Member Info for addicknt

waka, Paul Polman, Unilever. Peter Plumb, Just Eat. Malcolm Walker, Iceland (twice, and wrongly so). A few recent examples of situations where institutional shareholders put sufficient pressure on the board to force a resignation. Oh, and my mate Tim Clarke at Mitchells and Butler.
I could go on, but really cannot be bothered. It's quite clear you don't understand how boards and companies work, which doesn't make you an exception on this bb, albeit you are certainly more arrogant than most, but I feel no compulsion to labour the point.

mog, the percentage required to call an egm is enshrined in the Companies (Shareholders Rights) Regulations 2009 when the figure was reduced from 10% to 5%.
The reason CGP didn't call and egm was they didn't need one...everything they wanted to be discussed was on the agenda and they won by two goals to one.
Personally, I don't think they'll have another go at Mather because they don't need to. They will seek to work with NCM and BHP on the matter, whether BHP play ball is another matter. In order to avoid future conflict, and to repeat myself, Mather needs to engage right now with BHP and structure a deal which works for all of us.

woody, yes.

waka, you are completely wrong and if you knew anything about the situation you'd realize just how wrong you are. If you genuinely think yesterday hasn't undermined Mather's position you are chronically deluded.
And the idea that the major shareholders will 'shut the f up' is absolutely hilarious.

woody, that isn't correct. The figure is I believe, 5%.

waka, I suggest since if you're so interested you google the subject. I take it you accept the single example I mentioned? Hundreds of thousands of small investors may have wanted him to stay, but the institutions didn't - game over for Patterson- which also neatly explains why steve's point is so irrelevant.

steve, perhaps I should have said nearly 50% of shares were voted against, but I kind of assumed you'd understand the point. The number of shareholders is totally irrelevant and it matters not one jot what you and I think.

waka, one example this year; Gavin Patterson at BT. He lost the support of the institutional shareholders and had to resign. There are literally thousands of similar situations.

steve, you really are daft. It's not the number of shareholders which is important, it's the number of shares they own. What don't you understand about that?

TBTT, yup.

Steve, your comment isn't relevant - it's not the way the world works. But I guess you know that, so I'm struggling to understand your point.

steve, so what? Your point is not relevant - it's not the way the world works.

josepi, quite right. Instead, he sat there looking as if he'd swallowed a wasp.
As I said yesterday, that's the first agm I've ever witnessed where the chairman hasn't provided an overview of the year and the CEO hasn't contributed at all. And by the way, the chairman looked and sounded totally at sea. Both he and Mather understood the implications of the outcome and their performance reflected it.

wak, who said 'brought down'? If you can't see the truth of the position, I very much doubt your claim.

Steve, but it doesn't work on the principle of one person one vote, does it? So your comment is completely irrelevant.

wak, have you ever run a public company? Or a private one with major shareholders ranged against you? I have and it doesn't work. And the fact is, in virtually every other circumstance I've ever seen, a situation where nearly 50% of shareholders vote against a CEO always leads to the departure of that CEO - particularly when those shareholders are major multi-nationals or institutions. I have no wish to see that happen, so change is required.

iceberg, that is true, but the difference is that two events have combined to heighten the discord; the introduction of the Chinese and the Franco deal.
It seems to me some people assume I, and others, are stooges for BHP; I am not. I have absolutely no wish to see our company sold out for a rock bottom price to anyone - why on earth would I? To this end, I voted in favour of Mather yesterday.
However, I'm absolutely convinced he's pursuing the wrong strategy and sincerely hope yesterday will force him to re-think. In my opinion, we will not get to production and the strategy needs to reflect that.
We have a truly amazing asset here and I want to see us achieve a great price for it, not to end up in some protracted battle with the worlds largest miners, which will prevent us from attaining real value.
There are many ways to skin this cat (and what a greta position to be in), but we're going down the wrong path at the moment.

wak, I just did.

waksayama, do a google search, the Practical Law page published by Thompson Reuters is good. One example was clearly demonstrated yesterday; the disapplication of pre-emption rights. Another key power is that of shareholders to demand an EGM. We are firmly in that territory. The rights of significant shareholders are significant and wide-ranging. Of course, that doesn't mean they'd win a vote, but it provides ongoing uncertainty and makes delivering a strategy much more difficult.
No major company can survive with such a high level of dissatisfaction amongst its key shareholders. NM needs to engage with these people, for all of our sakes.

Because ultimately they will block all resolutions which will be required to approve significant corporate actions i.e those requiring 75% approval. If they aren't able to achieve that, they will launch a hostile bid.
Yesterday proved they are not prepared to lie down and accept the current strategy so Mather has two choices; develop a new strategy or face the consequences. Personally, I hope he does the former.