07-02-2015, 18:54
Having spoken to people who knew directly or by a couple of degrees of separation who a lot of them were, my description was as I found them to be. I'm not going to shy away from it just because it doesn't sound pretty. It doesn't apply to everyone, but a lot of people were there as rabble to be roused at will by the likes of SoS and RST and their intentions showed in their behaviour.
The point the guy was trying to make was about how only a maximum of 500 people could be in attendance, and his insinuation was that this was a dereliction of duty because more people were at the AGM and there might be more than that in London, and that it could have been held with bigger capacity in Glasgow. My counter to the first point was that I think it's less likely there will be as many in London so it's not necessarily an unreasonable limit (and having spent a lot of time there in recent years at town halls etc. I can vouch for it being a hard place to find venues with much bigger capacities that wouldn't cost an onerous amount). To the second point, holding it in London will probably have the desired effect in terms of attendance, but as far as I know there's no reason they can't have it there legally, particularly as it most likely suits the majority %age shareholdings if not the majority of shareholders. It'll be more expensive than having it in Glasgow I imagine (although whether any venue would be willing to host it is another matter altogether) but I don't think that's any concern of the NOMAD as long as the requirements of the meeting are met. But none of this should make any difference to how things turn out, at least not in a favourable way to the Board, so it's not worth getting up in arms about purely for the sake of getting up in arms about something.
The shareholders can still vote on the resolutions without going to the EGM, and the polarisation is such that practically everyone knows how they will vote, especially those who went to the AGM. Shouting out the failings of a board they're about to try to vote out would be pointless. If anything it would have been more beneficial to the existing Board if they could put forward some sort of argument to defend themselves. They actually drew some relatively positive reactions at times at the AGM, but they have chosen to give themselves a smaller audience to appeal to this time. And anyone who might have been on the fence but is upset about this meeting being in London will then go against the Board. So be it. It's certainly not an ideal way to conduct it but when we've got groups of protesters breaking into Ibrox it wouldn't exactly be risk free to have it up here either.
Anyway, xxxx it. Lets do it and see where things fall.
The point the guy was trying to make was about how only a maximum of 500 people could be in attendance, and his insinuation was that this was a dereliction of duty because more people were at the AGM and there might be more than that in London, and that it could have been held with bigger capacity in Glasgow. My counter to the first point was that I think it's less likely there will be as many in London so it's not necessarily an unreasonable limit (and having spent a lot of time there in recent years at town halls etc. I can vouch for it being a hard place to find venues with much bigger capacities that wouldn't cost an onerous amount). To the second point, holding it in London will probably have the desired effect in terms of attendance, but as far as I know there's no reason they can't have it there legally, particularly as it most likely suits the majority %age shareholdings if not the majority of shareholders. It'll be more expensive than having it in Glasgow I imagine (although whether any venue would be willing to host it is another matter altogether) but I don't think that's any concern of the NOMAD as long as the requirements of the meeting are met. But none of this should make any difference to how things turn out, at least not in a favourable way to the Board, so it's not worth getting up in arms about purely for the sake of getting up in arms about something.
The shareholders can still vote on the resolutions without going to the EGM, and the polarisation is such that practically everyone knows how they will vote, especially those who went to the AGM. Shouting out the failings of a board they're about to try to vote out would be pointless. If anything it would have been more beneficial to the existing Board if they could put forward some sort of argument to defend themselves. They actually drew some relatively positive reactions at times at the AGM, but they have chosen to give themselves a smaller audience to appeal to this time. And anyone who might have been on the fence but is upset about this meeting being in London will then go against the Board. So be it. It's certainly not an ideal way to conduct it but when we've got groups of protesters breaking into Ibrox it wouldn't exactly be risk free to have it up here either.
Anyway, xxxx it. Lets do it and see where things fall.