VOTE RESULT

Discuss all matters related to Dagenham and Redbridge
User avatar
Auntie Merge
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

Dagenham and Redbridge FC EGM Members vote result - vote 37 for Tamplin 11 against. In 2 months the paperwork will be completed.
canveydagger
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 8:44 pm

i thought we had about 70 members sounds like a few did not vote,
Voice of reason
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:15 am

So he'd have won even if he needed 75% of those attending
Amazing how few people it needed to make such a big change
Diggerthedog
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm

Voice of reason wrote:So he'd have won even if he needed 75% of those attending
Amazing how few people it needed to make such a big change
The members who did not show up count as a no vote so it's still not the 75%. It was changed to 50/50 for one reason only.

Bring on the legal battle.
canveydagger
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 8:44 pm

Diggerthedog wrote:
Voice of reason wrote:So he'd have won even if he needed 75% of those attending
Amazing how few people it needed to make such a big change
The members who did not show up count as a no vote so it's still not the 75%. It was changed to 50/50 for one reason only.

Bring on the legal battle.

Diggerthedog who going to pay for the legal battle it cost money
User avatar
leewilson
Posts: 659
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:05 pm

You're going to legally challenge the club? Good luck with that. :lol:
Diggerthedog
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm

You won't be laughing when you're asking for money in a bucket.
Adrian
Posts: 1261
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:09 pm

Diggerthedog wrote:
Voice of reason wrote:So he'd have won even if he needed 75% of those attending
Amazing how few people it needed to make such a big change
The members who did not show up count as a no vote so it's still not the 75%. It was changed to 50/50 for one reason only.

Bring on the legal battle.
Do you have any proof that it was changed?
User avatar
Sagres
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:26 pm

He was always going to win the vote
Diggerthedog
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm

Adrian wrote:
Diggerthedog wrote:
Voice of reason wrote:So he'd have won even if he needed 75% of those attending
Amazing how few people it needed to make such a big change
The members who did not show up count as a no vote so it's still not the 75%. It was changed to 50/50 for one reason only.

Bring on the legal battle.
Do you have any proof that it was changed?
No i heard it on Facebook via my aunts friends who is sister with a stewards dead grandma.
Adrian
Posts: 1261
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:09 pm

Diggerthedog wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Diggerthedog wrote:
The members who did not show up count as a no vote so it's still not the 75%. It was changed to 50/50 for one reason only.

Bring on the legal battle.
Do you have any proof that it was changed?
No i heard it on Facebook via my aunts friends who is sister with a stewards dead grandma.

Thank you for the sarcasm. So what is this proof then?
DI Mike Dashwood
Posts: 641
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:56 pm

And have you also had it confirmed that no shows count as no votes?? I believe proxy voting was available so I would imagine that no shows would count as an abstain vote??

Did a protest take place outside??
Diggerthedog
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm

It's common knowledge. Ask any member.
Adrian
Posts: 1261
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:09 pm

Diggerthedog wrote:It's common knowledge. Ask any member.
Proof, not hearsay.
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

Diggerthedog wrote:The members who did not show up count as a no vote so it's still not the 75%. It was changed to 50/50 for one reason only.
Where is that in the company's articles/memorandum? Because my quick read of the companies act suggests that it allows a vote taken by poll to be passed by the requisite percentage of those who vote in person, by proxy or in advance. I think it's only a show of hands that is counted as you say - but I'm not a company lawyer. See 282(3) and 283(5) of the companies act.
Post Reply