Posts: 304
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
How many general meetings does the club need for goodness sake
HHGH
Posts: 1,632
Threads: 26
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
0
I'm not an expert, but would they really be so stupid as to bring it up if it wasn't feasible?
Posts: 1,048
Threads: 37
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
3
They said they're considering it but that doesn't imply any timescale on it or even that they know whether they can or can't do it. It would make sense to incorporate it into our articles in future to prevent the issue arising again though.
Posts: 1,632
Threads: 26
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
0
27-05-2015, 11:16
(This post was last modified: 27-05-2015, 11:25 by TheWorthinGer.)
Yeah, but if you suggest such a move in this way - via agm notice etc - you will have taken legal advice on the feasibility.
If you are saying the such a move isn't possible or it would be effectively illegal why bother even mentioning it?
I'm also musing over the renegotiation of contracts motion. What's behind it?
If shareholders vote this through - and I'm sure that they will - what sort of legal leverage does this give the board? If none then what's the point? Or, and I think this a possibility and again I'm not any kind of lawyer, would it remove personal liability from board members of they opted to renege on the contracts and SD sued?
Ashley is no doubt a very shrewd operator, but I think King's a wily one too. Their manoeuvres intrigue me.
Posts: 1,732
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
I think King's going about this in the wrong way. Again.
If he wants to renegotiate the disadvantageous retail contract - or any of the various deals that we're told are onerous - then trying your best to piss Ashley off beforehand is certainly not gonna help your cause. He must know this. So why?
I'm extremely suspicious of the motives at work here.
Posts: 1,632
Threads: 26
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
0
They've already held talks with SD about contracts and I suspect that they were fruitless.
This isn't stage one, possibly not even stage two. I don't know what's going on but something is.
I want to know what the point of the boards motion is? MASH own shares - is it MASH that own SD, or Ashley's part of it? What kind of legal tangle would there be visavis this being the situation and the motion carrying? Could a shareholder - MASH- legitimately obstruct the board carrying out the legitimate wishes of fellow shareholders? Conflict of interest case for instance.
Makes my head spin.
Posts: 1,732
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
Aye, mine too.
This "7 year rolling contract" news was leaked by Murray/King to Keith Jackson for a reason though. PR to paint him as the bogeyman before the GM votes?
Was enjoying the football there for a few weeks. Cannae be arsed with all this now.
