Port Vale: Fans pick four candidates for interim board
A FANS' group have selected four candidates to join an interim board as they prepare to step up their fight to oust Port Vale's current regime.
Former directors Mike Thompstone and Paul Humphreys were two of those chosen from 25 applicants by the supporters' club.
-
The other two are supporters' club chairman Pete Williams and Vale's former marketing director Margaret Sinstadt, the wife of former football commentator and Sentinel columnist Gerald.
Shareholders will get the chance to remove the current board – Perry Deakin, Peter Miller, Mike Lloyd and Glenn Oliver – and replace it with an interim body at an Extraordinary General Meeting.
The fans' group announced their choices in front of around 250 fans at a meeting at Smallthorne Victory Working Men's Club last night and will formally ask the board to call the EGM on Friday.
"We have chosen two experienced ex-directors who have business experience as well," said Williams, below.
"Margaret has commercial experience and has worked at the club and I'll be representing the fans."
Thompstone resigned as a director after the club's AGM in December 2010 when shareholders voted by hand to remove him from the board.
Humphreys stepped down in March last year in the wake of Mo Chaudry's bid to take control of the club.
Under the club's constitution, an individual must invest a minimum of £50,000 into the club to become a director, or they must represent a sponsor who owns the required stake.
Sinstadt's candidacy is to be sponsored by former director Stan Meigh, who owns shares worth more than £100,000, while Williams will be sponsored by the fans' group's proxy for Robbie Williams, who owns a £249,000 stake.
But with no more sponsors to call upon, the fans' group were forced to turn to Thompstone and Humphreys, who own shares worth £14,000 and £24,035 respectively, as they are exempt from the £50,000 rule as former directors.
The supporters' club have also selected two reserve candidates who they have yet to name.
They will also put together a task force to assist the interim board in assessing the state of the club and have asked MP Joan Walley to help out.
Meanwhile, Williams hit out at Deakin after an e-mail, sent by Vale's outgoing chief executive to the boss of Blue Sky International Hank Julicher on Monday, was read out at last night's meeting.
The U.S. firm was issued with 30,000 'nil-paid' shares, worth £150,000, as part of their collapsed investment deal with Vale.
Deakin has offered Julicher the chance to transfer Blue Sky shares to a group who, he claims, are lining up a bid to invest in the club, for just £1. The would-be investors would then pay the club the full £150,000 for the shares.
This is despite Miller insisting that Blue Sky's shares were withdrawn "upon default of payment" in a club statement on December 10.
Deakin told Julicher in the e-mail: "From a legal perspective you currently hold 30,000 £5 shares which remain unpaid.
"Our solicitor's advice is to now place a call upon those shares for full payment – no one at Port Vale wants to go down that route as we are certain we can resolve this mess without legal intervention.
"We have recently met and negotiated with a group who wish to invest in the club and this offers the opportunity for you to release your current technical debt."
But Williams responded: "To make that offer when Peter Miller had said the shares had already been revoked is an absolute disgrace.
"The board are trying to raise further finance and gain more shares to try to prevent them from being removed at the EGM."
The supporters' club now want an investigation of the board's handling of club affairs in recent months and will send a letter to Staffordshire Police.
More Port Vale articles:
Port Vale: Young Valiants crash out after late flurry
More Port Vale articles:
Port Vale: We need fans to help us home in on play-off place, says wing ace Taylor
Port Vale: Would-be director warns of more pain for Vale
90 Comments
View all
by Vale_58
Monday, February 13 2012, 1:52PM
“I agree with Vale_For_Real regarding MC, I think if the SC are backing him to take over the club they should make there position clear. Of course the problem the board have is convincing people that they have a viable alternative, after the fiasco of Blue Sky any future investor will be scrutinised thoroughly.
As an aside, does anyone know the process when it comes to voting in the EGM? Are we voting for each individual candidate e.g. One vote for a candidate irrespective of which side they represent or will it be a simple vote to retain or remove the board and have them replaced with the 4 candidates from the SC??? The reason I ask is that there is no way in a million years that I would vote for Williams or Margaret Sinstadt, although I obviously want V2001 removed.”
by mick32
Friday, January 27 2012, 6:52PM
“fosse
dictatorship comes when you Fail to consult on important decisions you are informed
You may be kept informed but you are not consulted,you do not decide what happens. I hope it all goes well but believe me after many years of negotiation and representation i have learned that if their have been any "doggy"dealings even though they may well have been done with the right intentions they will come to light and will damage the campaign”
by ValiantFosse
Friday, January 27 2012, 6:32PM
“Mick32, I am kept informed on SC activities/decisions by regular Emails, very few if any complaints are raised on how they conduct thier business, so I assume most people are happy, compared to the board the SC is fantastic. Where does the dictatorship come in? The Interim board will be elected by the shareholders, the next board by the shareholders. MA was a late candidate, so jumped the short list, just an example of what happens in selection processes.”
by 2ValiantB
Friday, January 27 2012, 6:21PM
“The process for the the candidates being proposed for the EGM has been open, honest and transparent. The committee has chosen the best mix people from those that have put themselves forward or who were approached. I am sure they have taken legal advice ensuring the legitimacy of the new board when appointed.
Let us compare this process with that of the current regime.
Shareholders were lied to about Deakin & Miller having paid for their shares:
Shareholders were told Miller & Deakin were using their OWN money to pay for shares, when in fact they Blue Sky were going to be paying for them.
This deal would have broken the Articles of Association limiting any connected parties owning more than 24.9% of shares in Vale. Yet Lloyd, Deakin, Miller & Oliver chose to ignore this.
Shareholders were misled and misinformed about the Blue Sky investment that turned out to be £500,000 and not the £8m they told us it was.
Lloyd, Deakin, Miller and Oliver used nil-paid shares to vote new members on to the board.
The current board have failed and the new board will be put in place to assess the financial meltdown at the club. They will have significant support from professionals in order to make that assessment.
The biggest plus will be that the interim board will not lie to fans and shareholders and will have the trust of the fan base, something that cannot be said of the current board.”
by mick32
Friday, January 27 2012, 5:53PM
“fosse
i have no wish to change the committee i just want to know how they arrived at their decision without consulting any of their members
How MA was appointed is irrelavant as the SC must appear to operate better than the people they wish to rid the club of, at this moment in time they appear to want to replace one dictatorship with another.
As a SC member i would of thought you would have asked how they arrived at their decision or do you just sit back and let them get on with it. You should be asking who the other candidates were.
The SC is totally reliant on other peoples shares to achieve their aims and they should not give there opponents any amunition to fire back. If doubt begins to creap in support could and will be removed.”
by ValiantFosse
Friday, January 27 2012, 5:03PM
“Dandruff1960, Those that can do. Those that can't teach."
Yes I am familiar with the phrase, but it is not always that simple. Those that can, cant always teach someone how to. Those that teach, can show how to. Otherwise how would we all start?”
by ValiantFosse
Friday, January 27 2012, 4:49PM
“Mick32, I assume you are not a SC member, and since I am not a committee member I cannot answer your question. Usually candidates put themselves forward or are sounded out, it is also a good idea to invite applications, which was done. Favourites occur at any time, do you remember how MA was first appointed? I would have expected there to have been a short list for a while, dependent on later applications that may or may not change. How that can be a problem I do not know. I am amazed you want to change the committee when things are going so well, when did the SC last have 1000 members.”
by dandruff1960
Friday, January 27 2012, 4:06PM
“ValiantFosse : Those that can do. Those that can't teach.”
by mick32
Friday, January 27 2012, 4:01PM
“fosse
once again the SC committee were elected at a meeting of 35 or less members, are they the best candidates from a membership which now numbers 1000?
Why was there no choice for members?
Please answer the question this is the third time WERE THE CANDIDATES SELECTED BEFORE THE REQUEST FOR VOLENTEERS WENT OUT ?”
by ValiantFosse
Friday, January 27 2012, 3:51PM
“Dandruff1960, how do we know which qualifications a teacher has got? I know one who would sort the Vale out quite quickly, used to running a department and dealing with directors and ministers, he changed jobs at 50 for a change of lifestyle. Cant always judge a book by its cover.”