Hopefully these types of articles will reach the broader fan base who have votes in the Society or as share holders and sway them in the right direction. It’s ridiculous to be proposing to spend several times the amount of investment. Just where is all that money going to come from?
I do hope all those with a vote are clear that this vote is about Wild sheep offer. We want to reject this offer.
We are still able to consider any future investments that may be proposed. This one should definitely be an overwhelming rejection but we should keep our mind open and carefully consider any future offers on a case by case basis, after all, we want what is best for MFC to help sustain its future.
PS. There is no truth in the rumor that Wild Sheep is an online dating service for Aberdeen supporters…..or is there?
Wonder how many of the fans voicing their opinion on Line actually get a vote as a WS member or shareholder? Obviously the key one is the WS voters since that will decide accept or not.
Not being a WS or shareholder I won’t get a vote but I have been following the discussion on here. I can honestly say I approached this with an open mind and have came to the conclusion that this is not a good investment offer for MFC. On several occasions various posts have simplified things to help people understand what’s on offer and implications. I hope something along those lines has been given to each WS member with a recommendation/reasoning as to why it should be rejected.
For me there’s a few reasons a couple of which are below.
not a large enough investment
requiring the WS to deplete/invest its funds at the risk of basically killing the WS
very little risk at stake for Barmack. MFC future existence at stake
Now, if EB was to guarantee in a legal document that, if he decides to sever ties with MFC, he would leave the club and WS in a better or same financial situation then it might be worth a shot but I’m pretty sure he’s not going to do that plus it might be very complex to implement/execute such a condition.
So as the French used to say “NON”
Ok. Got it. Although, in essence, the WS vote is the real vote. The share holder vote is merely going to end up recording/reflecting the decision of the WS, WRT to accept/reject proposal, since it holds 71% of the shares.
Right! So that means the WS has to conclude its voting process prior to casting a vote as a shareholder. So the share holder voting and WS voting can’t be at the same time, which is what someone else had mentioned earlier.
I have no issue with your point that some people will be able to vote on the WS decision as well as casting votes as an individual shareholder. That makes complete sense and is as it should be.
Ok I’m confused (seems normal mode for me on this) surely WS vote has to occur first in order to cast the WS vote as the 71% shareholder at the exec. Board vote? Perhaps I am not understanding how many voting instances there needs to be and what each one is about?
But the idea is for Barmack to bring in more money/investment for the club so that there will be enough coming in to make a difference. However, that’s pretty much a pig in a poke so far. Seems to be very Trumpish, has an idea but no plan or details.