Hereford United chairman David Keyte has said that he will not put any more money into the club. His comments came after shareholders turned down one of the main resolutions about the proposed share issue at last night's meeting. This particular resolution, which needed a 75% vote, was to allow investment in shares from other than current shareholders.
Keyte spoke to BBC Hereford and Worcester earlier today.
He was asked about why he lost the one crucial vote.
"You can understand the logic," said Keyte.
"There were a number of people voting who were concerned about their loss of percentage and perhaps not accepting the bigger picture.
"However there are an awful lot of people out there who would like to become shareholders.
"At the moment they don't have the opportunity."
And what about the change of wording in the documents agreed at the meeting which means some shareholders will be able to vote for a second time?
"We are going to have to put a bit of a deadline on that maybe seven or ten days to try and get it done.
"But those people who voted prior to the issue on the document that they had already had should have the right to reconsider that.
"Whether that will change percentages we will have to wait and see."
Keyte then gave an example of an off-pitch project which is working.
"The one project three or four of us have put money into the Supporters Club is generating good revenue now and we see the proposed project for the development of each end of the ground as further potential lines of revenue into the club. And so not be solely reliant on the football performance on the pitch."
Keyte says he is considering his position
"Is it time to walk away?
"I've certainly been quite open in saying that the amount of money I've put in to date, I don't intend to put any further money in and I think it was appropiate that we tried to adjust the financial model of the club to make it a more viable proportion in its own right instead of individuals having to bale it out.
"We do need to sit down with those few people and try and work through their concerns. The one about the loss of percentage share is a difficult one.
"You're either going to sit on what you've got which is how a few voted last night or you accept that the football club really needs to get up and over the current situation and attract a wider investment audience."
After the comments from Keyte were aired, one shareholder with 2000 shares contacted the station to tell them why he had voted against the resolutions.
Below is his e-mail in full:
I voted no at last night's meeting. I have previously announced online that would be the case, but I feel the need to explain why in further depth.
I chose, prior to the meeting, to vote no because the document detailing the proposed share issue is wrong in several places, making it contradictory and misleading. Numbers change from page to page, and the figures being voted on in the actual resolutions bear little resemblance to those quoted in the accompanying text. These problems have been highlighted on Bulls News, and in emails I've sent to Stuart Blake and the Board.
It was agreed, at the meeting, that the document was wrong but a vote was still carried out on it effectively with changes pending. From a legal standpoint I cannot make a decision on a document that doesn't currently exist - a document different to the one I had received and read.
I could only vote on the document in existence, which remained wrong. There was no guarantee that the rewritten document would be correct, so I could not vote on it until it was seen and considered.
I have seen a few comments today accusing shareholders of greed. This couldn't be further from the truth for me. My shareholding is financially worthless, and will continue to be so with whatever multiplier is added down the road. My shareholding will, eventually, be gifted to the Supporters Trust.
I said to one board member, shortly after the initial Shareholders meeting three months ago, that the share issue was a 'once in a generation' matter but that it had to be done right. I even suggested extending the issue far beyond current demands so that the matter did not need to be revisited in the future and that the club could sell shares at will as needed.
The proposal document is not currently right and, until it is correct, I cannot agree to it.
After the comments from Keyte were aired, one shareholder with 2000 shares contacted the station to tell them why he had voted against the resolutions.
Below is his e-mail in full:
I voted no at last night's meeting. I have previously announced online that would be the case, but I feel the need to explain why in further depth.
I chose, prior to the meeting, to vote no because the document detailing the proposed share issue is wrong in several places, making it contradictory and misleading. Numbers change from page to page, and the figures being voted on in the actual resolutions bear little resemblance to those quoted in the accompanying text. These problems have been highlighted on Bulls News, and in emails I've sent to Stuart Blake and the Board.
It was agreed, at the meeting, that the document was wrong but a vote was still carried out on it effectively with changes pending. From a legal standpoint I cannot make a decision on a document that doesn't currently exist - a document different to the one I had received and read.
I could only vote on the document in existence, which remained wrong. There was no guarantee that the rewritten document would be correct, so I could not vote on it until it was seen and considered.
I have seen a few comments today accusing shareholders of greed. This couldn't be further from the truth for me. My shareholding is financially worthless, and will continue to be so with whatever multiplier is added down the road. My shareholding will, eventually, be gifted to the Supporters Trust.
I said to one board member, shortly after the initial Shareholders meeting three months ago, that the share issue was a 'once in a generation' matter but that it had to be done right. I even suggested extending the issue far beyond current demands so that the matter did not need to be revisited in the future and that the club could sell shares at will as needed.
The proposal document is not currently right and, until it is correct, I cannot agree to it.