Views from the Sieve

Alan wrote:

Diggerthedog wrote:The members who did not show up count as a no vote so it's still not the 75%. It was changed to 50/50 for one reason only.

Where is that in the company's articles/memorandum? Because my quick read of the companies act suggests that it allows a vote taken by poll to be passed by the requisite percentage of those who vote in person, by proxy or in advance. I think it's only a show of hands that is counted as you say - but I'm not a company lawyer. See 282(3) and 283(5) of the companies act.

Very good question I will hand it over hopefully have some answers soon, won't post everything on here don't want to tip off the regime.

Maybe we can get on with the football now. 37 to 11 is pretty conclusive. The remoaners in the eu vote whilst ******** tiresome at least had a very close vote to whinge about.

ARNU wrote:Maybe we can get on with the football now. 37 to 11 is pretty conclusive. The remoaners in the eu vote whilst ******** tiresome at least had a very close vote to whinge about.

You think they will let this go?

The people (members) have spoken. Time to get on with it.

Welcome Glenn.

To clarify, tonights vote was either Tamplin (37) or Abstain (11)

Very disappointing!

The Romford Dagger wrote:

ARNU wrote:Maybe we can get on with the football now. 37 to 11 is pretty conclusive. The remoaners in the eu vote whilst ******** tiresome at least had a very close vote to whinge about.

You think they will let this go?

The people (members) have spoken. Time to get on with it.

Welcome Glenn.

Going to welcome him by waving from Portman road.

dagger4eva wrote:To clarify, tonights vote was either Tamplin (37) or Abstain (11)

Very disappointing!

So nobody voted against?

Diggerthedog if those who don`t turn up are a no vote why didn`t all the members stay at home that way he would not have won ?

Alan wrote:

dagger4eva wrote:To clarify, tonights vote was either Tamplin (37) or Abstain (11)

Very disappointing!

So nobody voted against?

That wasn't an option!

Phippo wrote:

Alan wrote:

dagger4eva wrote:To clarify, tonights vote was either Tamplin (37) or Abstain (11)

Very disappointing!

So nobody voted against?

That wasn't an option!

In my mind an Abstain is like a yes vote.

If there's 70 members and nearly 53% of the votes were for Tamplin and 16% abstained that just leaves a possible 31% who could have voted no , and that's only if it were there opinion. Whatever way you look at this , sorry but it's an overwhelming mandate for the new bloke. Just to recap 69% of the votes were not against Tamplin. Oh and of those that did vote 75.5% of them voted for Tamplin. Good luck with the court case.

Is that a valid poll if you cannot vote against the resolution? If the only option is for or abstain, I mean. If you abstain, you haven't voted so he got 100% of the vote and always would? I don't know and I'm assuming that the ballot paper was designed after taking legal advice.

But if 37 voted against Tamplin and 11 had abstained would you be of the opinion he'd lost ?
I think I understand your point but it would only have any relevance if nobody had voted for Tamplin.
Sorry but I think you're pissing into the wind here.

At over three votes to one, it seems pretty unanimous in my book. Time to move on and start concentrating on matters on the pitch.

Why watch football when you could bitch and moan like a 12 year old

ARNU wrote:But if 37 voted against Tamplin and 11 had abstained would you be of the opinion he'd lost ?
I think I understand your point but it would only have any relevance if nobody had voted for Tamplin.
Sorry but I think you're pissing into the wind here.

I'm actually quite neutral in the whole takeover thing. The one thing that I've always tried to argue for is fairness. If as you posit nobody had voted for Tamplin, it would have failed as there would have been no votes for or against. I think he won the vote, but it could be argued that those who wanted to vote against didn't have a chance to. I'm told there are about 100 members. Of course, I'm not a corporate lawyer, so I could be wrong.