ian1964 10,622 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1866922276872225 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 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. It's hard to say actually.... Them not voting doesn't actually mean that they don't agree with it. It just means they didn't vote. You cant simply assume that not voting for something means you are against it.... although, in terms of a shareholders vote that is, in essence, what you are doing. Why ? Because you need a positive affirmation which means you need 75% to pass that particular resolution. By not voting or abstaining you remove your shares from being part of the positive affirmation. Not everyone understands that - Malcolm Murray certainly understands it, Ally should understand it too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 there's no way Ally didn't understand the implications of 11. His actions are incomprehensible 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,092 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 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. Undoubtedly true. 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...... If anything MM has been largely viewed as little more than a clown (largely due to his own actions it has to be said) by the fanbase at large. To compare him to the legendary status that McCoist endured for so long is pointless imho, even if he had backed the resolution it would still have fallen short. McCoist simply lied to a Director of the Club and could have help lessen the stranglehold that Ashley & Co hold over the Club but decided despite Rangers making him a millionaire many times over and despite getting his shares @ a penny a pop that a dilution of his own personal holding (I doubt it would even have dropped in value) meant more to him than the wellbeing and prosperity of Rangers. As always with McCoist it's him first, him next then him again. He's no fool he knew there would be consequences of him appearing to side with Ashley and the Easdale's yet he did what he did, being hung, drawn and quartered appears to be the price he's willing to pay. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1866922276872225 Craig Houston OWNED Jack Irvine in that exchange 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 I would very much doubt that the board would have put forward the proposal without gauging how it was likely to turn out. Somebody somewhere either lied or fecked up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Undoubtedly true. If anything MM has been largely viewed as little more than a clown (largely due to his own actions it has to be said) by the fanbase at large. To compare him to the legendary status that McCoist endured for so long is pointless imho, even if he had backed the resolution it would still have fallen short. McCoist simply lied to a Director of the Club and could have help lessen the stranglehold that Ashley & Co hold over the Club but decided despite Rangers making him a millionaire many times over and despite getting his shares @ a penny a pop that a dilution of his own personal holding (I doubt it would even have dropped in value) meant more to him than the wellbeing and prosperity of Rangers. As always with McCoist it's him first, him next then him again. He's no fool he knew there would be consequences of him appearing to side with Ashley and the Easdale's yet he did what he did, being hung, drawn and quartered appears to be the price he's willing to pay. I take your point. I don't know Ally personally so cant say how selfish he is or is not, but I take your word for it. How do you know for sure though that he didn't vote because he didn't want his shareholding diluted ? Has someone confirmed this with McCoist himself ? See, because what I find hard to imagine, and I am sure you are fully aware of this..... is that if McCoist truly wanted resolution 11 to fail then his BEST option would be to vote against it. A 75% mandate vote is a vote in which only the cast votes are counted (i.e. it doesn't take all of the issued share capital but only those votes cast for that particular resolution). So if Ally didn't vote then he literally took his shares off the table and they get discounted in both directions. i.e. for his votes to have any weight at all in the vote he needs to have cast it in one direction or another. So I find it confusing that you can be so affirmative that Ally "went against the Board" because he didn't want his shares diluted - yet the only way that this actually works is if he actually voted against the resolution. If he didn't vote at all then he basically was rolling the dice with his dilution hopes. Or maybe he thought that the Board had enough to get over the 75% and didn't bother casting his vote to look like the villain. Or maybe he deliberately pledged his shares to then renege so as to give the resolution a chance at failure without him having to actually vote against it...... If his actions were the latter then they were reprehensible - but it also means that the Board were naïve in only getting to the 75% and doing no further grunt work. At what stage will we also throw shade on the Board who naively assumed they had enough to not canvass some form of padding for the vote ? If you have a vote that close you simply don't stop canvassing until you have as many votes as you can muster. With 15% of shareholding left on the sideline I think that it is well within reason to also find fault with the Board on this one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,459 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 I know it goes against their aims but club1872 should make McCoist an offer for his shares. And once they've got them tell him never to darken the frontdoor at ibrox again 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,092 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 I take your point. I don't know Ally personally so cant say how selfish he is or is not, but I take your word for it. How do you know for sure though that he didn't vote because he didn't want his shareholding diluted ? Has someone confirmed this with McCoist himself ? C'mon Craig you're better than that. See, because what I find hard to imagine, and I am sure you are fully aware of this..... is that if McCoist truly wanted resolution 11 to fail then his BEST option would be to vote against it. A 75% mandate vote is a vote in which only the cast votes are counted (i.e. it doesn't take all of the issued share capital but only those votes cast for that particular resolution). So if Ally didn't vote then he literally took his shares off the table and they get discounted in both directions. i.e. for his votes to have any weight at all in the vote he needs to have cast it in one direction or another. So I find it confusing that you can be so affirmative that Ally "went against the Board" because he didn't want his shares diluted - yet the only way that this actually works is if he actually voted against the resolution. If he didn't vote at all then he basically was rolling the dice with his dilution hopes. Or maybe he thought that the Board had enough to get over the 75% and didn't bother casting his vote to look like the villain. Or maybe he deliberately pledged his shares to then renege so as to give the resolution a chance at failure without him having to actually vote against it...... If his actions were the latter then they were reprehensible - but it also means that the Board were naïve in only getting to the 75% and doing no further grunt work. He was fully aware that his vote could well make or break the resolution, whatever anyone thinks of McCoist he is no fool. At what stage will we also throw shade on the Board who naively assumed they had enough to not canvass some form of padding for the vote ? If you have a vote that close you simply don't stop canvassing until you have as many votes as you can muster. With 15% of shareholding left on the sideline I think that it is well within reason to also find fault with the Board on this one. As you're aware 80 odd % participation in voting at a Company AGM (the average is 46%) is quite high, I don't get your assumption that the Board stopped canvassing as soon as they thought they hit 75%, could they have done more? I think probably they could have just as I thought they could (and should) have last year. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charltonman 19 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 How can you be happy with them and disagree with their published policy ? 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.