craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Res 11 failed by 0.4% ... ... so the owners of the remaining 28,5% did not vote? Almost 11% of those 28.5% of votes were pre-emptive and ineligible to vote. So about 17.5% of shareholders didn't vote. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,325 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Interestingly, all directors but King (75%) got roughly 87% of the votes for re-election and were happy with their work (or toil), but 26% and 25% of those same voters were against Res 10 and 11 respectively? A bit strange. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Interestingly, all directors but King (75%) got roughly 87% of the votes for re-election and were happy with their work (or toil), but 26% and 25% of those same voters were against Res 10 and 11 respectively? A bit strange. There is a very, very big difference between being "happy with Directors" and wanting share issuances. Being happy with their work does NOT mean you agree with their intended policies. It isn't strange at all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) Craig, I don't think MM had been absolved of criticism. Not by me, certainly. He has not been accused, as Ally has, of promising to vote and then not doing so however and that adds fuel to the vitriol. As you say, there may be a good reason for Ally's behaviour. We may never know because a statement now could just be a defensive reaction to the abuse. A statement in advance as to why he went back on his word or what accident had forestalled him voting would have been more believable. Whatever, what is done is done and we remain in shackles as the other lot pull ever further ahead on an off the field. Edited November 28, 2016 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,325 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 There is a very, very big difference between being "happy with Directors" and wanting share issuances. Being happy with their work does NOT mean you agree with their intended policies. It isn't strange at all. Like being ask to pay up to keep you % when a share issue is on the cards? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Craig, I don't think MM had been absolved of criticism. Not by me, certainly. He has not been accused, as Ally has, of promising to vote and then not doing so however and that adds fuel to the vitriol. As you say, there may be a good reason for Ally's behaviour. We may never know because a statement now could just be a defensive reaction to the abuse. A statement in advance as to why he went back on his word or what accident had forestalled him voting would have been more believable. Whatever, what is fine is done and we remain in shackles as the other lot pull ever further ahead on an off the field. As far as I'm aware MM didn't pledge his vote and he wasn't expected to back resolution 11. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Craig, I don't think MM had been absolved of criticism. Not by me, certainly. He has not been accused, as Ally has, of promising to vote and then not doing so however and that adds fuel to the vitriol. As you say, there may be a good reason for Ally's behaviour. We may never know because a statement now could just be a defensive reaction to the abuse. A statement in advance as to why he went back on his word or what accident had forestalled him voting would have been more believable. Whatever, what is fine is done and we remain in shackles as the other lot pull ever further ahead on an off the field. I haven't seen one single person on this thread slate Malcolm Murray for either not voting for Res 11 or voting against it. Nobody has criticized it. Indeed, the only statement I saw was from FS saying that he didn't vote for it because he feels unloved by the current regime. The lack of venom towards him would suggest that he has a get out of jail free card on this, and that is wrong. Indeed, until we know WHY Ally didn't vote then all we have is vitriol towards McCoist without knowing what the motivation was. There may, or there may not, be a good reason. Like it or not, people have lives outside of Rangers. I have probably more involvement in share dealings and votes than Ally - and I simply couldn't be bothered to vote - so he could have felt the same way. Many, many shareholders show complete apathy when it comes to shareholder voting. And we simply don't know WHY he didn't vote - but as can clearly be seen from this thread, no reason needs to be given, people are very clearly entrenched when it comes to McCoist. A statement from McCoist now would be futile - he would be lambasted worse than he currently is and it would be seen as nothing more than a defensive statement to assuage people's hatred towards him and an attempt to retain his "legendary" status. It would be worthless him making a statement as it would cause more hassle. However, what also remains as an indisputable fact is that there were more than 15% of shareholders who simply didn't vote - but the focus is squarely on one of the highest profile shareholders we have who could have swayed the vote - not on the other 15% who did the exact same thing and didn't vote at all..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Like being ask to pay up to keep you % when a share issue is on the cards? Correct. That isn't strange at all. It is called a rights issue and happens very frequently in the marketplace. And it also isn't uncommon for such pre-emptive resolutions to fail as well. As I said, nothing strange in it at all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 As far as I'm aware MM didn't pledge his vote and he wasn't expected to back resolution 11. Which is fair enough - but I would argue that his personal feelings towards the current Board would be clouding his judgement on what is in the best interests of the Club - and that should, surely, see him also receive short shrift from the support. 1. He is a fan 2. He knows full well that res 11 was about diluting the ownership of Ashley & Easdales 3. He is someone that understands the markets better than most. Yet he still didn't support res 11 - I fail to see how that gets him a get out of jail free card simply because he has personal issues with the current incumbents. The only difference between him and McCoist is that McCoist did actually pledge his support - and his decision to not vote still ends up putting him in the EXACT same place as Murray.... Neither voted for Res 11. Both claim to be fans of the club. Only one gets hung, drawn and quartered...... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,325 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 ... and I would assume that neither McCoist nor Murray were the only ones. Whatever they might have said or proclaimed and done. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.