Waiver Voting System

[essex canary 623]

The documents don't appear to be clear about this but I have been assured by a member of the Club's Senior Management Team that the poll is on the basis of number of shares held. Previous polls have displayed a very low level of turnout. 

There are 156,507 shares eligible to vote. The holding level of these vary greatly. In practice higher volume holders are surely more likely to vote than lower volume holders. Abstentions are therefore likely to give higher volume holders disproportionate influence albeit that number of shares held is in many senses only fair given the implications for individual holders.

The Canaries Trust is likely to have around 5% of the vote if everybody voted though in practice perhaps substantially higher. Given that it's members may have different opinions, how will they determine how to vote?

The 24  Associate Directors will have individual voting entitlement and around 4 times the voting weight of the Trust.

Has the Club carefully considered the implications of this in terms of being able to deliver a voting system in practice that can be perceived to be fair?

 

[duke63 741]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

The documents don't appear to be clear about this but I have been assured by a member of the Club's Senior Management Team that the poll is on the basis of number of shares held. Previous polls have displayed a very low level of turnout. 

There are 156,507 shares eligible to vote. The holding level of these vary greatly. In practice higher volume holders are surely more likely to vote than lower volume holders. Abstentions are therefore likely to give higher volume holders disproportionate influence albeit that number of shares held is in many senses only fair given the implications for individual holders.

The Canaries Trust is likely to have around 5% of the vote if everybody voted though in practice perhaps substantially higher. Given that it's members may have different opinions, how will they determine how to vote?

The 24  Associate Directors will have individual voting entitlement and around 4 times the voting weight of the Trust.

Has the Club carefully considered the implications of this in terms of being able to deliver a voting system in practice that can be perceived to be fair?

 

How else could you do it that would be fair? Surely one vote per share is entirely the correct way to do it?
It’s why people invest in shares to have some say in how a company is governed. 

It’s also why if you are entitled to vote then you should use it, even if you hold only one share. That vote will count. 

[Nuff Said 5,973]

6 minutes ago, duke63 said:

How else could you do it that would be fair? Surely one vote per share is entirely the correct way to do it?
It’s why people invest in shares to have some say in how a company is governed. 

It’s also why if you are entitled to vote then you should use it, even if you hold only one share. That vote will count. 

To be fair it needs to give Essex the result he wants. Simples.

[Greavsy 2,645]

5 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

To be fair it needs to give Essex the result he wants. Simples.

And his Children! 

[TIL 1010 5,246]

As far as i am aware at least 2 of the original ADs are sadly no longer with us so did the inheritors of their shares become ADs because if not there surely are less then 24 ? That does not take into account one who quit of their own accord.

[shefcanary 2,956]

Essex is right in pointing out some of the deficiencies within the management of the club, as I too point out regularly about the lack of true governance in terms of a Plc. Whatever.

I see my own shareholding as a mechanism to retain a close connection to the club. I have absolutely no intention of selling my shares, I am not holding them as an investment I expect to make a profit on. But I do hold them as a means of holding the club to account when I feel the Board are playing loose and free with the management of a "public" asset.

I am a supporter first and in that regard I accept my views on what happens on the pitch tend to be far more emotional response than the governance issues. And I accept when I am called to account for those emotional responses, but I'm not the worst offender. 

However this OP is incredible. To criticise publicly a voting system for fear it won't produce the result he wants when it simply follows good practise (albeit applied to a fairly unique shareholder profile) is poor. It's as if it is a veiled invitation to the Board to negotiate with him privately? This forum is not for that! 

[wcorkcanary 4,786]

15 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

However this OP is incredible. To criticise publicly a voting system for fear it won't produce the result he wants when it simply follows good practise (albeit applied to a fairly unique shareholder profile) is poor. It's as if it is a veiled invitation to the Board to negotiate with him privately? This forum is not for that! 

And there you have it nailed Sheffo! If voters aren't interested, they won't  vote, if they are , they will. Im sure there will be some who want to vote but for some reason cant...c'est la Vie. 

If every Single vote is cast then Ethics portion is worth approx 0.66 % of the total.  .... I'm sure he feels his opinion is worth more than that, but as with many things, he is incorrect.  But.... if say only 100,000 share votes are cast ..his are worth 1% ..... ffs people, get out and vote as the less influence that toxic snake  has, the better.  Fortunately  , I think hes already overplayed his hand with the Club and he is virtually persona  non grata as far as any  chance of private negotiations are concerned. 

Self importance is very  different from actual importance, a fact that seems to be lost on him....but not on everyone else looking on in this sordid story.  

[NFN FC 1,142]

I didn't know Essex had shares! How very impressive.

[wcorkcanary 4,786]

49 minutes ago, NFN FC said:

I didn't know Essex had shares! How very impressive.

He's actually quite shy about it normally, I had to drag it out of him as he doesn't like to  make a fuss. 

[chicken 3,088]

3 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Essex is right in pointing out some of the deficiencies within the management of the club, as I too point out regularly about the lack of true governance in terms of a Plc. Whatever.

I see my own shareholding as a mechanism to retain a close connection to the club. I have absolutely no intention of selling my shares, I am not holding them as an investment I expect to make a profit on. But I do hold them as a means of holding the club to account when I feel the Board are playing loose and free with the management of a "public" asset.

I am a supporter first and in that regard I accept my views on what happens on the pitch tend to be far more emotional response than the governance issues. And I accept when I am called to account for those emotional responses, but I'm not the worst offender. 

However this OP is incredible. To criticise publicly a voting system for fear it won't produce the result he wants when it simply follows good practise (albeit applied to a fairly unique shareholder profile) is poor. It's as if it is a veiled invitation to the Board to negotiate with him privately? This forum is not for that! 

We don't always agree Shef but I hope you realise I respect and value your input to this board.

On multiple subjects in the past, I have often said that hose empty vessels that make the most noise, do sometimes have a point. The issue is, they are not the leaders they think they are, and 95% of the rest of the rubbish they spout makes them incredibly unlikeable. Often, they end up tying themselves in knots meaning people would be foolish to agree with them whatsoever.

Essex, for example, goes on about various different things but tends to deliberately misuse words to try and cover his motives. So far, every single one has been seen through.

The main issue with this is that he obsessively rips apart the club at every given opportunity criticising them for poor customer relations etc. Yet every time he makes a suggestion - such as this one - it is of absolutely no benefit to any fan apart from him.

We have seen this on repeat and it's boring and pathetic.

Equally, we do see others saying that the club is poorly run due to results on the pitch. You are not one of those. Most sane people can separate how the sporting aspect of the club is different from the business aspect of the club and equally how one feeds into the other. A poor appointment, such as the likes of Smith (divisive but lets just say that for arguments sake) impacts first and foremost on the pitch with the players. Secondary is the likes of failure to be promoted, potentially fewer casual ticket sales, longer term potential of fewer season ticket sales. Even with all of that, it's the business aspect of the club to maximise profit from all revenues and to  work within the means it has been given in terms of turnover etc.

It's impossible to say our club is poorly run as from what I can find in terms of articles etc, our club is seen to be one of the best run clubs financially. Often receiving rewards for things like community projects and fan engagement along the way.

[Mr Angry 2,023]

Honestly, this guy must be half-rhinoceros, he’s so thick skinned.

[GMF 1,010]

@essex canary you’ve previously complained about the standard voting procedure at general meetings, one shareholder one vote, being being biased to small shareholders. Now you seem to be saying the opposite because this voting procedure is a poll.

Which method of voting is your preference?

[wcorkcanary 4,786]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

@essex canary you’ve previously complained about the standard voting procedure at general meetings, one shareholder one vote, being being biased to small shareholders. Now you seem to be saying the opposite because this voting procedure is a poll.

Which method of voting is your preference?

I think we all know the answer to that , whichever system that gives him what he wants, which was ,  he claimed initially, " to help the Club" his raison  d'etre has changed in the meantime to    "to help myself". 

 

[TIL 1010 5,246]

Well this isn't going too well for him now is it ?

[nutty nigel 7,902]

As long as he's got his own thread I'm sure all will be well.

[essex canary 623]

11 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

As far as i am aware at least 2 of the original ADs are sadly no longer with us so did the inheritors of their shares become ADs because if not there surely are less then 24 ? That does not take into account one who quit of their own accord.

My inside knowledge is best on this in the same way that yours is in relation to the Old Trust.

The Club has never tried to take away the title of AD from anyone including myself or a nominated inheritor from any family. It is simply that it won't pass on the seat entitlement to the latter. I am not currently engaged in the AD group because of my dissatisfaction with such a 2 tier approach.

As for the Old Trust, how peculiar that S&J were instrumental in setting up the Canaries Trust 22 years ago but a larger shareholding has lain dormant in another Trust for all that time.

Both are examples of NCFC principles in action.

[essex canary 623]

5 hours ago, GMF said:

@essex canary you’ve previously complained about the standard voting procedure at general meetings, one shareholder one vote, being being biased to small shareholders. Now you seem to be saying the opposite because this voting procedure is a poll.

Which method of voting is your preference?

Per share.

Just pointing out though thst it does make a radical difference. Presumably the Trust had around 0.2% in the show of hands last time round. In this instance it will have a minimum of 5% and in reality probably double figures once default abstentions are accounted for. It would be good to know that Trust members will be consulted on the use of that vote.

[Greavsy 2,645]

11 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I am not currently engaged in the AD group because of my dissatisfaction with such a 2 tier approach.

Every cloud and all that! 😉 

[GMF 1,010]

6 minutes ago, essex canary said:

It would be good to know that Trust members will be consulted on the use of that vote.

This is under discussion at the moment, with updates to follow.

[essex canary 623]

23 minutes ago, GMF said:

This is under discussion at the moment, with updates to follow.

Many thanks.

[chicken 3,088]

I propose that we, the supporters, venture into our own scheme were-upon we throw money into a hat, raise enough money to buy Essex Canaries shares so we can do the canaries community and this board a huge favour...

To do this, I propose three rounds of letters, the first one warning everyone that two letters will follow and this is just a warning letter about the other letters.

The second letter will include the proposal and a form asking for details etc of your support.

The third letter will apologise profusely about the prior two letters and any slight anyone has in the standards of customer service. Just in case that two letters was seen as too many, even though some members insisted on them. And that one vote per share might be too radical even though it was requested by some members.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by chicken

[Greavsy 2,645]

7 minutes ago, chicken said:

I propose that we, the supporters, venture into our own scheme were-upon we throw money into a hat, raise enough money to buy Essex Canaries shares so we can do the canaries community and this board a huge favour...

To do this, I propose three rounds of letters, the first one warning everyone that two letters will follow and this is just a warning letter about the other letters.

The second letter will include the proposal and a form asking for details etc of your support.

The third letter will apologise profusely about the prior two letters and any slight anyone has in the standards of customer service. Just in case that two letters was seen as too many, even though some members insisted on them. And that one vote per share might be too radical even though it was requested by some members.

 

Will there be any minutes? 

And if so can they be CC'd to his offspring please. 

[chicken 3,088]

5 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Will there be any minutes? 

And if so can they be CC'd to his offspring please. 

It depends if we can get a high enough turnout after we have counted abstentions...

I like the Offspring... 
 

 

[Greavsy 2,645]

3 minutes ago, chicken said:

It depends if we can get a high enough turnout after we have counted abstentions...

I like the Offspring... 
 

 

May I be an conscious apathetic abstaining objector please? 

[chicken 3,088]

9 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

May I be an conscious apathetic abstaining objector please? 

Only if you really want to not to don't do to do that. 

[Greavsy 2,645]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

Only if you really want to not to don't do to do that. 

I'm getting vicar of Dibley vibes......

[Google Bot 3,936]

43 minutes ago, chicken said:

I propose that we, the supporters, venture into our own scheme were-upon we throw money into a hat, raise enough money to buy Essex Canaries shares so we can do the canaries community and this board a huge favour...

I think we can do better than that, if we each take a small piece of the stadium on each visit, and erect it in his garden over the coming season... We may get enough assembled where he could declare squatters right and claim ownership himself?

....He'd probably complain about the seat, or minor fixing that we didn't bring him, of course!  And for goodness sake, no-one turn up wearing beach sandals or mis-using capitals in any correspondance. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Google Bot

[Greavsy 2,645]

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

I think we can do better than that, if we each take a small piece of the stadium on each visit, and erect it in his garden over the coming season... We may get enough assembled where he could declare squatters right and claim ownership himself?

....He'd probably complain about the seat, or minor fixing that we didn't bring him, of course!  And for goodness sake, no-one turn up wearing beach sandals or mis-using capitals in any correspondance. 

As long as we include the South stand taps.......

[essex canary 623]

48 minutes ago, chicken said:

I propose that we, the supporters, venture into our own scheme were-upon we throw money into a hat, raise enough money to buy Essex Canaries shares so we can do the canaries community and this board a huge favour...

To do this, I propose three rounds of letters, the first one warning everyone that two letters will follow and this is just a warning letter about the other letters.

The second letter will include the proposal and a form asking for details etc of your support.

The third letter will apologise profusely about the prior two letters and any slight anyone has in the standards of customer service. Just in case that two letters was seen as too many, even though some members insisted on them. And that one vote per share might be too radical even though it was requested by some members.

 

You were doing rather well in the first sentence. As usual lost the plot thereafter.

[chicken 3,088]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

You were doing rather well in the first sentence. As usual lost the plot thereafter.

You know how I know I am always doing rather well?

By logging into here, seeing one of your posts and knowing that my world is nowhere near as bad.

I don't have the money or the inclination to own over a thousand shares. If I did, you would never catch me kicking up such a stink. The idea that anyone has to put up with your histrionics is enough to put anyone off wanting to have shares to be honest... in fact, I wonder if the stalling over the summer was after Mr A cast his eye over this forum...