Donald Muir Re-election Confirmed

[calscot 0]

Disagree. As always, a majority shareholder holds all the aces but even when the small minority votes as we seen yesterday it shows a distinct lack of agreement and puts our voice across.

 

Yes, it was futile per se. Yes, it held back the meeting. But, yes, it showed active supporters displeasure (or more accurately uncertainty) with regard to Muir and his role (bank led or not).

 

I agree with that but I was talking from the point of view of the board who were in charge of the meeting.

 

A proper voting system would remove some of the confusion and still allow the supporters to show displeasure.

 

The biggest problem here is that so few supporters have so few shares so the view voiced may not even be representative of the support as whole and may just stem from lack of insider knowledge.

 

If those present held say, 34% of the shares (including proxies), their dissenting viewpoint would make a much bigger wave.

 

It seems to me that the unrest in AGM stemmed from many of those present assuming it was one man one vote and a fix was in place.

 

It could actually have been dangerous for us for the re-election not to be carried, as his presence on the board could be a condition of the relaxation of our credit facility.

[craig 5,199]

Anyone who thinks that OMOV was the order of the day is being very naive. Very rarely in shareholder votes will you find it is OMOV and given we all know one of the reasons SDM holds such a high voting right is to retain power then even more so.

 

All they would have needed to have done was to take a look at Bluedell's post a few weeks back which, IIRC, stated the obvious that Muir would still be voted on by virtue of SDM's shareholding but that it at least showed the support were not prepared to sit idly by.

 

The support, it seems, showed that yesterday but the club's Senior Mgt simply didn't handle it correctly. As someone said, this course of action by the rank and file present yesterday was blatantly obvious and the Board should have known how to handle it. In fact, I am very surprised that they didn't know how exactly to handle it. We have pre-meetings here prior to AGM's and when there is a shareholder vote everyone in management is completely aware as to what the vote entails, what the structure is (OMOV or voting rights) and what is required for a vote to pass or fail.

[maineflyer 0]

I've just read through from the beginning of this topic and I lost my sea legs towards the end of the 4th page. Apart from the revelation that Murray owns most of the shares, which I kinda knew, is there a conclusion in sight?

[calscot 0]

I'm not sure the exact conclusion you're looking for but if it's about the resolution for Muir to be re-elected onto the board, it was "overwhelmingly passed" which is not surprising since SDM owns/controls over 90% of the shares.

 

Voting by all other shareholders over these resolutions is interesting but effectively redundant.

[maineflyer 0]

I'm not sure the exact conclusion you're looking for but if it's about the resolution for Muir to be re-elected onto the board, it was "overwhelmingly passed" which is not surprising since SDM owns/controls over 90% of the shares.

 

Voting by all other shareholders over these resolutions is interesting but effectively redundant.

 

Sorry, I understood that, I'm being unclear. I meant that there is a lot of re-stating that nothing is happening ragarding regime change and that Murray is still king of the heap. I just wondered what that was all about. Is the point being made that David Murray is Rangers future and no change at the top is to be expected? I'd have thought we were beyond that stage, even if this is likely to be tediouly prolonged.

[calscot 0]

I don't think the board can say too much unless a real offer comes in. It's up to interested parties to make themselves known but at the same time they will have their own reasons to keep quiet until they are ready.

 

To me it's a bit like selling players, until a bid comes in, the board can't really comment.

 

I think as far as the board is concerned, it's the status quo until someone external makes a move as far as ownership is concerned. They just have to work within the current business plan.

[calscot 0]

I don't think the board can say too much unless a real offer comes in. It's up to interested parties to make themselves known but at the same time they will have their own reasons to keep quiet until they are ready.

 

To me it's a bit like selling players, until a bid comes in, the board can't really comment.

 

I think as far as the board is concerned, it's the status quo until someone external makes a move as far as ownership is concerned. They just have to work within the current business plan.