Jump to content

AGM/EGM


Gillete

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

yes.......they are saying not all the requistioners have shares in their names, game of Cat & mouse and looks like the Cat is winning this round.

But they have accepted the requisition due to the 5%. McColls group are prepared to discuss further which just delays the whole thing. Would seem neither side are very confident.
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes.......they are saying not all the requistioners have shares in their names, game of Cat & mouse and looks like the Cat is winning this round.

That depends who you think is the cat and who is the mouse, looks like the mouse agreed to another postponement a sure sign of weakness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they have accepted the requisition due to the 5%. McColls group are prepared to discuss further which just delays the whole thing. Would seem neither side are very confident.

To me it seems the the whole thing is not delayed, its only the EGM which will be rolled into the AGM as planned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further delay to the requisition due to those behind it still not validating their shareholding. New deadline 9 September.

forgive my ignorance but what does that mean?

It reads like the guys wanting this EGM don't have sufficient share to call the EGM , is that correct, or at least the assumption?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The requisitioner singular could have forced an EGM they didn't, which from everything I have read adds up to them losing the vote.

but it was agreed by all that it makes sense to roll it into the AGM so why go against the previously agreed logic? maybe im wrong but to me this is just a process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

forgive my ignorance but what does that mean?

It reads like the guys wanting this EGM don't have sufficient share to call the EGM , is that correct, or at least the assumption?

If you read the statement again you will see some haven't but enough have. Artemis have more than 5%. The EGM could have been called.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either Jack is playing a good legal game or McColl and his consortium have blown it.

The greatest businessman the world has known back by everyones fav accountant...................and your suggesting they blew it dear god what next.......................a fanzine owner selling 6 month old fanzines as up to date ones :matron:

Link to post
Share on other sites

but it was agreed by all that it makes sense to roll it into the AGM so why go against the previously agreed logic? maybe im wrong but to me this is just a process.

But they did not agree on the resolutions and wanted to see the requistioners stake. They have the latter but still don't agree(on resolutions so they are talking further. Neither side is confident in my opinion. McColl could have forced the EGM today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends who you think is the cat and who is the mouse, looks like the mouse agreed to another postponement a sure sign of weakness.

forgive my ignorance but what does that mean?

It reads like the guys wanting this EGM don't have sufficient share to call the EGM , is that correct, or at least the assumption?

I would love to discuss in detail the point you make, but I do not know if this post will be vetted before the EGM :thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they did not agree on the resolutions and wanted to see the requistioners stake. They have the latter but still don't agree(on resolutions so they are talking further. Neither side is confident in my opinion. McColl could have forced the EGM today.

I thought it needed 10% but again I may be wrong.

It wouldn't make any sense to push for it today as that would turn off the fans/share voters and would be an unnecessary expense which no one wants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it needed 10% but again I may be wrong.

It wouldn't make any sense to push for it today as that would turn off the fans/share voters and would be an unnecessary expense which no one wants.

I was told 5 then 10 then 5 ! It would make sense to push for it if you knew you would win. 80 grand is an excuse. Sell out Ibrox for 1 game and its covered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but it was agreed by all that it makes sense to roll it into the AGM so why go against the previously agreed logic? maybe im wrong but to me this is just a process.

It is far from process if non-authorised parties have been found to have signed the requisition it could still be binned even if agreed at this moment, I think the board are playing with the alleged requisitioners

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is far from process if non-authorised parties have been found to have signed the requisition it could still be binned even if agreed at this moment, I think the board are playing with the alleged requisitioners

What makes you think this? Just the wording of the statement or something you have been told?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If any non-authorised person has signed the requisition the sitting board are within their rights to refuse the request as improperly constituted.

It seems this is more scaremongering as your stating a highly unlikely situation with no facts apart from your own presumption. It doesn't really help the situation and I don't really understand why this hypothetical scenario would be put out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems this is more scaremongering as your stating a highly unlikely situation with no facts apart from your own presumption. It doesn't really help the situation and I don't really understand why this hypothetical scenario would be put out there.

There is no presumption, McMurdo stated last week there were doubts as to the signatories of the requisition the SLE announcement today confirms that the club have not had any confirmation as to the authority of any signatory other than Artemis, pretty clear cut.

The Company had requested the Requisitioners to authenticate the Requisition in accordance with section 303 of the Companies Act 2006 by providing evidence of the shares held by the Requisitioners and the validity of signatures on the Requisition. The Board has now received authentication for one of the Requisitioners, being Chase Nominees Limited a/c Artemis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found

×
×
  • Create New...