The chatter about the vote on Park’s reappointment focuses on entirely the wrong thing IMO. As ever, it shows people are far too drawn to personalities instead of substance.
The real news here is the vote against allowing the Directors to issue new shares and to dis-apply preemptive rights when they do so. In layman’s terms, if the C1872 / King position on both these resolutions were to be carried at the AGM then the directors of the PLC would not be able to issue new shares to raise investment.
The first resolution requires a simple majority so will, I suspect, go through anyway - so issuing new shares will be possible... however the second is likely to fail IMO (given we now know 20% of total shareholding is voting against, and as a special resolution, it needs 75% to pass). This means that in order to issue new shares, the directors will need to offer them in proportion to existing shareholders. This makes it a much more time-consuming and costly process.
C1872’s vote will, in all likelihood, prevent new shares from being issued to repay loans. And is likely to mean C1872 will not have the chance to buy new shares from RIFC PLC in the new year. I have no doubt whatsoever that some Contributors were influenced by the ’Contributor blog’ published by C1872 last week which included the lie that the resolutions, taken together, would “give the RIFC Board the right to issue as many shares as they like, at whatever price they want, to any party they choose”.
There was a justifiable question over Resolution 7 being for a five year period (rather than annually as it has been voted on since 2015, including under King’s chairmanship) but, for context, in 2016 Club 1872 members voted more than 95% in favour of exactly the same special resolution to dis-apply preemptive rights. And has done on every previous occasion on which is has been voted on.
In fact, the last major shareholder to vote against these resolutions at a RIFC PLC AGM was Mike Ashley. Changed days indeed.