Hereford United shareholders failed to support one of the crucial resolutions at this evening's special meeting.
However the first two resolutions were passed.
In effect shareholders gave the board the go ahead to convert loans into shares and also agreed to give the board permission to go ahead with the share issue.
However they then stopped the board from offering any of the new shares to anyone other than existing shareholders. Which means that the board can not attract any new investment through shares.
Chairman David Keyte was disappointed, but perhaps not surprised at the outcome.
He said that the vote had given the board "no future to fund this football club."
After the vote was announced there was a call to set up a working party to look at the financial problems at the club which was noted by the chairman.
The meeting was chaired by David Keyte. Directors Grenville Smith, Dave Preedy, along with Colin Addison, Bob Pritchard and Stuart Blake were also on top table. Around 40 shareholders were present.
To start the chairman gave a brief resume of the reasons for the share issue and what each resolution was about. He confirmed that current shareholders would have the first chance to buy shares.
After, assuming the current shareholders didn't purchase all the shares, the remaining shares would be available to a 'wider audience'.
Questions were asked about resolution two and its wording. It was suggested that the resolution contained wording which was the opposite to that intended. This was accepted by the chairman.
However it was then pointed out that shareholders who had already voted won't have been aware of the clarification. It was agreed these shareholders would be written to and if they wanted to, they could change their votes. It was felt that it was unlikely any of them would but they had to be given the chance.
The chairman confirmed that if resolution two was passed the board would discuss how many shares to offer existing shareholders. There were calls for the 4 new for 1 existing to be more generous.
After discussions over the aims of the share issue - one shareholder pointed out that the idea of putting money into the Aylestone Park training ground project might be better spent on the squad - the chairman called for the voting forms to be completed by those at the meeting.
The first two resolutions, which required a 50% vote, were passed. The third, which required a 75% vote, failed.
To start the chairman gave a brief resume of the reasons for the share issue and what each resolution was about. He confirmed that current shareholders would have the first chance to buy shares.
After, assuming the current shareholders didn't purchase all the shares, the remaining shares would be available to a 'wider audience'.
Questions were asked about resolution two and its wording. It was suggested that the resolution contained wording which was the opposite to that intended. This was accepted by the chairman.
However it was then pointed out that shareholders who had already voted won't have been aware of the clarification. It was agreed these shareholders would be written to and if they wanted to, they could change their votes. It was felt that it was unlikely any of them would but they had to be given the chance.
The chairman confirmed that if resolution two was passed the board would discuss how many shares to offer existing shareholders. There were calls for the 4 new for 1 existing to be more generous.
After discussions over the aims of the share issue - one shareholder pointed out that the idea of putting money into the Aylestone Park training ground project might be better spent on the squad - the chairman called for the voting forms to be completed by those at the meeting.
The first two resolutions, which required a 50% vote, were passed. The third, which required a 75% vote, failed.