Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[York Alty is back]

The club website has been updated and now includes the  statement

"The formal meeting finally voted on the four resolutions, all of which were passed without any votes against".

That is either an error or deliberate deceit.

An error is an error and is symptomatic of what is going on at the club. This is straightforward counting. Basic stuff.

I wonder what the view of the representative from MLP Law is .

[Nom de plume]

The club website has been updated and now includes the  statement

"The formal meeting finally voted on the four resolutions, all of which were passed without any votes against".

That is either an error or deliberate deceit.

An error is an error and is symptomatic of what is going on at the club. This is straightforward counting. Basic stuff.

I wonder what the view of the representative from MLP Law is .

I suspect he thinks the same as me. You're an awkward a**hole with an axe to grind. John Laidlar published the facts, whether he was a private shareholder or not. He was neither deceitful nor made a mistake. Grahame Rowley used the word "unanimous" when "no votes against" was probably the correct term. Bill Waterson does not need to apologise for John Laidlar.

As for the "Postal vote" there was no such thing. There was a proxy vote whereby you could nominate the Chairman or someone else who would attend the meeting on your behalf to vote for you. As I assume you allowed Grahame Rowley to vote on your behalf, as seemingly did all the other proxy voters, then he and MLP Law knew full well how those votes were cast, and therefore how the votes cast in the room affected the total vote.

If anything is "symptomatic" it's your post trying to pick faults in everything associated with Altrincham Football Club. Get a life and grow up.

[im not really here]

Can someone from the Club please explain why personal points of view are being put on the Official website? Its not only embarrassing but misleading that an account of the EGM should feature in this way. Fair play to the Laidlar's for the extensive work with the website in the past but surely if the Club wish to progress and become more commercially viable, a new website is required.

[Graham Bennetts Perm]

The club website has been updated and now includes the  statement

"The formal meeting finally voted on the four resolutions, all of which were passed without any votes against".

That is either an error or deliberate deceit.

An error is an error and is symptomatic of what is going on at the club. This is straightforward counting. Basic stuff.

I wonder what the view of the representative from MLP Law is .

I suspect he thinks the same as me. You're an awkward a**hole with an axe to grind. John Laidlar published the facts, whether he was a private shareholder or not. He was neither deceitful nor made a mistake. Grahame Rowley used the word "unanimous" when "no votes against" was probably the correct term. Bill Waterson does not need to apologise for John Laidlar.

As for the "Postal vote" there was no such thing. There was a proxy vote whereby you could nominate the Chairman or someone else who would attend the meeting on your behalf to vote for you. As I assume you allowed Grahame Rowley to vote on your behalf, as seemingly did all the other proxy voters, then he and MLP Law knew full well how those votes were cast, and therefore how the votes cast in the room affected the total vote.

If anything is "symptomatic" it's your post trying to pick faults in everything associated with Altrincham Football Club. Get a life and grow up.

It may have been a unanimous show of hands at the meeting, but it was not a unanimous vote on all 4 resolutions, as the press release aims to imply.

[Mrs Warbouys]

f**k me this is boring.

[York Alty is back]

It's a done deal.

Before I give up on this forum I wish to point out to whoever it was who had a go at me and the non-existent postal vote...

The Company Law Club states "Unless otherwise instructed, the proxy may vote as he thinks fit or abstain from voting."

I did not abstain and I grave clear instructions for my vote, I voted against but in the weird world of Alty that just does not count.

Bye, enjoy the forum.

[Mausoleum Alty]

It's a done deal.

Before I give up on this forum I wish to point out to whoever it was who had a go at me and the non-existent postal vote...

The Company Law Club states "Unless otherwise instructed, the proxy may vote as he thinks fit or abstain from voting."

I did not abstain and I grave clear instructions for my vote, I voted against but in the weird world of Alty that just does not count.

Bye, enjoy the forum.

Stick with it York Alty,don't let the personal abuse from Nom de Plume grind you down.

[Mausoleum Alty]

f**k me this is boring.

Well said!!

[HashtagAlty]

Can someone from the Club please explain why personal points of view are being put on the Official website? Its not only embarrassing but misleading that an account of the EGM should feature in this way. Fair play to the Laidlar's for the extensive work with the website in the past but surely if the Club wish to progress and become more commercially viable, a new website is required.

And there is at least one company willing to do it in exchange for a double hoardings, social media exposure, and some website sponsorshipx

[bighairedmike]

I wasn't at the meeting yesterday, but I see on the website that GR expects the shares to sell for between 4 and 5 quid a go?

Has a formal evaluation of the share price been done?

I only ask because a 51% stake in our club would cost you the best part of £600k if those figures are correct. That means the whole club is worth around £1million and I can't see that being the case. Or is this just a figure GR has plucked out of his arse in a bid to dissuade people from attempting to buy all 117000 shares at once?

[Ladies Supporter]

Can someone from the Club please explain why personal points of view are being put on the Official website? Its not only embarrassing but misleading that an account of the EGM should feature in this way. Fair play to the Laidlar's for the extensive work with the website in the past but surely if the Club wish to progress and become more commercially viable, a new website is required.

Can I just (although not "someone from the club" per se make the point that every match report John writes is, by your yardstick also a collection of personal points of view?

[Graham Bennetts Perm]

So, if a match report on the Club website says the score of the match was 4-0 to Alty (those were the days) but the score was actually, in reality, 4-1, which result should actually be recorded on the website? There is a difference between opinion and quantifiable fact.

[im not really here]

Can someone from the Club please explain why personal points of view are being put on the Official website? Its not only embarrassing but misleading that an account of the EGM should feature in this way. Fair play to the Laidlar's for the extensive work with the website in the past but surely if the Club wish to progress and become more commercially viable, a new website is required.

Can I just (although not "someone from the club" per se make the point that every match report John writes is, by your yardstick also a collection of personal points of view?

I think you know full well, what I'm talking about. Any statement on the club website about the EGM should have at least been vetted by the Media team, one of whom - Brian Flynn, was present at the meeting. I would be amazed if either the Board or the media officers knew that the website would carry the story before they had even had chance to gather their thoughts following the meeting. As a shareholder and long term supporter I continue to be gobsmacked by the behaviour of some associated with the Club.

[im not really here]

Can someone from the Club please explain why personal points of view are being put on the Official website? Its not only embarrassing but misleading that an account of the EGM should feature in this way. Fair play to the Laidlar's for the extensive work with the website in the past but surely if the Club wish to progress and become more commercially viable, a new website is required.

And there is at least one company willing to do it in exchange for a double hoardings, social media exposure, and some website sponsorshipx

ManagementGuru, is this being explored?

[GB Alty]

That means the whole club is worth around £1million and I can't see that being the case. Or is this just a figure GR has plucked out of his arse in a bid to dissuade people from attempting to buy all 117000 shares at once?

Exactly 100%

And this has been Rowleys end game since the Stalybridge walkout. Unfortunately those that protested and the Rowley out group have been taken for mugs. This has all been about more power for Rowley, overpricing of the club is the oldest trick in the book of corruption

Those that voted for this resolution should be embarressed and ashamed of themselves

Not in my name, not my club anymore