New Board Director Confirmed - Mark Attanasio

[TIL 1010 4,743]

6 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Did Essex take his child/ren? 

Well firstly essex cannot count even though he works in finance as immediately before the meeting commened i stood at the back and counted 23 in attendance who were joined as the meeting commenced by 4 or 5 stragglers.

He abstained from voting on all 4 resolutions Greavsy but what surprised me most was a vote against the appointment of Attanasio by a member of the Trust board but hey ho we live in a democracy and that was his right.

 

Finally no mention of a resignation from the board by Michael Foulger but i will get on the case as my source will without doubt see him at the 3 day race meeting at Yarmouth this week. 😜

[essex canary 496]

Just now, TIL 1010 said:

Well firstly essex cannot count even though he works in finance as immediately before the meeting commened i stood at the back and counted 23 in attendance who were joined as the meeting commenced by 4 or 5 stragglers.

He abstained from voting on all 4 resolutions Greavsy but what surprised me most was a vote against the appointment of Attanasio by a member of the Trust board but hey ho we live in a democracy and that was his right.

 

Finally no mention of a resignation from the board by Michael Foulger but i will get on the case as my source will without doubt see him at the 3 day race meeting at Yarmouth this week. 😜

Re your first paragraph I couldn't be bothered to count accurately so happy to defer to your figures.

Re your second paragraph as I expected to not be able to attend I had already voted by proxy as per my previous posting on here thus the reason why I kept my hand down.

Good point re the third paragraph though that wasn't specifically on the Agenda..Who knows what the process is for resigning? We only seemed to learn that Stephan had done so 2 weeks after the event. Even then it didn't seem to be from a Club source.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

43 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Well firstly essex cannot count even though he works in finance as immediately before the meeting commened i stood at the back and counted 23 in attendance who were joined as the meeting commenced by 4 or 5 stragglers.

He abstained from voting on all 4 resolutions Greavsy but what surprised me most was a vote against the appointment of Attanasio by a member of the Trust board but hey ho we live in a democracy and that was his right.

 

Finally no mention of a resignation from the board by Michael Foulger but i will get on the case as my source will without doubt see him at the 3 day race meeting at Yarmouth this week. 😜

Not a clue why it should be a cause for surprise that one senior figure from the Canaries Trust voted against Attanasio. As an ordinary member of the Trust I want those on the committee  to have minds of their own and not always go with what might be the majority view. Whoever this was might well have had good reasons for their decision. 

[essex canary 496]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

Not a clue why it should be a cause for surprise that one senior figure from the Canaries Trust voted against Attanasio. As an ordinary member of the Trust I want those on the committee  to have minds of their own and not always go with what might be the majority view. Whoever this was might well have had good reasons for their decision. 

If they are voting on behalf of the Trusts share ownership it would be good to know that their vote reflects the balance of opinion of Trust members.

[Greavsy 2,413]

Just now, essex canary said:

If they are voting on behalf of the Trusts share ownership it would be good to know that their vote reflects the balance of opinion of Trust members.

For once I agree with you Essex. 

[A Load of Squit 5,162]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

 

 

Finally no mention of a resignation from the board by Michael Foulger but i will get on the case as my source will without doubt see him at the 3 day race meeting at Yarmouth this week. 😜

 

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

If they are voting on behalf of the Trusts share ownership it would be good to know that their vote reflects the balance of opinion of Trust members.

Was this person voting the Trust’s shares or simply voting their own shares? I don’t know but the latter is the likelihood, in which case your argument falls down.

.

Edited September 12, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

Rome wasn’t built in a day. Fingers crossed it all goes to plan and a full takeover occurs in good time. 

[TIL 1010 4,743]

33 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Nothing whatsoever was said by Delia or Michael with regard to Michael Foulger at the end of that meeting, Delia never uttered a single word throughout and MWJ just thanked people for their attendance and they all then left the room promptly to hold a board meeting presumably in the boardroom. Michael Foulger was never mentioned at all.

Edited September 12, 2022 by TIL 1010

[essex canary 496]

8 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Was this person voting the Trust’s shares or simply voting their own shares? I don’t know but the latter is the likelihood, in which case your argument falls down.

.

Indeed but I did state 'if.'

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Indeed but I did state 'if.'

Yes but since the strong likelihood was that this person was only voting their own shares wouldn’t it have been sensible to find that out first, since in that case there would be absolutely nothing of interest here and you needn’t have posted anything.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes but since the strong likelihood was that this person was only voting their own shares wouldn’t it have been sensible to find that out first, since in that case there would be absolutely nothing of interest here and you needn’t have posted anything.

In fact I believe that not only was this person not voting the Trust’s shares but they were not even voting any of their own. They were apparently proxy-voting for some other individual. So there is zilch here to do with the Trust.

[TIL 1010 4,743]

18 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

In fact I believe that not only was this person not voting the Trust’s shares but they were not even voting any of their own. They were apparently proxy-voting for some other individual. So there is zilch here to do with the Trust.

So was the question they asked also as a result of a proxy they had ? If you require any further help the response given was that it had nothing to do with the business of the meeting.

Edited September 12, 2022 by TIL 1010

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

6 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

So was the question they asked also as a result of a proxy they had ? If you require any further help the response was that it had nothing to do with the business of the meeting.

I suppose that is one way of avoiding apologizing for an earlier paragraph of your which contained not one but two basic errors. Essex didn’t abstain and this person’s vote had nothing to do with their membership of the Trust.

[essex canary 496]

28 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I suppose that is one way of avoiding apologizing for an earlier paragraph of your which contained not one but two basic errors. Essex didn’t abstain and this person’s vote had nothing to do with their membership of the Trust.

Best not to declare other people's votes to person's not in attendance. In fairness though there could and perhaps should have been far more transparency exerted on the meeting by the Chair of the Meeting - the Company Secretary.

When arriving I drew attention upon registration to the fact I had submitted a proxy vote. Perhaps I should then have been invited to withdraw the proxy and vote by hand. The meeting papers seem to suggest that.

Equally when a Trust officer speaks or votes, maybe it should be clear on whose behalf he is doing so. A similar rule perhaps should reasonably apply to anyone speaking as a proxy.

None of this clarifies if or how the Trust voted though I am inclined to think their letter implies abstention on the grounds of lack of clarity. As a Trust member myself I would like to think in principle they would canvass their membership and vote accordingly on such issues. Perhaps the lack of clarity wouldn't come about with a Shareholder's Association ,which the Club had at one point ,hence I referenced that in my question.

Perhaps the more fundamental issue is if and how the required 75% was achieved? S,J &F deliver around 69% by shareholdings but since only around 8% of the 31% of minority shareholders voted, this wouldn't deliver it on average. Of course 'on average' may not be a reasonable assumption but nevertheless still no transparency on the numbers.

 

[TIL 1010 4,743]

49 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I suppose that is one way of avoiding apologizing for an earlier paragraph of your which contained not one but two basic errors. Essex didn’t abstain and this person’s vote had nothing to do with their membership of the Trust.

essex abstained on the night which at the time i posted was factual and yes he has explained why so hardly a basic error. As for your second point i will stick to my observation that we live in a democray and he could therefore vote as he wished, a point you have chosen to ignore. He sat with 4 other Trust board members all together on the front row. so how foolish of me to think they were acting on behalf of the Trust or their membership. Mind you i wasn't the only one who thought that.

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,743]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

 

Equally when a Trust officer speaks or votes, maybe it should be clear on whose behalf he is doing so. A similar rule perhaps should reasonably apply to anyone speaking as a proxy.

None of this clarifies if or how the Trust voted though I am inclined to think their letter implies abstention on the grounds of lack of clarity. As a Trust member myself I would like to think in principle they would canvass their membership and vote accordingly on such issues.

 

Exactly.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

Is it me or is this getting a bit pointless - ultimately (if I’m allowed to use the word?!) the thing we all knew was going to happen happened.  That’s it.

[chicken 2,624]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Nothing whatsoever was said by Delia or Michael with regard to Michael Foulger at the end of that meeting, Delia never uttered a single word throughout and MWJ just thanked people for their attendance and they all then left the room promptly to hold a board meeting presumably in the boardroom. Michael Foulger was never mentioned at all.

Is it possible that "at the end of" means after? 

Edited September 12, 2022 by chicken

[1902 1,167]

10 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Rome wasn’t built in a day. Fingers crossed it all goes to plan and a full takeover occurs in good time. 

Maybe let's just see if he has good ideas for our club before we hope for a full takeover.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

8 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

essex abstained on the night which at the time i posted was factual and yes he has explained why so hardly a basic error. As for your second point i will stick to my observation that we live in a democray and he could therefore vote as he wished, a point you have chosen to ignore. He sat with 4 other Trust board members all together on the front row. so how foolish of me to think they were acting on behalf of the Trust or their membership. Mind you i wasn't the only one who thought that.

 

 

You said:

He abstained from voting on all 4 resolutions Greavsy but what surprised me most was a vote against the appointment of Attanasio by a member of the Trust board;

Essex didn't abstain, having already voted, and the Trust member wasn't voting for himself, so you got both wrong. If other people jumped to the same erroneous conclusion about what the Trust member was doing that only makes them as wrong as you.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

8 hours ago, essex canary said:

Best not to declare other people's votes to person's not in attendance. In fairness though there could and perhaps should have been far more transparency exerted on the meeting by the Chair of the Meeting - the Company Secretary.

When arriving I drew attention upon registration to the fact I had submitted a proxy vote. Perhaps I should then have been invited to withdraw the proxy and vote by hand. The meeting papers seem to suggest that.

Equally when a Trust officer speaks or votes, maybe it should be clear on whose behalf he is doing so. A similar rule perhaps should reasonably apply to anyone speaking as a proxy.

None of this clarifies if or how the Trust voted though I am inclined to think their letter implies abstention on the grounds of lack of clarity. As a Trust member myself I would like to think in principle they would canvass their membership and vote accordingly on such issues. Perhaps the lack of clarity wouldn't come about with a Shareholder's Association ,which the Club had at one point ,hence I referenced that in my question.

Perhaps the more fundamental issue is if and how the required 75% was achieved? S,J &F deliver around 69% by shareholdings but since only around 8% of the 31% of minority shareholders voted, this wouldn't deliver it on average. Of course 'on average' may not be a reasonable assumption but nevertheless still no transparency on the numbers.

 

If you are a member of the Trust then ask it how it voted.

[Capt. Pants 4,233]

28 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Maybe let's just see if he has good ideas for our club before we hope for a full takeover.

Chicken and egg though. He isn't going to relinquish too many 'good ideas' without an incentive.

I agree we need to be sure of this guy but you would hope a lot of that groundwork has already been done to get to this stage.

Just needs a bit of pace behind it now.

 

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

41 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Maybe let's just see if he has good ideas for our club before we hope for a full takeover.

Exactly what I meant, exciting times ahead I feel. 

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

None of this clarifies if or how the Trust voted though I am inclined to think their letter implies abstention on the grounds of lack of clarity. As a Trust member myself I would like to think in principle they would canvass their membership and vote accordingly on such issues. Perhaps the lack of clarity wouldn't come about with a Shareholder's Association ,which the Club had at one point ,hence I referenced that in my question.

 

 

I don't know but I would assume the Trust voted its shares in favour of Attanasio becoming a director and in favour of the creation of the C Preference shares. It might have abstained on one or other of the other two resolutions.

[1902 1,167]

50 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Chicken and egg though. He isn't going to relinquish too many 'good ideas' without an incentive.

I agree we need to be sure of this guy but you would hope a lot of that groundwork has already been done to get to this stage.

Just needs a bit of pace behind it now.

 

Up to a point, but a year on the board will be a test of understanding and judgement for the other members and that's worth having.

I'm optimistic in general though, seems the kind of investor that I had hoped would come in.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

43 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Exactly what I meant, exciting times ahead I feel. 

Leaving aside the technicalities of this deal, and irrespective of how much money Attanasio might put in, immediately and perhaps later on, and even irrespective of whether this turns into a takeover, it is hard to see him joining the board as anything but a significant benefit.

[TIL 1010 4,743]

7 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

You said:

He abstained from voting on all 4 resolutions Greavsy but what surprised me most was a vote against the appointment of Attanasio by a member of the Trust board;

Essex didn't abstain, having already voted, and the Trust member wasn't voting for himself, so you got both wrong. If other people jumped to the same erroneous conclusion about what the Trust member was doing that only makes them as wrong as you.

I am really not going to engage with you any longer but in relation to essex he clarified his voting situation which i have acknowledged in a later post explaining why but you have swerved that and as for the Trust voting one would think you were there in the meeting to witness what was said and done but of course you were not. You have quite plainly been spoon fed for these posts of yours so i will leave it there.Their Lead of Communications was sat right there in the front row so i wonder why you are being used as their Pink Un representative as to whzt they did or didn't do.

Have a nice day.

Edited September 13, 2022 by TIL 1010

[canarydan23 4,060]

5 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I am really not going to engage with you any longer but in relation to essex he clarified his voting situation which i have acknowledged in a later post explaining why but you have swerved that and as for the Trust voting one would think you were there in the meeting to witness what was said and done but of course you were not. You have quite plainly been spoon fed for these posts of yours so i will leave it there.There Lead of Communications was sat right ghere in the front row so i wonder why you are being used as their Pink Un representative as to whzt they did or didn't do.

Have a nice day.

"I'm really not going to engage with you any longer but here comes a bit fat paragraph of me engaging with you."

Edited September 13, 2022 by canarydan23

[TIL 1010 4,743]

Spoke to Michael Foulger this morning and just to clarify the tweet published on here from Mick Dennis, MF has no idea where that information came from as D&M have not thanked him for his service as certainly in the immediate future he is remaining on the board. Michael has prepared a short statement with Dan Holker the club mdia man that will be released shortly.