Waiver Vote - Shareholders Only Please

[BigFish 1,988]

I know that @dylanisabaddog tried a similar poll, but this was on whether S/H intended to keep their shares. So just for fun and accepting that as it is a poll with 1 share 1 vote, and it is self selecting it doesn't work on the forum as a controlled piece of sampling how are the shareholders going to vote?

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

Not voting - the changes all make sense and will happen no matter what I do.

[TIL 1010 4,751]

Now you have gone and done it.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

15 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Now you have gone and done it.

might you be referring to this fella? found an early photo of 'kev' which shows that at a very early age , he was somewhat keen on the folding green stuff.

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

Mine is a reluctant yes! 

[Peregrine Shorts 315]

not overly happy with the way it has been handled and the information given out but it's a yes from me.

[A Load of Squit 5,172]

I didn't really understand any of it so I voted the opposite of Essex Canary.

 

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

might you be referring to this fella? found an early photo of 'kev' which shows that at a very early age , he was somewhat keen on the folding green stuff.

I must be owed lots of royalties for that.

[essex canary 497]

The masses of abstentions aren't on here. If there were any sensible Quorum rules the vote won't reach the threshold.

[essex canary 497]

3 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

I didn't really understand any of it so I voted the opposite of Essex Canary.

 

That is why most will abstain.

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,419]

3 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Not voting - the changes all make sense and will happen no matter what I do.

Yep. I'm trusting everyone else to make the right decision.

[Capt. Pants 4,250]

6 minutes ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

Yep. I'm trusting everyone else to make the right decision.

Quite. Which is exactly why you should vote. 

[TIL 1010 4,751]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

The masses of abstentions aren't on here. If there were any sensible Quorum rules the vote won't reach the threshold.

What makes you think there are ' masses of abstentions ' ?

[Greavsy 2,415]

44 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

What makes you think there are ' masses of abstentions ' ?

Suits his agenda. 

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

What makes you think there are ' masses of abstentions ' ?

The last effort on show of hands and postal votes had around 500 votes and 6,300  abstentions or 'can't be bothered' or "didn't receive papers'.

Edited September 20, 2023 by essex canary

[Greavsy 2,415]

19 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The last effort on show of hands and postal votes had around 500 votes and 6,300  abstentions or 'can't be bothered' or "didn't receive papers'.

Maybe you've scared them off.....

Do your children get to vote? 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

I must be owed lots of royalties for that.

get a good bite on the note in the piccy, thats what you deserve . see how i managed to post an actual image , rather than a photo of one, its not hard to grasp , just like the expression...for life.  

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

29 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Maybe you've scared them off.....

Do your children get to vote? 

maybe he's scared his children off !!...either that, or , god forbid, a bunch of ' little ethicses ', all trotting around, snuffling.

[canarydan23 4,060]

7 hours ago, essex canary said:

I must be owed lots of royalties for that.

Funnily enough, last year that baby tried to sue claiming child sexual abuse, filed against Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic and Kurt Cobain's estate. He didn't win.

[NewNestCarrow 193]

21 hours ago, essex canary said:

The last effort on show of hands and postal votes had around 500 votes and 6,300  abstentions or 'can't be bothered' or "didn't receive papers'.

The last time the shareholders was published at least 3% of Ordinary holders were listed as "mvd", so presumably out of contact.

I would be amazed if this % has not increased, in the  four years since.

[essex canary 497]

22 hours ago, Greavsy said:

 

Do your children get to vote? 

If I adopted the same approach as @nutty nigelthey would be able to.

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, NewNestCarrow said:

The last time the shareholders was published at least 3% of Ordinary holders were listed as "mvd", so presumably out of contact.

I would be amazed if this % has not increased, in the  four years since.

And presumably the 3% then was merely the confirmed untraceables rather than the suspected. 

[A Load of Squit 5,172]

Every changes but you.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

If I adopted the same approach as @nutty nigelthey would be able to.

Indeed. But I wanted to share my small part of Norwich City with my inheritors before I died. 

[essex canary 497]

5 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Indeed. But I wanted to share my small part of Norwich City with my inheritors before I died. 

In relation to the vote we can nominate as many proxies as we want providing they are allocated 1 share each so we can spread that much wider. Could be fun. Delia could do it too.

[Indy 3,301]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

In relation to the vote we can nominate as many proxies as we want providing they are allocated 1 share each so we can spread that much wider. Could be fun. Delia could do it too.

Depends on your motive! If it’s self serving and detrimental to the good of the club then no thanks!

[essex canary 497]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

Depends on your motive! If it’s self serving and detrimental to the good of the club then no thanks!

How could it be self serving to spread the vote wider?

[nutty nigel 7,539]

You’ve had 20 years to share your shareholding if you really wanted to. But they’ve been ‘all yours’.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

I'm not a shareholder myself, but I'm a member of the Canaries Trust and they have canvassed the opinion of their members on how to vote in the resolutions (I hope I'm allowed to say that, as I'm not sharing any specifics).

As I understand it, the problem with Resolution 1 is that existing shareholders will not have the opportunity to sell their shares to Attanasio (Norfolk Group) as, due to the waiver, he will not be obligated to make an offer for them. While that may be a shame, presumably anyone wishing to sell their shares could still do so, and the Trust would then be in pole position to potentially buy them and increase its own shareholding?

If Attanasio eventually becomes sole proprietor then none of the shares will matter any longer, but for now I think it makes sense for a fan-owned group (CT) to continue to increase its holding wherever possible to hold the (potential) new ownership to account... therefore I would personally be inclined to vote in favour of Resolution 1, as the club clearly needs the capital investment that Norfolk Group can offer.

I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that, but these matters are a long way out of my comfort zone; I was wondering whether @GMF or any others well-versed in the process could set me straight?

[shefcanary 2,410]

32 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

I'm not a shareholder myself, but I'm a member of the Canaries Trust and they have canvassed the opinion of their members on how to vote in the resolutions (I hope I'm allowed to say that, as I'm not sharing any specifics).

As I understand it, the problem with Resolution 1 is that existing shareholders will not have the opportunity to sell their shares to Attanasio (Norfolk Group) as, due to the waiver, he will not be obligated to make an offer for them. While that may be a shame, presumably anyone wishing to sell their shares could still do so, and the Trust would then be in pole position to potentially buy them and increase its own shareholding?

If Attanasio eventually becomes sole proprietor then none of the shares will matter any longer, but for now I think it makes sense for a fan-owned group (CT) to continue to increase its holding wherever possible to hold the (potential) new ownership to account... therefore I would personally be inclined to vote in favour of Resolution 1, as the club clearly needs the capital investment that Norfolk Group can offer.

I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that, but these matters are a long way out of my comfort zone; I was wondering whether @GMF or any others well-versed in the process could set me straight?

FTW, it is right to say that during the period of the Shareholder Agreement (it ends in January 2026) Attanasio will not be looking to increase his holding, although it is only that agreement with Smith & Jones that I believe legally would prevent him from buying from minorities directly after a period of grace. If that agreement came to an end then all bets are off as to what the next steps would be.

I have long held the view that ultimately Smith & Jones will sell a large proportion of their shares to Attanasio to allow him to become overall solely in charge of the club, but I expect them to retain a small block of shares and transfer them to a trust (just over 10%) for much the same reason that the CT exists really - to act as a block to one person having "absolute" control of the club. There's no guarantee of that, but it would make sense to me that the CT and Smith & Jones at some point enter serious conversation pool about the pooling of resources to this effect.