EGM - Proxy Voting for independent shareholders (content now applies to AGM)

[Zappa 0]

Why would someone who bought proper Rangers shares in the IPO (as opposed to a share in the RST), proxy their vote to the RST when it is unknown which way the RST is going to vote on the resolutions.

 

I understand it is a bit chicken and egg in that the RST can't say how they are going to vote until they count their proxy votes, but similarly how can someone wanting to vote a certain way be sure that the RST is going to be able to vote the way they want them to?

 

For RST members and shareholders, I understand that they all signed up to this and that all makes good sense, but I must say I am a bit puzzled as to why the RST would be trying to obtain non-members proxy votes and will count them in with their own members votes before announcing which way they are going to vote. It doesn't seem to be very well thought out to me on that basis.

 

For example if Charles Green (an honorary member of the RST if I remember right) decided to give the RST his percentage of Rangers shares to proxy and wanted to vote against the resolutions, then his votes would overwhelm the ordinary members votes as he is the largest shareholder. Therefore the RST block vote would have to vote towards CG's intentions, which might be against what the majority of RST members wish to vote for.

 

It is dangerous ground to play on and I believe the RST would have been better served just to ask it's own shareholders which way to vote, announce it publicly, and then ask for proxy votes from non-members.

 

I mostly agree with (or at least understand) your concerns TB, but do you honestly think there's a chance that the RST would vote AGAINST the proposed board changes in the requisition letter?

 

I think the Charles Green being an honorary member of the RST issue is extremely far fetched because there's no way on this earth that he's going to proxy his vote to the RST. In fact, I seriously doubt that anyone would do so if they're in the Green & co camp because it would just be too big a risk for them. It would be stupidity on their part if they did.

[Stimpy 0]

Green is not an honorary member and since he hasn't renewed, he is no longer a member:)

[Taipan 0]

Actually it's a legitimate concern. If Green proxies his 7% to the RST then he would dwarf the current percentage held and controlled by both the members who hold community shares and those members and non-members who have proxied as it stands.

 

However the proxy rules quite categorically state that in casting our collective vote the Chair must reflect, in the first instance, the views of the members and, in the second instance, the view of the wider support. The rationale behind this aspect of the rules is that the RST is a one member, one vote organisation and neither size nor financial clout can outweigh the democratic majority.

[TheTinMan99 0]

Green is not an honorary member and since he hasn't renewed, he is no longer a member:)

 

Why was he even a member in the first place? Is the RST not for supporters?

 

 

The idea of pooling the fans vote like this is a noble one, but it remains to be seen if the RST are the best vehicle for it. I think they will be doing well to get 50% of fan shareholders onside, but you can't fault them for trying.

[bossy 0]

Why was he even a member in the first place? Is the RST not for supporters?

 

 

The idea of pooling the fans vote like this is a noble one, but it remains to be seen if the RST are the best vehicle for it. I think they will be doing well to get 50% of fan shareholders onside, but you can't fault them for trying.

 

50% of fan shareholders would be huge. That would represent around 6% of the shares and would allow some serious leverage.

[Stimpy 0]

Why was he even a member in the first place? Is the RST not for supporters?

 

 

The idea of pooling the fans vote like this is a noble one, but it remains to be seen if the RST are the best vehicle for it. I think they will be doing well to get 50% of fan shareholders onside, but you can't fault them for trying.

 

Trust presents honorary membership to ex players or reps at their main functions all the time. Green was no different except he hadn't done enough to get an honorary membership. The debate by the board was interesting;)

 

It's not like we gave him forum log ins or expensive gifts. Too many making an issue out of this just because it suits. Another sad indictment of the online support.

[Zappa 0]

Actually it's a legitimate concern. If Green proxies his 7% to the RST then he would dwarf the current percentage held and controlled by both the members who hold community shares and those members and non-members who have proxied as it stands.

 

I've got more chance of winning the lottery without buying a ticket than there is of Green giving the RST his proxy!

[craig 5,199]

Giving proxy to the RST doesn't mean they will vote the same way for all proxies. You can give them proxy but request they vote a certain way for you, at least that is how it normally works. Remember, giving proxy really is just you saying you can't attend but you want your vote taken. The vote is still yours to take and you can, or should be able to, direct the RST or anyone else you give the proxy to on how to vote.

 

For instance, Green could give RST his proxy to vote to keep Mather and the RST are obligated to vote that way for him. However, I may give the RST my proxy to vote to sack Mather, the RST has to vote that way for me.

 

The RST can't necessarily receive a bunch of proxies and then just vote the way they want. As shareholder you can direct your proxy however you like, you just give the RST the authorization to vote for you as they are in attendance.

 

That is how I have seen it work in practice.

[Zappa 0]

Maybe Taipan, Shorerdbear or plgsarmy from the RST can clear this up Craig, but on top of what he wrote in post #13, Taipan wrote the following about it elsewhere (I also quoted this earlier in the thread):

 

Just so those proxying are clear, the proxy form will ask for you to vote on the resolutions and we will collate the votes and this will be reflected in the block vote. The block vote will therefore be reflective of the Community Share holders, the members who proxy direct shares and the non-members who proxy.

 

From reading that and post #13, it would look to me very much as though it will be a collective/block vote from the RST chair.

[Stimpy 0]

Maybe Taipan, Shorerdbear or plgsarmy from the RST can clear this up Craig, but on top of what he wrote in post #13, Taipan wrote the following about it elsewhere (I also quoted this earlier in the thread):

 

 

 

From reading that and post #13, it would look to me very much as though it will be a collective/block vote from the RST chair.

 

best explained in here, Zappa: 2.1. How Shareholders Rights Will Be Exercised

 

2.1.1. The Chair must in the first instance act in the interests of the Rangers Supporters Trust’s community shareholders and in accordance with any views and opinions expressed by the community shareholders and its democratically elected board

 

2.1.2. The community shareholders, in expressing their views and opinions, should take into account the wishes of the wider support including;

 

2.1.2.1. Members of the Rangers Supporters Trust who are not community shareholders

 

2.1.2.2. Members of the Rangers Supporters Trust who are not community shareholders who proxy their rights to the Rangers Supporters Trust

 

2.1.2.3. Non-members of the Rangers Supporters Trust who proxy their rights to the Rangers Supporters Trust

http://www.therst.co.uk/proxy-voting/