| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Brucey
Genius
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 6538
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ord
Adept
Joined: 23 Dec 2000
Posts: 3546
Location: London
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The voting posters in the YBS branch I visited today proclaimed that the Yorkshire / Chelsea merger meant YBS would be:
"Large enough to matter, small enough to care"
SO only Nationwide & Yorkshire BSs are "large enough to matter"   and the rest can give up now 
It's so much sweeter when it comes from the horse's own mouth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nogbad
Adept
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 201
Location: Liverpool
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ord wrote: | The voting posters in the YBS branch I visited today proclaimed that the Yorkshire / Chelsea merger meant YBS would be:
"Large enough to matter, small enough to care"
SO only Nationwide & Yorkshire BSs are "large enough to matter" and the rest can give up now
It's so much sweeter when it comes from the horse's own mouth |
Totally agree
The logic of this statement is that any BS smaller than the yorkshire doesn't care. So just remember this when the Yorkshire buys out one of its smaller rivals and try to tell you they are merging with a like minded, honourable society
You couldnt make it up  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chadwick
Moderator
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 10580
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's marketing spin, aimed at those who don't frequent forums like these.
Don't read too much into it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sandman
Pundit
Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 417
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What's the estimate of Yorkshire members in favour,surely less than 91.7% of Chelsea members. I would guess 82% in favour of sharing their reserves with us Chelsea members. Thanks Yorkshire members for being so generous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TOPCAT57
Oracle
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 4540
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Voted with my feet and took my money with me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HB
Moderator
Joined: 20 Apr 2000
Posts: 5444
Location: Yr Hen Wlad
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Roughly 85% "for" at YBS
See here
_______________
Sterling Forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ord
Adept
Joined: 23 Dec 2000
Posts: 3546
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blimey.
It's the lowest ever vote for a management backed resolution.
And that's without a member organised campaign against them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patientperson
Worthy
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 272
Location: North of Watford
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just looked at YBS website and Chelsea.
Combined membership 2.7 million with about 2 million in YBS.
According to YBS the voting was 197,798 FOR and 30,398 against.
This amounts to less than 10% of the membership .. what about this 75% rule?
As for Chelsea they do not mention how many voted.
A right fiddle .. pp voted against in both ballots.
What a waste of over 1.8 million documents from YBS and an unknown number from Chelsea .. still the directors know best .. don't they?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EarthBoy
Adept
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| patientperson wrote: | ... .. what about this 75% rule?
|
It only has to be 75% of those actually voting, and that majority was easily obtained. People who don't vote, don't count, as they clearly don't care either way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brucey
Genius
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 6538
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EarthBoy wrote: | | patientperson wrote: | ... .. what about this 75% rule?
|
It only has to be 75% of those actually voting, and that majority was easily obtained. People who don't vote, don't count, as they clearly don't care either way. |
Is there a quorum that they need to reach? I assume this would probably be quite low if there is one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nogbad
Adept
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 201
Location: Liverpool
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| patientperson wrote: | Just looked at YBS website and Chelsea.
Combined membership 2.7 million with about 2 million in YBS.
According to YBS the voting was 197,798 FOR and 30,398 against.
This amounts to less than 10% of the membership .. what about this 75% rule?
As for Chelsea they do not mention how many voted.
A right fiddle .. pp voted against in both ballots.
What a waste of over 1.8 million documents from YBS and an unknown number from Chelsea .. still the directors know best .. don't they? |
Figures like these are staggering but should come as no surprise, until the rules are changed to require a minimum number of eligible members to vote then these give aways sorry "mergers" will continue regardless.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
planteria
Wise
Joined: 21 Apr 2000
Posts: 3373
Location: going down the wednesbury road
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| are those rules going to get changes though nog? unlikely, unfortunately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
member119224
Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
From my very rough calculation it looks like the against vote would have to roughly double for the 75% needed not to have been achieved and the doubling coming from non voters at that . There would have been cosiderably less than 30.000 needed if some of the 197,000 had voted the other way.These are quite small numbers must be giving the boards something to ponder on when deciding whether to offer windfalls or not. A few letters to some newspapers might even swing enough votes to reverse the currant trend. Has anybody got the the energy and inclination to compare the York
shire /Chelsea voting figures with other recent mergers . It would be interesting to see if they follow a pattern and how few votes it would need to swing things the other way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TOPCAT57
Oracle
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 4540
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| member119224 wrote: | From my very rough calculation it looks like the against vote would have to roughly double for the 75% needed not to have been achieved and the doubling coming from non voters at that . There would have been cosiderably less than 30.000 needed if some of the 197,000 had voted the other way.These are quite small numbers must be giving the boards something to ponder on when deciding whether to offer windfalls or not. A few letters to some newspapers might even swing enough votes to reverse the currant trend. Has anybody got the the energy and inclination to compare the York
shire /Chelsea voting figures with other recent mergers . It would be interesting to see if they follow a pattern and how few votes it would need to swing things the other way. |
Perhaps some swing both ways?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
