derry

I can't really see how there could be a takeover, unless there was an offer for all the shares that was too good to refuse.

I have pretty much come to the same conclusion. It needs interested parties to come forward. Of course if some of the 40 were added to some of the 20% then that might be a sizeable figure. The easy way is Wilde bailing out.

I've just seen some figures, about 80% of the shares are held by about 40 shareholders but many of these are held by nominee accounts. It is difficult to pick out who owns what. The remainder are held by many (possibly thousands) small shareholders. It would need Wilde to turn or all the minor shareholders plus Crouch, Corbetts, etc to combine with enough of the non Lowe axis to bring a change. The sheer complexity of the shareholdings is the biggest problem. Most are just uncontactable in the normal way, it would only be if enough wanted change and came forward.

I've got some figures now, about 40 shareholdings hold about 80%, the balance is owned by many small shareholders. In many cases it is impossible to see which shareholder supports which side. However, if the shareholders owning the shares are abstaining there will be no change. If an initiative persuades the non aligned shareholders to support a change it could become very interesting.

Thanks.

I'll just have to take your word for it, but the maths just don't add up. If this and subsequent meetings and initiatives unite all the anti shareholders it will be interesting to see the figures.

That's precisely what I'm having a problem with, who owns the outstanding balance, how many and are they aligned. The published Lowe camp only have about 36%, how many unpublished do they control and what is Corbett family holding? I thought that was about 6% but it's not shown.

Not convinced at all, but I would like to see the figures as they don't add up at the moment. The published figures when there looked like being a vote, left about 25-30% unaccounted for. Then seeing that only 17% changed the balance of power, the other shareholders never got involved. I believe about 5% not issued.

That leaves about 54% unissued or unaccountable.

Or small unrepresented shareholders. They should have sponsored a referendum based association to hold the proxies and give the small shareholders a voice. Irrespective of who owns more than 50% of the shares, Lowe and co don't. If enough are anti Lowe he could be ousted.

Now wouldn't that be something. I could sell tickets for that. All shareholders is what it said.

What I said. about 100k shifted in the last week or so I believe.

Or the 25-30% of shares not owned by either group is brought into a voting block. Then it would be interesting.

Do the maths. About 5% unissued. Lowe and co have less than 50% of the rest. If you have a list and accurate figures, stick them on here. I did have the figures but I can't place them.

I could buy 2m today if I wanted to and they were available, but I'd be bloody daft to spend that sort of money on SLH shares. I would buy some to support this initiative.

No, but he sure would be if it gets off the ground. There are at least 50% of shares not controlled by the Lowe axis. If Crouch/Corbett etc get involved, three months from now he could be in big trouble. An additional appeal could be to anti Lowe non shareholders to buy shares. If an association brought all the anti Lowe shares into a voting block it would cause the board big problems.

Then the two groups have a common purpose, if not a common method, that could move both inititiaves in the right direction.

I think if this initiative gets off the ground there will be loads of publicity from here on in.

Sure, but this doesn't look like a big meeting, just an initial toe in the water, I expect the Echo etc will report, and then things will probably move on to bigger more organised structured meetings. Or not.

We will see in due course.

SLH/LSE would have a record, I would have thought.

It must be nice to have small feet, only joking.

Thanks Ron, nice to see somebody is doing something, good luck to them.

Whatever!

Not necessarily, it's obviously only a start up meeting, I think from tonights meeting things will begin to move on. I only know what I read in the Echo. It could be it wasn't intended initially for some of the dickheads on this site, because they actually don't have time for some of the crap we get on here, and actually want to get something done.