleighDagger:
The special resolution regime helps to protect minority shareholders against important decisions being taken without proper consideration and, to the extent possible, consensus. In areas covered by a special resolution, a shareholder or group of shareholders together holding 25% of the shares can effectively oppose a resolution. The need for a special resolution may help good decision-making, ensuring important changes are better considered and an effort made to gain wider support than a simple majority. Of course, the special resolution regime can also work to a company’s disadvantage – when a required transaction is blocked by an intransigent minority
Anyhow, I found this which should answer RayleighDagger:
The special resolution regime helps to protect minority shareholders against important decisions being taken without proper consideration and, to the extent possible, consensus. In areas covered by a special resolution, a shareholder or group of shareholders together holding 25% of the shares can effectively oppose a resolution. The need for a special resolution may help good decision-making, ensuring important changes are better considered and an effort made to gain wider support than a simple majority. Of course, the special resolution regime can also work to a company’s disadvantage – when a required transaction is blocked by an intransigent minority
-
RayleighDagger1986
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:01 pm
Cheers D4E but that hasn't really answered my question. Its still not clear as to what situations a soocial resolution may be used in. But for now thanks for the explanation.
So whose going Thursday night?
And which suite is the "Ted Hardy"?
So whose going Thursday night?
And which suite is the "Ted Hardy"?
Main hall downstairs
-
Mike the Dagger
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
- Contact:
They said £100 pa last night.
No, it isn't on the form!!! Doh!
No, it isn't on the form!!! Doh!