Resolution 11 fails by <1%

[craig 5,199]

Thanks Craig , I'm sure that this is going to run for sometime. (Btw very brave of you to admit you didn't vote in the current climate )

 

Lol.

 

I don't see it as being brave to be honest mate. It is what it is and I was just a lazy bassa. The reality is that there are many more like me who didn't vote, clearly when over 15% of the voting shareholding didn't do so. I can almost guarantee that some of those who didn't vote are also lambasting McCoist right now too when their actions were virtually the same.

 

Plus.... my insignificant shareholding wouldn't have pushed it over the line and I hadn't pledged my support to the resolution - so I get a get out of jail free card like Malcolm Murray does :fish:

[craig 5,199]

 

That's how it reads to me.

I, too, suppose he must have had his reasons; it is merely unfortunate that it is impossible to discern even one scintilla of concern for the future of the Club in his actions.

 

That's my point mate. We don't know what his intent was for sure - though if FS says with certainty it was to prevent dilution of his shares then I have no reason to doubt him - with this Club information FS is very, very rarely wrong.

 

As for the hand-wringing comment - I was always of the belief that a hand-wringer was someone who defended the indefensible. The reality of this particular situation is that, if you actually read any of my posts in this thread, I have done nothing more than offer balance due to not having full information - I even stated that if McCoist did this to prevent dilution of his own shares or because he had a grudge against the current regime then it is reprehensible - not sure how that makes anyone a hand-wringer.

[craig 5,199]

Craig , I can totally understand voting against a particular acquisition or a remuneration policy . This seemed a much more fundamental policy to me .

 

I wont argue it being fundamental. I'm not so sure it is a policy though - a policy would suggest, to me at least, something which is a recurring, ongoing element to your business. This would be a one-off (one would hope), or at the very least an infrequent issuance of shares.

 

However, it is one policy in many. Shareholders disagree with the Board all the time. This particular resolution (resolution 11), if you actually strip it to the bare bones and take the emotion out of it, is unsurprising that people would vote against it. It gives the Board the right to selectively determine who can participate in the share offering - this means that any shareholder could see their holding diluted. We all know the TRUE reason behind that, but it doesn't mean that some shareholders could lose out along with Ashley & Easdales.

[limeburner 0]

Lol.

 

I don't see it as being brave to be honest mate. It is what it is and I was just a lazy bassa. The reality is that there are many more like me who didn't vote, clearly when over 15% of the voting shareholding didn't do so. I can almost guarantee that some of those who didn't vote are also lambasting McCoist right now too when their actions were virtually the same.

 

Plus.... my insignificant shareholding wouldn't have pushed it over the line and I hadn't pledged my support to the resolution - so I get a get out of jail free card like Malcolm Murray does :fish:

Ive lambasted McCoist,i voted for the resolution(just to clear things up ).

[forlanssister 3,062]

Will the board look to hold an EGM to get this pushed through?

 

I very much doubt so.

[calscot 0]

It seems to me that unless everyone who voted against the resolution 11 takes up their full allocation at the resolution 10 share issue and continue to vote against, then another similar resolution 11 next year will almost certainly be passed.

 

It's also a wake up call for all the non voters who were for the resolution.

 

We'll raise a bit less money and possibly dilute the rogue shareholders less, but it's only delaying it by one more year, and could cost the Ashley block quite a bit of money that will go to the club.

 

I don't know anything about their intentions but personally, I can't really see them dipping into their pockets to maintain their shareholding, and so see their votes against as more of an up-yours than anything. Ashley might as he will lose more influence on the decision making on his SD contracts, but he already seems to have completely lost that particular fight and so it seems futile to me.

[Darthter 542]

That's my point mate. We don't know what his intent was for sure - though if FS says with certainty it was to prevent dilution of his shares then I have no reason to doubt him - with this Club information FS is very, very rarely wrong.

 

Res 10 WAS passed though, which paves the way for a share issue, and as such probably dilution of shares (unless he takes up his allocation). Res 10 was always the most likely to be passed as it only required 50%. To not vote on the basis of protecting your share value just doesn't make sense.

[craig 5,199]

Res 10 WAS passed though, which paves the way for a share issue, and as such probably dilution of shares (unless he takes up his allocation). Res 10 was always the most likely to be passed as it only required 50%. To not vote on the basis of protecting your share value just doesn't make sense.

 

Yeah,I should have been clearer - I thought I made the same point in a previous post but maybe not.

 

It is a more than valid point though - given Res 10 passed then anyone not voting for Res 11 due to concerns about dilution of shares now need to buy their allocation to ensure they aren't diluted. That said, as FS rightly pointed out earlier, you can sell your rights and sometimes actually make profit even though you don't retain the shareholding strength.

 

Probably the biggest concern with Res 11 not passing is it prevents the Board from being selective as to who receives the shares being issued - so they cant always control them going to friendly faces.

Edited November 29, 2016 by craig

[forlanssister 3,062]

It seems to me that unless everyone who voted against the resolution 11 takes up their full allocation at the resolution 10 share issue and continue to vote against, then another similar resolution 11 next year will almost certainly be passed.

 

It's also a wake up call for all the non voters who were for the resolution.

 

We'll raise a bit less money and possibly dilute the rogue shareholders less, but it's only delaying it by one more year, and could cost the Ashley block quite a bit of money that will go to the club.

 

I don't know anything about their intentions but personally, I can't really see them dipping into their pockets to maintain their shareholding, and so see their votes against as more of an up-yours than anything. Ashley might as he will lose more influence on the decision making on his SD contracts, but he already seems to have completely lost that particular fight and so it seems futile to me.

 

Most companies have an equivalent of Resolution 11 up for vote annually as it gives them flexibility i.e. it allows them to raise capital relatively quickly for say an acquisition or to shore up their balance sheet.

[forlanssister 3,062]

Res 10 WAS passed though, which paves the way for a share issue, and as such probably dilution of shares (unless he takes up his allocation). Res 10 was always the most likely to be passed as it only required 50%. To not vote on the basis of protecting your share value just doesn't make sense.

 

As unpalatable as it is to many the fact of the matter is McCoist pledged to a Director he would back Resolution 11 with his vote then reneged citing the dilution of his holding as the reason for his volte face.

 

Not voting in the knowledge the resolution would fail is a perfectly rational and logical deed all it means is that he put his personal interests ahead of the greater good of the Club and that shouldn't come as a shock.

 

McCoist would have been aware in advance of what the Record would be printing verbatim he was given the opportunity to comment and declined.