Lowe & AGM

[saintstr1]

Reading through most of the threads there is obviously a overwhelming desire to see the back of Lowe again, What I do not understand is how with only a 6% shareholding can he remain in place with so many wanting rid of him. Surely a lot of shareholders who have there say on the forums will be attending the AGM to vote against him. I really can't understand how Lowe survives even with Wildes backing.

[RobM]

Reading through most of the threads there is obviously a overwhelming desire to see the back of Lowe again, What I do not understand is how with only a 6% shareholding can he remain in place with so many wanting rid of him. Surely a lot of shareholders who have there say on the forums will be attending the AGM to vote against him. I really can't understand how Lowe survives even with Wildes backing.

 

Lowe may only have a small amount of shares himself, but he has 'control' over a huge amount more. There are a number of shareholders who he has in his pocket and who will back him regardless of what we may think or feel.

 

Lowe controls a much bigger stake in this club than 6%

 

The only two people who have any chance of a decent say in things are Wilde and Crouch. Neither speak for anywhere near a majority, but they do hold a decent amount of weight.

[benjii]

Reading through most of the threads there is obviously a overwhelming desire to see the back of Lowe again, What I do not understand is how with only a 6% shareholding can he remain in place with so many wanting rid of him. Surely a lot of shareholders who have there say on the forums will be attending the AGM to vote against him. I really can't understand how Lowe survives even with Wildes backing.

 

Because there are another 20% or so under his belt courtesy of the old board of directors and various pals of his who have bought shares.

 

This, plus Wilde's backing takes him to about 40% of the issued capital.

 

A large proportion of small shareholders will not vote, whether due to apathy, disinterest, ignorance or whatever...

 

The sad fact is that whilst a clear majoriy of supporters probably want him gone forever it can't be demonstrated and may not be the case that a majority of shareholders (or, more accurately, an amount of shareholders representing the majority of voting rights of those who vote) want him gone.

[1965onwards]

People have proxied their shares to Lowe because they are scared of what he knows about them.

[Topcat]

The only benefit of administration is that Lowe will have lost his "pals" many hundreds of thousands of pounds. That will serve them right for backing him.

[bridge too far]

How easy is it to 'unproxy' shares? (or should that be 'de-proxy'?)

 

I remember reading on here, not too long ago, a post quoting Mary Corbett's views on Wilde / Lowe and how she felt betrayed. Had she proxied her shares?

[70's Mike]

The only benefit of administration is that Lowe will have lost his "pals" many hundreds of thousands of pounds. That will serve them right for backing him.

 

But that is the problem people like Askham and all the other old company shareholders are only out of pocket on paper because they paid f**k all for their shares.

Crouch should have put forward a proposal for the AGM calling on the Company to have a 50p Rights Issue to solve the cash crisis and call their bluff.

Many Small Businessmen around the country are having to pump funds into their businesses at this time why should the owners of SLH be different ?

Or are they only interested in the good times

[benjii]

How easy is it to 'unproxy' shares? (or should that be 'de-proxy'?)

 

I remember reading on here, not too long ago, a post quoting Mary Corbett's views on Wilde / Lowe and how she felt betrayed. Had she proxied her shares?

 

You can withdraw a proxy at any time.

 

I would be very surprised if those guys have any sort of binding legal agreement, they all just like to sit around together over a glass of wine and pretend to be important.

[VectisSaint]

Because there are another 20% or so under his belt courtesy of the old board of directors and various pals of his who have bought shares.

 

This, plus Wilde's backing takes him to about 40% of the issued capital.

 

A large proportion of small shareholders will not vote, whether due to apathy, disinterest, ignorance or whatever...

 

The sad fact is that whilst a clear majoriy of supporters probably want him gone forever it can't be demonstrated and may not be the case that a majority of shareholders (or, more accurately, an amount of shareholders representing the majority of voting rights of those who vote) want him gone.

As well as that, shares owned by institutions such as banks or pension funds, will always vote for the status quo. I won't be attending the AGM but have voted against Lowe and Wilde being re-elected.

[saintstr1]

As well as that, shares owned by institutions such as banks or pension funds, will always vote for the status quo. I won't be attending the AGM but have voted against Lowe and Wilde being re-elected.

 

Good on you , Needs a lot more with the balls to follow your example!

[um pahars]

As well as that, shares owned by institutions such as banks or pension funds, will always vote for the status quo. I won't be attending the AGM but have voted against Lowe and Wilde being re-elected.

 

I don't think we have many institutions with shares in the Club, at least none in excess of 3% (with the exception of one samll amount).

 

Our shares stack up something like:

 

Lowe has less than 6%

 

His cabal have circa 20% (Askham, Richards, Withers etc)

 

Wilde has circa 16%

 

Crouch has circa 10%

 

The Corbett's circa 6%

 

That leaves circa 40% out there up for grabs.

 

With 42%, Wilde and Lowe have a base and in the absence of the remaining 58% not pulling together, nothing will change.

 

Wilde certainly has the power to bring about change, as do some in Lowe's cabal and if the remaining smaller shareholders could get organised, then they could certainly put a shot across the bows of those currently in power.

[benjii]

I don't think we have many institutions with shares in the Club, at least none in excess of 3% (with the exception of one samll amount).

 

Our shares stack up something like:

 

Lowe has less than 6%

 

His cabal have circa 20% (Askham, Richards, Withers etc)

 

Wilde has circa 16%

 

Crouch has circa 10%

 

The Corbett's circa 6%

 

That leaves circa 40% out there up for grabs.

 

With 42%, Wilde and Lowe have a base and in the absence of the remaining 58% not pulling together, nothing will change.

 

Wilde certainly has the power to bring about change, as do some in Lowe's cabal and if the remaining smaller shareholders could get organised, then they could certainly put a shot across the bows of those currently in power.

 

Some sort of Saints Shareholders' Trust might be useful?!

[Cabrone]

As a fan the biggest hit you can deal Lowe\Wilde is to withdraw funds.

 

Its a crying shame to have to go down this route but its just about all you have.

 

By all means vote against the current regime but you will be playing their game and won't make much of an effect.

[SaintRichmond]

Reading through most of the threads there is obviously a overwhelming desire to see the back of Lowe again, What I do not understand is how with only a 6% shareholding can he remain in place with so many wanting rid of him. Surely a lot of shareholders who have there say on the forums will be attending the AGM to vote against him. I really can't understand how Lowe survives even with Wildes backing.

 

 

Lowe is "in charge" because JUDAS WILDE aligned himself to him, and thus their combined Shareholding forced Crouch to concede