Allan Heron Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 This It's a very reasonable question. There's nothing whatsoever stopping any shareholder confirming how they voted. David Beattie had previously been vocal in letting people know that he didn't want the club run by lawyers and accountants. Whatever you might think of the lawyers and accountants in question at the time, that was pretty inappropriate. This isn't. Go on, David. Take a leap of faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 This It's a very reasonable question. There's nothing whatsoever stopping any shareholder confirming how they voted. David Beattie had previously been vocal in letting people know that he didn't want the club run by lawyers and accountants. Whatever you might think of the lawyers and accountants in question at the time, that was pretty inappropriate. This isn't. Go on, David. Take a leap of faith. I love it when pragmatists turn evil........ Tom Hughes has done it to many, and I am guessing Beattie is about to start the same game Its a great question.......if you want supporter engagement, openess is required, therefore come on DB, tell us how you voted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I'll repeat the numbers I've heard from the AGM because I've yet to hear any denial by any Club official despite inviting them to correct me if I am wrong: Votes against Jim Alexander's reappointment: 5.07 million Votes in favour of JA's reappointment: 1.71 million Total shares in circulation: slightly under 9 million Shares on the Club Board: just shy of 2 million (1 million Ronnie Gilfillan, 420k Grant Bannerman, 500k David Beattie) Major Shareholders not on the Club Board: McMasters (4 x 260k), Springfords (2 x 500k), Eddie Prentice (1 million), Tom Hughes (1 million), Jags Trust (1 million), Jim Oliver (500k), Duncan Stewart (500k), Lord Smith of Kelvin (200k), Allan Cowan (50k), Jim Alexander (20k) If no one on the board voted against Jim Alexander, it means that almost 5 million votes must have come from the McMasters, Springfords, Prentice, Hughes, Oliver and Stewart - virtually no possible combination could leave out any of their shareholdings... So either those shareholdings were all used against Jim, or some of the votes from the Boardroom were used. My understanding on the grapevine is that Ronny Gilfillan was neither present at the AGM nor requested a proxy to act on his behalf. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stolenscone Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 If someone is going to wield the knife, then I'd have a lot more respect for them if they stood up, told us straight what happened and why they voted as they did. Sure, it was a shareholder decision, but the people who are being asked the question are shareholders, and if they want to engineer an open and honest two way dialogue between fans and the board, then I can see no reason why they shouldn't start with this. Given that we're talking about the people who make the day to day decisions about running our club, I think it's a legitimate question, since it goes to the issue of the direction that Jim Alexander wanted to take the club vs the future direction intended by those who remain. If this was all down to a petty personal squabble, however, then the club loses out (nobody has sought to deny that Jim invested a lot of time and money in the club), and my respect for those engaged in such a squabble diminishes. Frankly, it all smells very unsavoury. If we have the wrong end of the stick and this was all done for the best of reasons, then let's hear it. Otherwise we'll make up our own minds based on the information we have and judge those involved accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 History teaches us the truth. Today is a very interesting time to be a Jags fan, with questions swirling around some of the Directors and some of the in-with-the-bricks JTB folk. Who knows what might unfold in the next few days It does strike me that there a number of us on the forum making important connections from the tiny fragments of information we individually hold. The jigsaw is taking shape and it feels like we are getting close to the bigger picture here. The Jasgforum blog is the puzzle meister; he's helping us see clearly now. Strength through numbers. (Allan I know that's a very enigmatic post, but go on, just enjoy the moment !) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Who knows what might unfold in the next few days I'll put a fiver on "bugger all". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawlty Towers Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) Who knows what might unfold in the next few days Well I have bought a new quilt cover! I am forced to agree with DU and say that there will be plenty of froth and nothing else. Edited February 22, 2011 by Fawlty Towers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I'll put a fiver on "bugger all". Re-raise. It's just a petty squabble, which makes it even sadder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) some good websites worth checking out http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html and the best source of all... http://davidicke.com/ enjoy! Edited February 23, 2011 by mrD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 History teaches us the truth. Today is a very interesting time to be a Jags fan, with questions swirling around some of the Directors and some of the in-with-the-bricks JTB folk. Who knows what might unfold in the next few days It does strike me that there a number of us on the forum making important connections from the tiny fragments of information we individually hold. The jigsaw is taking shape and it feels like we are getting close to the bigger picture here. The Jasgforum blog is the puzzle meister; he's helping us see clearly now. Strength through numbers. (Allan I know that's a very enigmatic post, but go on, just enjoy the moment !) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Sorry, Sandy - javeajag wins the "enigmatic" competition for his latest contribution immediately above. Can't get any more enigmatic than not actually saying anything!! Edited February 23, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 This It's a very reasonable question. There's nothing whatsoever stopping any shareholder confirming how they voted. David Beattie had previously been vocal in letting people know that he didn't want the club run by lawyers and accountants. Whatever you might think of the lawyers and accountants in question at the time, that was pretty inappropriate. This isn't. Go on, David. Take a leap of faith. In one. We know that the technicalities of AGM procedures and privy information around shareholder voting etc. can fall anywhere between complex and downright arcane, but Allan reduces this bemusing mosaic of fact, pseudo-fact and crypto-fact down to one very pertinent question. Pertinent in that, in truth, we all want to know how Mr B really conducts himself business-wise and whether he's the real deal or simply the latest in a line of glib 'pro-fan' power freaks. So, come on David, how did you vote. I think we should be told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 So, come on David, how did you vote. I think we should be told. Yes, David, you want greater supporter engagement....well humour us, engage with us, and tell us how you voted. You may think its irrelevant, but we do not, it is a matter of ethics, judgement and these are fundamental as to whether you can carry the supporters with you as we go forward. And while you are at it, perhaps you could also put on the record that you agree that all corporate law procedures were followed properly in conduct of the AGM and the events leading up to the AGM, and the multiple hat wearer (Hughes) conduct was entirely proper and within corporate law and governance best practice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Just bumping this back up - and I'll keep doing it - until the big man decides to live up to the open and honest thing and tell us how he voted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Just bumping this back up - and I'll keep doing it - until the big man decides to live up to the open and honest thing and tell us how he voted. "I am not a hypocrite and every diplomatic word I have said on this subject is absolutely true and so therefore I can confirm that I voted for Jim Alexander and did everything in my power to keep him on the board." woudl be a very popular thing to say and could surely not do much harm, since it was 'a shareholder decision' rather than a board one, its not going to divide the board or anything? So why not come out and say that??? Unless.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 "I am not a hypocrite and every diplomatic word I have said on this subject is absolutely true and so therefore I can confirm that I voted for Jim Alexander and did everything in my power to keep him on the board." woudl be a very popular thing to say and could surely not do much harm, since it was 'a shareholder decision' rather than a board one, its not going to divide the board or anything? So why not come out and say that??? Unless.............. That would be the right and decent thing to do, however, the bit in bold would be a tacit concession that, in the arm-twisting stakes, he's more of a bantamweight than his board status would imply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 That would be the right and decent thing to do, however, the bit in bold would be a tacit concession that, in the arm-twisting stakes, he's more of a bantamweight than his board status would imply. He definitely DID NOT vote for Jim, that's for sure. He either obstained or voted against Jim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) He definitely DID NOT vote for Jim, that's for sure. He either obstained or voted against Jim. That's certainly as I would take it. From what we know, only one director voted in favour of Jim (given that we know 1,000,000 votes came from the Trust and the balance would only allow for one of smaller board shareholders plus individuals). It seems to be generally accepted that vote came from Grant Bannerman. As you say, that leaves David Beattie either abstaining or voting against. Edited February 24, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 That's certainly as I would take it. From what we know, only one director voted in favour of Jim (given that we know 1,000,000 votes came from the Trust and the balance would only allow for one of smaller board shareholders plus individuals). It seems to be generally accepted that vote came from Grant Bannerman. As you say, that leaves David Beattie either abstaining or voting against. who cares zzzzzzzzzzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) That's certainly as I would take it. From what we know, only one director voted in favour of Jim (given that we know 1,000,000 votes came from the Trust and the balance would only allow for one of smaller board shareholders plus individuals). It seems to be generally accepted that vote came from Grant Bannerman. As you say, that leaves David Beattie either abstaining or voting against. It isn't certain that any director voted in favour of Jim's re-appointment. My understanding is that if one did, it was Grant Bannerman, though. What I want to know is what the voting figures were for the other directors. If they were re-appointed with directors definitely using their shareholdings, it would beg the question why the same did not happen with Jim. If they did not abstain from their own re-appointment, why abstain for Jim's? Edited February 24, 2011 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted February 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 It isn't certain that any director voted in favour of Jim's re-appointment. My understanding is that if one did, it was Grant Bannerman, though. What I want to know is what the voting figures were for the other directors. If they were re-appointed with directors definitely using their shareholdings, it would beg the question why the same did not happen with Jim. If they did not abstain from their own re-appointment, why abstain for Jim's? There may not have been the need for a ballot for the others. It's usual for motions at such meetings to be settled initially by a show of hands and only move to a more substantive ballot if there is any doubt about the result or if it is requested from the floor (or, indeed, from the chair) Clearly, would need someone who was present to confirm though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 who cares zzzzzzzzzzz You, presumably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hebridean jag Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 who cares zzzzzzzzzzz Stupid contribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 There may not have been the need for a ballot for the others. It's usual for motions at such meetings to be settled initially by a show of hands and only move to a more substantive ballot if there is any doubt about the result or if it is requested from the floor (or, indeed, from the chair) Clearly, would need someone who was present to confirm though. If there was a show of hands, perhaps someone who was there could comment if there was anyone who raised their hand in a show of hands against Jim Alexander at the outset? Surely such a scenario would be needed to push a ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Stupid contribution. well in my opinion the speculation assumptions and conclusions on this topic are off the mark....a director was voted off the board by most of the shareholders because he rubs them up the wrong way.....happens all the time move on Quote Link to comment 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.