Resolution 11 fails by <1%

[forlanssister 3,114]

O.4% cheers Ally.

[pete 2,499]

Thanks for the Faq FS. Great what you learn on this site. The only share I have ever known was my bed.

pre-emptive of course.

[stewarty 2,028]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/agm-result-notice-2/ Edited November 28, 2016 by stewarty

[craig 5,199]

If any shareholder is canvassed by the board and gives an assurance they are voting and voting in a certain way then yes there is .

 

No there isn't. They would have to give a formal undertaking or provide a directed proxy. You are wrong legally, though certainly probably right morally.

Edited November 28, 2016 by craig

[craig 5,199]

We aren't talking about corporate takeovers or multi million pound deals , these guys know each other personally, supposedly Rangers men , if the board have aske McCoist and he's said he was going to vote for Res 1 imo ha has a duty to do that , this is Rangers not the city of London

 

Doesn't matter whether it is Rangers, the city of London or Joe's corner shop. They are bound by the same rules when it comes to share offerings.

[BEARGER 1,830]

More voted for R11 than R10.:

[forlanssister 3,114]

More voted for R11 than R10.:

 

Truely bizarre.

[craig 5,199]

In an attempt to be balanced...

 

I don't doubt the veracity of FS' information - never have. Someone who has my complete respect. However, unless I missed it the only things we know are that a) Ally didn't vote and b) had he voted in favor of Res 11 then it would have passed.

 

There are unanswered questions for me. The first one is "WHY didn't Ally vote" ? I'm not saying he shouldn't have but I myself have shares in Rangers and didn't vote - I think that makes me every bit as culpable as McCoist is - why ? Because I know that Res 11 was fairly important too - some people don't vote because they cant be bothered. Now, if Ally said he would vote in favor but ultimately never cast a vote then the question is WHY ? If we know why then someone needs to state the FACT of why - otherwise we simply don't know - it could have been any number of reasons, good OR bad. Could be that he felt the Board didn't support him (not sure why when the current Board continued to pay his salary and defended his right to collect it) or it could be that he was just a lazy bastard like myself. Or.... he may have had other commitments that prevented him attending - or he wanted to attend in person to cast his vote, had a last minute change to plans and couldn't provide proxy. Unless we know FOR SURE why he didn't cast the vote then we are doing nothing more than surmising..... and absolutely pillorying McCoist.

 

One thing that is being missed in all of this is the naivety of the Board. I have been involved in close shareholder votes in the past myself and the one thing you do NOT do is get to the required %age to get your preferred vote and then stop canvassing. If the Board did this then they were naïve in the extreme. For the avoidance of doubt, I am a firm believer in this Board and its intentions. But if they simply got to 75% of verbal backing then they lacked insight - you should always be canvassing to get yourself enough of a buffer in a vote to ensure that if one or two don't vote they way you expected then you still have enough of a cushion to get your resolution passed.

 

But it saddens me that all I see is a bunch of people getting irate simply because Ally didn't vote. I could see it more had he voted against the resolution or even if he had abstained (an abstention is effectively a vote against as it doesn't get counted towards affirmation). But he seemingly did neither and just didn't vote. Do ANY of us know, FOR SURE, why that was the case ? Because if the answer is no then there are an awful lot of people shouting and abusing without full facts at hand.

 

The reality here is that there were more than enough other shareholders that could have helped push this through had the Board sought to canvass more of them. I mean, we even give Malcolm Murray a free pass because "he doesn't feel loved by the current regime". Should he really get a free pass for that ? The vast majority of us believe that the current regime is there with the club's best interests at heart - so if Malcolm Murray is a fan then why is he getting a free pass on personal grounds ??? Surely he is every bit as bad as Ally (assuming Ally was deliberately trying to see the resolution fail) by being a fan and not voting for what is in the best interests of the Club ?? Why the free pass there ?

 

And given the vote failed by 0.4% then Malcolm Murray's 0.25% was also pretty darn close to being enough to see it over the line, had the Board sought further canvassing.

 

But for us to lay the blame for this ALL at Ally's feet - and lets not be kidded, that is EXACTLY what is happening - is unfair and inaccurate.

 

Some balance would be great - but seeing as people are so polarized over Ally anyway I really shouldn't be surprised.

[der Berliner 3,750]

Resolutions 1 to 10 were successfully passed. Resolution 11 did not achieve sufficient votes to be passed.

 

Res 11 failed by 0.4% ...

 

Total votes cast on the Resolution was 58,249,750. This represents 71.5% of the Company’s issued share capital.

 

... so the owners of the remaining 28,5% did not vote?

[craig 5,199]

What is interesting to me is that in all of the 1st 9 resolutions you could see that voting went along "party lines". You can take it as read that in the 1st 9 resolutions all of the 12.5% "No" votes were part of the Easdale bloc - some of which are just stupid - eg, accepting the financial statements.

 

However, what was interesting to me was that resolution 5 to reappoint King was the only resolution in the 1st 9 that saw a swing away from the party lines - with 7.5 million shares (just over 9% of the issued share capital) voted against King. I didn't realize BrahimHemdani owned 9% of Rangers . Seriously though - anyone have any inkling why that would have happened ? It looks like someone (or a few people) have issues with King that they don't have with the other Directors up for re-appointment.

 

Regarding the Res 10 and 11 and seeing more vote for Res 11 - I guess the easiest way of viewing that is that maybe some wanted to see res 11 succeed so as to dilute the ownership of the Easdale/Ashley bloc but didn't want to see an issuance (Res 10) that would see them retain their shareholding. I can think of a couple other reasons you would see voting go this way but it is interesting, and fairly strange, nonetheless.