Barrow AFC.net

So from that link .....

To pass this through would need a 75% "yes" from 75% of all eligible voting members.

These percentages would ensure a clear majority.

Am I reading that right?

Jonty wrote:So from that link .....

To pass this through would need a 75% "yes" from 75% of all eligible voting members.

These percentages would ensure a clear majority.

Am I reading that right?

My understanding is that 75% of all members would have to vote yes to approve this , as it would be a special resolution.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

Sorry Peter- still reading this as a special resolution must be affirmed by not less than 75% of members casting votes

therefore 75% of members must vote, and 75% of this number have to say yes.

Jonty wrote:Sorry Peter- still reading this as a special resolution must be affirmed by not less than 75% of members casting votes

therefore 75% of members must vote, and 75% of this number have to say yes.

So it's a minimum of 75% of members voting and a minimum of 75% of them accepting the motion?

That would make it at least 56.25% of the total membership then.

that's how I read it, but I'm no expert, needs clarification, and I'm ready to be corrected.

Dalton Bluebird wrote:

Jonty wrote:Sorry Peter- still reading this as a special resolution must be affirmed by not less than 75% of members casting votes

therefore 75% of members must vote, and 75% of this number have to say yes.

So it's a minimum of 75% of members voting and a minimum of 75% of them accepting the motion?

That would make it at least 56.25% of the total membership then.

That's the way I read it, too.

Steve Leonard is the best person to answer this as he's been on with his company law advisors clarifing this very point - I might be wrong.

Steve?

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

I'm not a member but I do have a question.

Given that it's been stated here many times regarding this magical 75% and several have mentioned making sure everything is done above board so not to bring the club into disrepute with legal issues and the FA.

Will there not be a cut off date for members that have joined to take advantage of this vote?

If a postal vote is allowed what happens if suddenly 10,000 new members all join and request a postal vote, what happens if 9,995 of these new members all have the same address in Texas? Perhaps someone who is up to speed with club law can answer this, an action like that could be seen as taking advantage of club law.
Could PC just buy enough memberships to ensure he wins any vote?
Before people rush out to buy a membership perhaps find out if they will be allowed to vote.


From what I've heard and read if I was a member I would be voting for PC, I cant see any other option that will help the club survive.

Uncle Peter wrote:Steve Leonard is the best person to answer this as he's been on with his company law advisors clarifing this very point - I might be wrong.

Steve?

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

http://barrowafc.net/viewtopic.php?f=2& ... 45#p272811

I appreciate people want to speculate on this issue but I can advise that full details of the voting procedure will be explained to the members at both the EGM and in the correspondance that will be sent to them after them EGM. There are still issues to be resolved regarding this and as previously advised I am still in discussions about these issues to ensure the procedure is correct.

Before I begin, let me say that I am not a Company Law expert so I can't guarantee that what I've written below is reliable. That said...

...my reading of the Companies Act is that a Special Resolution proposed at a General Meeting requires 75% of the votes cast at that meeting (including advance postal votes and votes by proxy). In other words if 100 members turn up (and all vote) then it needs 75 to vote in favour.

I can see why people have read the text as 75% of 75% but I think you're misreading it. For example for the show of hands part:

A resolution passed at a meeting on a show of hands is passed by a majority of not less than 75% if it is passed by not less than 75% of-
(a) the members who, being entitled to do so, vote in person on the resolution, and
(b) the persons who vote on the resolution as duly appointed proxies of members entitled to vote on it.

The bit in blue defines what is meant by the bit in red.

What's more, if you compare the text for Ordinary Resolutions with that for Special Resolutions they are more or less identical with "simple majority" (for Ordinary) replaced by "majority of not less than 75%". In other words if a Special Resolution requires 75% of all members to vote in favour then by extension an ordinary resolution must require 50% of all members. Given that our AGMs tend to have much lower turnouts than 50% that would make virtually every resolution passed at every AGM to date invalid. Like I said though I think for resolutions passed at General Meetings it only matters how many votes for & against there are, not what the total membership figure is.

However, I think the issue in play here is that, from reading the AGM and EGM notices, it looks like the proposal to transfer assets & football membership to Mr Casson will not only be a Special Resolution but will also be a Written Resolution. This will require 75% of all members to give written agreement (by post and/or electronically depending on what the BoD specify in the notice of the resolution, and within 28 days of that notice being issued). If this is the case then the people entitled to vote will be all those who are members on the day on which the notice is issued. What I don't understand though is why the BoD have chosen (or need) to use a Written Resolution for this rather than having a show of hands or poll at an EGM.

A Barrow-born millionaire coming in willing to invest thousands if not millions of his own money. He will invest in the ground and the squad and give us what many have been asking for for years - players living locally. He willl deliver a team worthy of the Football League and not only that, if his plans for progressing the club go belly up, it will be Mr. Casson who will take the hit financially and the club will be left none the worse off!!

When things sound too good to be true, it is because they usually are...

Leo wrote:A Barrow-born millionaire coming in willing to invest thousands if not millions of his own money. He will invest in the ground and the squad and give us what many have been asking for for years - players living locally. He willl deliver a team worthy of the Football League and not only that, if his plans for progressing the club go belly up, it will be Mr. Casson who will take the hit financially and the club will be left none the worse off!!
When things sound too good to be true, it is because they usually are...

We will be worse off as won't own the ground and will be at the mercy of whoever buys it (presumably renting it off them), however nobody has mentioned this yet.

John Very Little wrote:

Leo wrote:A Barrow-born millionaire coming in willing to invest thousands if not millions of his own money. He will invest in the ground and the squad and give us what many have been asking for for years - players living locally. He willl deliver a team worthy of the Football League and not only that, if his plans for progressing the club go belly up, it will be Mr. Casson who will take the hit financially and the club will be left none the worse off!!
When things sound too good to be true, it is because they usually are...

We will be worse off as won't own the ground and will be at the mercy of whoever buys it (presumably renting it off them), however nobody has mentioned this yet.

In two years we will be dead without this move anyway. People need to get on board and trust that some folk are exactly what they seem.

John Very Little wrote:

Leo wrote:A Barrow-born millionaire coming in willing to invest thousands if not millions of his own money. He will invest in the ground and the squad and give us what many have been asking for for years - players living locally. He willl deliver a team worthy of the Football League and not only that, if his plans for progressing the club go belly up, it will be Mr. Casson who will take the hit financially and the club will be left none the worse off!!
When things sound too good to be true, it is because they usually are...

We will be worse off as won't own the ground and will be at the mercy of whoever buys it (presumably renting it off them), however nobody has mentioned this yet.

If all goes tits up and he wants out, what's to stop a members trust being formed and rebuying the ground themselves? Considering our debts now probably at least total the value of the ground we'd be in no worse state with a new members company owning the ground under a mortgage?*

To be honest, we have three options to chose:

1) We stay as we are
2) We take Casson up on his proposal
3) Someone finds/comes up with another alternative going forward

In the absence of #3, that leaves us with 1 and 2. I truly believe that with the debt we have, and the model of the club preventing any meaningful investment, #1 will kill us. The BOD have done a fantastic job over the years, but I feel we're now at a level where the debt has us fighting fires and treading water rather than moving forward. Staying still in football terms is the equivalent of going backwards. That brings us onto #2. Yes it has risks in itself, nobodys pretending it's all sunshine and rainbows. But so does the other option. At least this one in theory has the potential to lift the club beyond the possibilities of the current set up long term, and financial stability in the short term. I believe his intentions are genuine and his goals realistic. Of course in a few years time we may be buggered and those against will no doubt love to say "I told you so" but sometimes you have to take a leap of faith and truly do what is best for the club. And I believe that whatever happens in the long term, this option will leave the club in a better state at the end of it all then it is now, and that's good enough for me.

*Of course, that assumes the possiblity of a newly formed members company being able to obtain a mortgage, no idea of the possiblity of that.

The ownership of the ground is an emotive issue for supporters, and rightly so. But whatever happens, this will not change.

The company trading and playing as Barrow AFC will still own Holker St if the deal goes through. What will change is the ownership of the company. In effect we will be in the same situation as we prior to the Keen era, when the club was owned by its shareholders (well, that was the theory at least; details of many of the shareholders seemed to have been lost in the mists of time ).

The issue is, do we want / trust Paul Casson as custodian of the club's assets? After reading through this thread, the consensus seems to be "Yes".