| Vote of no confidence thread. 18:21 - Dec 15 with 27416 views | E20Jack |
Not a member but will happily join again if this was to get off the ground.
Any members have any ideas how to do this?
Looks like the only way of stopping this deal now. I have asked several times what are the benefits of this deal, it cannot be continuing to have a voice as conceding drag rights will probably mean the Trust survives as an organisation for a shorter period than if it was to go legal. They are not long term owners.
...those who recommended the deal still have not answered.
Swans Trust,
12 Dynevor Avenue,
Neath,
SA10 7AG
I, the undersigned member, believe the current committee no longer represents the wishes of this organisation's members. I would like to register a vote of no confidence and ask you to call and extraordinary meeting of all Trust members so that we can be heard. We would like to table a motion that the following committee members should stand down and call an election at the earliest opportunity.
Alan Lewis
Stuart McDonald
Viv Brooks
Ron Knuszka
Cath Dyer
Viv Williams
Sian Davies
Yours,
................................
** any Trust members for the deal I have missed out feel free to add or any I have included that are against it then again feel free to omit. [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 20:43]
|  |
| |  |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:45 - Dec 16 with 1552 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:43 - Dec 16 by monmouth |
Second imperative:
Get a vote backing legal action IF a deal with the following profile cannot be agreed - not negotiated - by the 31 January, say.
Immediate payment pro rata to what the other shareholders got with no drag rights for 10% or whatever of the shares.
So the Trust, not the Yanks set the terms of the deal to avoid the legal action that they have a mandate to take.
I really hate to say it but:
TAKE. BACK. CONTROL.
(Ps what's changed? You are kidding, no? Enough to get your own chairman of over 10 years that would bleed black and white to resign.) [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:46]
|
This in spades. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:48 - Dec 16 with 1545 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:42 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
Dwight is this something you can do, finalise the draft people are happy with and uploading to dropbox? (Probably better coming from a current member for my own sanity's sake).
Email address is now live:-
swanseatimeforchange@outlook.com
I will get them all printed off and sent. If we get the required amount, I will give the word on here so people in the same boat as myself can join/rejoin, then I will get them sent recorded delivery. |
Dwight incase you missed this as it has gone on to a new page.... | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:50 - Dec 16 with 1539 views | londonlisa2001 |
A few observations.
Firstly, the rules around what constitutes a quorum are very different doe an AGM and a special meeting. I've checked again this morning, and an AGM requires 20 people or 10% of members, whichever is LOWER to be quorate, and a special meeting requires 20 people or 10% of members, whichever is HIGHER to achieve the same. So the AGM scheduled for January only requires 20 people in the room to pass a vote, whereas a special meeting will require over 110.
Once the meeting is quorate, a vote will pass with a 2/3rds majority of those in the room. You can see that a vote at the AGM will, therefore, be easier than a vote at an EGM.
Secondly, according to the Trust rules, half of all elected members have to stand for re-election. There are 8 elected members, 4 of whom need to stand for re-elections. They aren't:
Alan Lewis
Viv Williams
Viv Brooks
Ron Knuszka
According to the Trust website, their term runs until July 2018 (not sure why this doesn't coincide with AGM to be honest). But the election of these members will take place at the AGM.
There doesn't seem to be a reason why alternatives can't be nominated for election in their place at the AGM. The changeover wouldntvhapoen until the summer, but if they were voted out, it would seem to me to be difficult for them to do much in the interim, they'd effectively be dead ducks.
So someone should find out what the process is for nomination of elected members - Phil would, I'm sure, know the answer. He would also know the timetable for that.
Uxbridge is right in saying that the deal was voted for last summer, and there isn't a reason for it not going ahead unless it's changed, in my view, it has changed. Sufficient to cause revote. The devil was always in the detail. Sometimes the detail is such that the very nature of the deal is different.
I will argue very strongly in favour of a revote when I get chance. I have done already via emails. I will do in person when possible. I will explain why I believe it's changed (it's not appropriate that I do so on here at this time). Suffice it to say, I believe that it's changed in several areas, some of which are crucial. |  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:54 - Dec 16 with 1524 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:50 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
A few observations.
Firstly, the rules around what constitutes a quorum are very different doe an AGM and a special meeting. I've checked again this morning, and an AGM requires 20 people or 10% of members, whichever is LOWER to be quorate, and a special meeting requires 20 people or 10% of members, whichever is HIGHER to achieve the same. So the AGM scheduled for January only requires 20 people in the room to pass a vote, whereas a special meeting will require over 110.
Once the meeting is quorate, a vote will pass with a 2/3rds majority of those in the room. You can see that a vote at the AGM will, therefore, be easier than a vote at an EGM.
Secondly, according to the Trust rules, half of all elected members have to stand for re-election. There are 8 elected members, 4 of whom need to stand for re-elections. They aren't:
Alan Lewis
Viv Williams
Viv Brooks
Ron Knuszka
According to the Trust website, their term runs until July 2018 (not sure why this doesn't coincide with AGM to be honest). But the election of these members will take place at the AGM.
There doesn't seem to be a reason why alternatives can't be nominated for election in their place at the AGM. The changeover wouldntvhapoen until the summer, but if they were voted out, it would seem to me to be difficult for them to do much in the interim, they'd effectively be dead ducks.
So someone should find out what the process is for nomination of elected members - Phil would, I'm sure, know the answer. He would also know the timetable for that.
Uxbridge is right in saying that the deal was voted for last summer, and there isn't a reason for it not going ahead unless it's changed, in my view, it has changed. Sufficient to cause revote. The devil was always in the detail. Sometimes the detail is such that the very nature of the deal is different.
I will argue very strongly in favour of a revote when I get chance. I have done already via emails. I will do in person when possible. I will explain why I believe it's changed (it's not appropriate that I do so on here at this time). Suffice it to say, I believe that it's changed in several areas, some of which are crucial. |
Is waiting for the AGM a risky strategy though Lisa. You will have a better understanding than me on how far this deal is down the line and how close people are to forcing it through.
Secondly, can this 20 people AGM scenario also be done to put the breaks on the deal? [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:58]
| |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:57 - Dec 16 with 1518 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:54 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
Is waiting for the AGM a risky strategy though Lisa. You will have a better understanding than me on how far this deal is down the line and how close people are to forcing it through.
Secondly, can this 20 people AGM scenario also be done to put the breaks on the deal? [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:58]
|
The AGM is in January, and there's not a chance in hell the deal will get finalised before then in my opinion.
The next two weeks will see all the lawyers on a Christmas break for one thing.
In my experience, it always comes as a surprise to Americans quite how much we all 'shut down' over here for Christmas... | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:59 - Dec 16 with 1510 views | Bloodyhills |
Well, that's good news then. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:00 - Dec 16 with 1510 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:57 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
The AGM is in January, and there's not a chance in hell the deal will get finalised before then in my opinion.
The next two weeks will see all the lawyers on a Christmas break for one thing.
In my experience, it always comes as a surprise to Americans quite how much we all 'shut down' over here for Christmas... |
Ok that is somewhat of a relief and clearly the best route. You replied after I edited a second part it seems.
Can this 20 people at an AGM scenario be used to stop the deal? As opposed to just removing the "rotten eggs"? [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 12:02]
| |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:00 - Dec 16 with 1509 views | Vetchfielder |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:50 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
A few observations.
Firstly, the rules around what constitutes a quorum are very different doe an AGM and a special meeting. I've checked again this morning, and an AGM requires 20 people or 10% of members, whichever is LOWER to be quorate, and a special meeting requires 20 people or 10% of members, whichever is HIGHER to achieve the same. So the AGM scheduled for January only requires 20 people in the room to pass a vote, whereas a special meeting will require over 110.
Once the meeting is quorate, a vote will pass with a 2/3rds majority of those in the room. You can see that a vote at the AGM will, therefore, be easier than a vote at an EGM.
Secondly, according to the Trust rules, half of all elected members have to stand for re-election. There are 8 elected members, 4 of whom need to stand for re-elections. They aren't:
Alan Lewis
Viv Williams
Viv Brooks
Ron Knuszka
According to the Trust website, their term runs until July 2018 (not sure why this doesn't coincide with AGM to be honest). But the election of these members will take place at the AGM.
There doesn't seem to be a reason why alternatives can't be nominated for election in their place at the AGM. The changeover wouldntvhapoen until the summer, but if they were voted out, it would seem to me to be difficult for them to do much in the interim, they'd effectively be dead ducks.
So someone should find out what the process is for nomination of elected members - Phil would, I'm sure, know the answer. He would also know the timetable for that.
Uxbridge is right in saying that the deal was voted for last summer, and there isn't a reason for it not going ahead unless it's changed, in my view, it has changed. Sufficient to cause revote. The devil was always in the detail. Sometimes the detail is such that the very nature of the deal is different.
I will argue very strongly in favour of a revote when I get chance. I have done already via emails. I will do in person when possible. I will explain why I believe it's changed (it's not appropriate that I do so on here at this time). Suffice it to say, I believe that it's changed in several areas, some of which are crucial. |
Thank you very much Lisa |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:03 - Dec 16 with 1500 views | monmouth |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:54 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
Is waiting for the AGM a risky strategy though Lisa. You will have a better understanding than me on how far this deal is down the line and how close people are to forcing it through.
Secondly, can this 20 people AGM scenario also be done to put the breaks on the deal? [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:58]
|
The AGM has to be in the next 6 weeks or so. The bigger danger is that the AGM is rushed forward to pre-empt such action, but as Phil says 14 or 21 days notice needed.
I doubt they would be dull enough to sign a deal now, as their lives would become incredibly uncomfortable, and accusations of impropriety that are allegedly floating just under the surface might become very pointed. I think such action would destroy the trust, and damage them personally. I wouldn't want either outcome for one second, and I'm sure neither would they. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 12:04]
|  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:03 - Dec 16 with 1500 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:00 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
Ok that is somewhat of a relief and clearly the best route. You replied after I edited a second part it seems.
Can this 20 people at an AGM scenario be used to stop the deal? As opposed to just removing the "rotten eggs"? [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 12:02]
|
You can't only vote on a motion.
I don't imagine that a motion on the vote will be scheduled for the AGM.
I don't know how a member can propose a motion. Phil may know?
The re-election of board members will be a motion as it has to be. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:43 - Dec 16 with 1468 views | dobjack2 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:50 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
A few observations.
Firstly, the rules around what constitutes a quorum are very different doe an AGM and a special meeting. I've checked again this morning, and an AGM requires 20 people or 10% of members, whichever is LOWER to be quorate, and a special meeting requires 20 people or 10% of members, whichever is HIGHER to achieve the same. So the AGM scheduled for January only requires 20 people in the room to pass a vote, whereas a special meeting will require over 110.
Once the meeting is quorate, a vote will pass with a 2/3rds majority of those in the room. You can see that a vote at the AGM will, therefore, be easier than a vote at an EGM.
Secondly, according to the Trust rules, half of all elected members have to stand for re-election. There are 8 elected members, 4 of whom need to stand for re-elections. They aren't:
Alan Lewis
Viv Williams
Viv Brooks
Ron Knuszka
According to the Trust website, their term runs until July 2018 (not sure why this doesn't coincide with AGM to be honest). But the election of these members will take place at the AGM.
There doesn't seem to be a reason why alternatives can't be nominated for election in their place at the AGM. The changeover wouldntvhapoen until the summer, but if they were voted out, it would seem to me to be difficult for them to do much in the interim, they'd effectively be dead ducks.
So someone should find out what the process is for nomination of elected members - Phil would, I'm sure, know the answer. He would also know the timetable for that.
Uxbridge is right in saying that the deal was voted for last summer, and there isn't a reason for it not going ahead unless it's changed, in my view, it has changed. Sufficient to cause revote. The devil was always in the detail. Sometimes the detail is such that the very nature of the deal is different.
I will argue very strongly in favour of a revote when I get chance. I have done already via emails. I will do in person when possible. I will explain why I believe it's changed (it's not appropriate that I do so on here at this time). Suffice it to say, I believe that it's changed in several areas, some of which are crucial. |
Thanks Lisa.
One thing that confuses me is how can someone’s term run until a specific date? If I understand rule 61 of the model rules correctly the half of the board elected by the members who have served the longest at the date of the AGM should resign?
In practice the date quoted may effectively be the date when the people you have named have to resign, however other people leaving the board could mean a change in relation to who has been the longest serving at the time of a preceding AGM. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:44 - Dec 16 with 1465 views | TheResurrection |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:24 - Dec 16 by Uxbridge |
Thing is that's really not my position at all. My position is that the case for the alternative course of action needs to be made, not simply saying the current course is wrong, because largely that's coming from the people who were saying it in the summer anyway.
The argument needs to be different IMO.
The members voted a course of action in the summer. Priority #1 is arguing what has changed since then. Unless you can do that, the argument to annul the vote is weak, on any level.
Of an equal priority is arguing what the better alternative is. Also need agreement on what the better alternative is.. I've seen competing arguments on here regarding what the better option is in the future, with arguments flipping between the importance of retaining the stake verses the legal approach.
Importantly here, the strengths of the alternative approaches need to be laid out, and the weaknesses acknowledged. Why is it in everyone's interests for the Trust to go to court to pursue its case. What happens if a case is won or lost. How does the Trust benefit. What are the risks involved, and how are they mitigated. What is the impact to the club, and what happens on the pitch.
Then you come to the how you do it. A vote of no confidence could be won, no doubt about that. However my concern is the impact of that. Unless there is a coherent plan ready to implement, and a group of people ready to implement that plan the Trust is paralysed and in a worst position than if it proceeded with this deal. Hopes that people will step up, or hopes of a better resolution I'm afraid don't cut if for me. Things can always get worse.
There's a lot I'm unhappy about at the moment. Clearly there are inherent issues with the club that need addressing and the inactivity of the Trust in publicly commenting and rallying the troops makes me question everything. If we can't do that, then what is the point anyway? But merely stopping the existing course of action by any means necessary doesn't cut it for me. A better way needs to be outlined. That's the weakness I'm seeing at the moment. If that isn't addressed, then I can I only see things getting worse if the nuclear button (from a Trust board perspective) is pressed. |
And,
What's changed since then has been well documented, including a lot of the Trust Board resigning for one reason or another, and you shouldn't really be offering that as a reason to keep proceeding like nothing's changed.
It's time mate, it really is, for the Trust to get its wake up call and no matter how drastic that may feel now, it needs to happen.
Do the right thing and listen to the members and fans at large, and yes, I know you can point to past forums where you've felt the members present there were of a similar thinking to the Board, but there is a clear message right now, a growing contingent and an admittance by so many that if the vote was offered again they would change their mind.
To keep on ignoring this really looks bad on you and the Trust Board in general.
Take a strong stand and stick up for the dogs tail. |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:45 - Dec 16 with 1465 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:43 - Dec 16 by dobjack2 |
Thanks Lisa.
One thing that confuses me is how can someone’s term run until a specific date? If I understand rule 61 of the model rules correctly the half of the board elected by the members who have served the longest at the date of the AGM should resign?
In practice the date quoted may effectively be the date when the people you have named have to resign, however other people leaving the board could mean a change in relation to who has been the longest serving at the time of a preceding AGM. |
The 4 I list must be the 4 that have served longest (half of the elected 8).
Normally terms would coincide with election, so the AGM would be the start date again, but not in this case it seems. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:53 - Dec 16 with 1451 views | dobjack2 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 12:45 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
The 4 I list must be the 4 that have served longest (half of the elected 8).
Normally terms would coincide with election, so the AGM would be the start date again, but not in this case it seems. |
Agree doesn’t make sense.
I can’t understand how there can be an exact end date because it should be at the date an AGM takes place which would not be known and certainly would not happen in July.
Anything other than that would appear to be in breach of the trust rules. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 13:02 - Dec 16 with 1436 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:50 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
A few observations.
Firstly, the rules around what constitutes a quorum are very different doe an AGM and a special meeting. I've checked again this morning, and an AGM requires 20 people or 10% of members, whichever is LOWER to be quorate, and a special meeting requires 20 people or 10% of members, whichever is HIGHER to achieve the same. So the AGM scheduled for January only requires 20 people in the room to pass a vote, whereas a special meeting will require over 110.
Once the meeting is quorate, a vote will pass with a 2/3rds majority of those in the room. You can see that a vote at the AGM will, therefore, be easier than a vote at an EGM.
Secondly, according to the Trust rules, half of all elected members have to stand for re-election. There are 8 elected members, 4 of whom need to stand for re-elections. They aren't:
Alan Lewis
Viv Williams
Viv Brooks
Ron Knuszka
According to the Trust website, their term runs until July 2018 (not sure why this doesn't coincide with AGM to be honest). But the election of these members will take place at the AGM.
There doesn't seem to be a reason why alternatives can't be nominated for election in their place at the AGM. The changeover wouldntvhapoen until the summer, but if they were voted out, it would seem to me to be difficult for them to do much in the interim, they'd effectively be dead ducks.
So someone should find out what the process is for nomination of elected members - Phil would, I'm sure, know the answer. He would also know the timetable for that.
Uxbridge is right in saying that the deal was voted for last summer, and there isn't a reason for it not going ahead unless it's changed, in my view, it has changed. Sufficient to cause revote. The devil was always in the detail. Sometimes the detail is such that the very nature of the deal is different.
I will argue very strongly in favour of a revote when I get chance. I have done already via emails. I will do in person when possible. I will explain why I believe it's changed (it's not appropriate that I do so on here at this time). Suffice it to say, I believe that it's changed in several areas, some of which are crucial. |
i think most of the stuff you write about directors is wrong.
Rule 63 says any director may be removed by a 2/3rds vote at members meeting.
Rule 24 b) defines the powers of members voting at a general meeting to include the election of board members.
No problem removing the lot on the spot. |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 13:18 - Dec 16 with 1408 views | Shaky |
. . .as for the procedure for tabling resolutions the by-laws appear to make no mention whatsoever, which is not what you would expect in a regular limited liability company.
It may be it is enough to move a motion to vote on a resolution from the floor on an ad hoc basis
But the safest thing is to contact the Trust secretary in writing and request details of the procedure for tabling resolution, and at the same time to give notice of the intent to do just that. Today. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 13:37 - Dec 16 with 1383 views | Shaky |
A couple of other things worth noting are rules 47 and 51 a).
If you can't connect the dots you are welcome to pm me and i'll explain. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 13:43 - Dec 16 with 1374 views | Dafydd |
I did not renew my Trust membership, because, quite franky, I had had enough of Uxbridge’s efforts to bounce us all into voting for the share sale. As far as i’m concerned he needs to go as well. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 13:55 - Dec 16 with 1353 views | Gowerjack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 13:43 - Dec 16 by Dafydd |
I did not renew my Trust membership, because, quite franky, I had had enough of Uxbridge’s efforts to bounce us all into voting for the share sale. As far as i’m concerned he needs to go as well. |
Yep.
His position is untenable in my opinion.
He should do the decent thing and resign with immediate effect. |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:06 - Dec 16 with 1334 views | Smellyplumz |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:24 - Dec 16 by Uxbridge |
Thing is that's really not my position at all. My position is that the case for the alternative course of action needs to be made, not simply saying the current course is wrong, because largely that's coming from the people who were saying it in the summer anyway.
The argument needs to be different IMO.
The members voted a course of action in the summer. Priority #1 is arguing what has changed since then. Unless you can do that, the argument to annul the vote is weak, on any level.
Of an equal priority is arguing what the better alternative is. Also need agreement on what the better alternative is.. I've seen competing arguments on here regarding what the better option is in the future, with arguments flipping between the importance of retaining the stake verses the legal approach.
Importantly here, the strengths of the alternative approaches need to be laid out, and the weaknesses acknowledged. Why is it in everyone's interests for the Trust to go to court to pursue its case. What happens if a case is won or lost. How does the Trust benefit. What are the risks involved, and how are they mitigated. What is the impact to the club, and what happens on the pitch.
Then you come to the how you do it. A vote of no confidence could be won, no doubt about that. However my concern is the impact of that. Unless there is a coherent plan ready to implement, and a group of people ready to implement that plan the Trust is paralysed and in a worst position than if it proceeded with this deal. Hopes that people will step up, or hopes of a better resolution I'm afraid don't cut if for me. Things can always get worse.
There's a lot I'm unhappy about at the moment. Clearly there are inherent issues with the club that need addressing and the inactivity of the Trust in publicly commenting and rallying the troops makes me question everything. If we can't do that, then what is the point anyway? But merely stopping the existing course of action by any means necessary doesn't cut it for me. A better way needs to be outlined. That's the weakness I'm seeing at the moment. If that isn't addressed, then I can I only see things getting worse if the nuclear button (from a Trust board perspective) is pressed. |
With all due respect ux but I'm sick of hearing your politicians answers on here. Time to destroy the rotten trust in its putrid form and rebuild it in its original imagine. We are fûcked either way I court action is a must as we don't have anything to lose. I'm seriously considering rejoining just for the vote of no confidence in the trust and you shouldn't be anywhere near it again. |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:08 - Dec 16 with 1327 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 13:02 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
i think most of the stuff you write about directors is wrong.
Rule 63 says any director may be removed by a 2/3rds vote at members meeting.
Rule 24 b) defines the powers of members voting at a general meeting to include the election of board members.
No problem removing the lot on the spot. |
Nope' none of it is.
I'm pointing out that if enough people can't be got together to get a special meeting, then the AGM allows for an easy route anyway for the 4 seeking re-election.
My post made that clear. It's just another option.
I agree that you can use the rules to remove all , but the numbers involved are higher because of the asymmetrical rules with AGM vs EGM. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:16 - Dec 16 with 1310 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:08 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Nope' none of it is.
I'm pointing out that if enough people can't be got together to get a special meeting, then the AGM allows for an easy route anyway for the 4 seeking re-election.
My post made that clear. It's just another option.
I agree that you can use the rules to remove all , but the numbers involved are higher because of the asymmetrical rules with AGM vs EGM. |
"I agree that you can use the rules to remove all , but the numbers involved are higher because of the asymmetrical rules with AGM vs EGM."
Not if it is done at an AGM, as you yourself wrote in 4 paragraphs above summarising the 2 sentences reported by Spratty a few pages back. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:30 - Dec 16 with 1283 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:16 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
"I agree that you can use the rules to remove all , but the numbers involved are higher because of the asymmetrical rules with AGM vs EGM."
Not if it is done at an AGM, as you yourself wrote in 4 paragraphs above summarising the 2 sentences reported by Spratty a few pages back. |
Shaky, I'll explain it slowly in case you don't understand.
The rules don't make it clear what numbers you have to have to get a resolution to get rid of all board members at an AGM. As I said, Phil may well know. Or, as you point out, an email to Nigel could get that info. However, they do make it clear what you need to pass a vote on a resolution that is proposed at an AGM.
So given 4 of the elected members have to offer themselves for reelection anyway at this AGM, if it's not possible to get numbers to do anything further, you are at least able to vote to get rid of 4 in a few weeks, irrespective of anything else. It seems an easier ask in the time.
And if you were less concerned about appearing 'clever' and more concerned with what the discussion on here is trying to achieve, it may be more useful. In my opinion of course. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:44 - Dec 16 with 1258 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:30 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Shaky, I'll explain it slowly in case you don't understand.
The rules don't make it clear what numbers you have to have to get a resolution to get rid of all board members at an AGM. As I said, Phil may well know. Or, as you point out, an email to Nigel could get that info. However, they do make it clear what you need to pass a vote on a resolution that is proposed at an AGM.
So given 4 of the elected members have to offer themselves for reelection anyway at this AGM, if it's not possible to get numbers to do anything further, you are at least able to vote to get rid of 4 in a few weeks, irrespective of anything else. It seems an easier ask in the time.
And if you were less concerned about appearing 'clever' and more concerned with what the discussion on here is trying to achieve, it may be more useful. In my opinion of course. |
Wrong again Lisa, my only concern is to get this right.
I can't be arsed to type it out but rule 63 is bindingly clear: 2/3rds majority of votes cast at an AGM (or an EGM) required to remove a board member from office. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:48 - Dec 16 with 1246 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:44 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
Wrong again Lisa, my only concern is to get this right.
I can't be arsed to type it out but rule 63 is bindingly clear: 2/3rds majority of votes cast at an AGM (or an EGM) required to remove a board member from office. |
I know.
But you need a resolution to be able to vote on in the first place. You can't vote on a resolution which is not on the table.
And there will be a resolution for the 4 that have to offer themselves for re-election. It's mandatory so there's no way of it being avoided.
We don't know what's needed to get a resolution for the others. It may be onerous. It may not. I've pointed out what is possible irrespective of the answer to that.
It's not difficult Shaky. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
