der Berliner 3,326 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Did they promise to the board that they would? How would we know? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 ... I "wondered" how those who said it was McCoist from the off knew of how he (or anyone else) cast his vote before it is public knowledge. No more, no less. Once there IS a list, we can see who apart from McCoist did abstain or decided not to vote. NB: I'm not saying that I like his decision, btw. Abstaining or not voting are for all intents and purposes the same thing, an abstained vote is not recognised as a vote in law. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 How would we know? My point was in reply to Darther asking what the difference was. The differences being manifold in that McCoist's shareholding had been identified as being significant enough to be essential and that the board had apparantly been assured it could count on them as part of its "votes in the bag" which is why King at the AGM said he htought/hoped we now had enough to pass the resolution. The above differentiated McCoist from the others Darther was alluding to as far as I am aware. There's also a presumption - or used to be - that McCoist would act in the best interests of a club he claims to support. I do not know if everyone else that Darther was comparing McCoist to are professed Rangers fans or not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 How would we know? Because only major shareholders are canvassed personally as per norm, though the old regime did employ an agency to canvass each individual shareholder personally prior to the EGM that overthrew them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 ... I "wondered" how those who said it was McCoist from the off knew of how he (or anyone else) cast his vote before it is public knowledge. No more, no less. Once there IS a list, we can see who apart from McCoist did abstain or decided not to vote. NB: I'm not saying that I like his decision, btw. I am still hoping the Record story is untrue if that's what you are getting at. That's why I used "if"s all the way through. I fear I am hoping vainly though as it had all the stenchmarks of a leaked story to that rag from our club. (Another annoyance). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,326 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) Abstaining or not voting are for all intents and purposes the same thing, an abstained vote is not recognised as a vote in law. Which is interesting, but does not answer the question. Anyway, the current hunt for McCoist's scalp with hindsight knowledge does look somewhat suspect. Even if he at one time or another said that he would back the board. Essentially a wild card for the whole anti-McCoist band to hare after him again. Which is very much on at the moment. Because only major shareholders are canvassed personally as per norm, though the old regime did employ an agency to canvass each individual shareholder personally prior to the EGM that overthrew them. ... and it would be public knowledge how they would vote? Which was the question. Edited November 28, 2016 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 I am still hoping the Record story is untrue if that's what you are getting at. That's why I used "if"s all the way through. I fear I am hoping vainly though as it had all the stenchmarks of a leaked story to that rag from our club. (Another annoyance). It is 100% true, sadly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 If the vote had passed without McCoists vote, would anyone have cared??? If the vote failed with a percentage greater than McCoists holding, would anyone have cared?? The fact that it appears to have failed with a percentage less than McCoists individual holding now seems to make him Enemy No.1. Why didn't he vote - who knows. He may have been planning on attending in person to cast his vote, but had to change his plans. He may have filled out the voting slip wrongly - we simply don't know. What was the total percentage of votes cast??? If 20-30% of shareholders didn't vote, is it REALLY fair to single out one person??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 It is 100% true, sadly. I pressed "thanks" and it is true in a way.........but hardly apt 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Which is interesting, but does not answer the question. Anyway, the current hunt for McCoist's scalp with hindsight knowledge does look somewhat suspect. Even if he at one time or another said that he would back the board. Essentially a wild card for the whole anti-McCoist band to hare after him again. Which is very much on at the moment. ... and it would be public knowledge how they would vote? Which was the question. Jesus wept. All votes have to be checked to ensure that they were legal. 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.