Britania merger vote

Iconic

jack_spratt wrote: »

I do not think your vote is worth £500 not even 5 pence !!

It's worth 35p to charity if you vote online :money:

jack_spratt_2

Iconic wrote: »

It's worth 35p to charity if you vote online :money:

That's a very good point

cvd

"The Co-op is an unwieldy organisation run through regional and area committees."

This is a consequence of the democratic structure of the Co-op. It is also the reason for the large board - each area has a representative on the board. There is no doubt that the Co-op structure does allow activist members to have a say in the running of the business - unlike building societies where members have no say.
However, this does lead to an unwieldy organisation.

In addition, its ethical stance is probably a commercial handicap. Finally, all its loans are covered by deposits - will that still hold if it merges with the Britannia?

Despite these handicaps, the Co-op Bank is doing very well at present. See here: "Co-op Bank outshines rivals" in the FT.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9bae92f6-1faf-11de-a1df-00144feabdc0.html

sons_2

cheggers wrote: »

I'll vote in favour of the merger when I am paid for my lost membership, £500 and I'll put my X in the box.

As I'm getting nowt I am not voting for it:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

As I have said in another thread, I find it funny when people criticise greed of the banks and the likes of Fred Goodwin but then say they wont vote for something because they wont be paid for it.

Your attitude to this is wrong, vote no if you want on the merits of it but not because you wont get a payout.

On a side note, the Britannia needs this and the articles linked in this thread agree with that view.

apt

I voted against the merger not because I expect a payout, but because the Britannia board did not put a convincing case and because Richardson is supposedly staying on as CEO of the merged group. If he'd said he would be leaving without payment and the board had stated that the merger was necessary then I would have voted for the merger.

martinman3

apt wrote: »

I voted against the merger not because I expect a payout, but because the Britannia board did not put a convincing case and because Richardson is supposedly staying on as CEO of the merged group. If he'd said he would be leaving without payment and the board had stated that the merger was necessary then I would have voted for the merger.

Could not agree more. :T

Stuart_W

fatpig wrote: »

They wouldn't be having this vote if they didn't already know the result.

I'm not actually convinced that is true.

75% of voting savers need to vote YES for this be be allowed.
Given that many votes will be ignored or just go in the bin whilst those that are strongly against it will be very quick to vote NO, it could very easily be a close call. A YES vote is far from a given conclusion.

cvd

A YES vote is far from a given conclusion.

I agree. And I wonder how much money the voting campaign has cost them - money they cannot afford if the vote is no.

I would be interested to know what the staff really think. I think they should have a greater say in this matter than an ordinary member like me.

cheggers

sons wrote: »

As I have said in another thread, I find it funny when people criticise greed of the banks and the likes of Fred Goodwin but then say they wont vote for something because they wont be paid for it.

Your attitude to this is wrong, vote no if you want on the merits of it but not because you wont get a payout.

On a side note, the Britannia needs this and the articles linked in this thread agree with that view.

I voted no because I did not want to become a Co-op member, I wanted a payout for the loss of my membership. If Nationwide or Yorkshire had taken them over I would not have minded.
:mad:

Banderman

These sorts of votes tend to be rigged by the management with a lot of proxy vote abuse and badgering of old people,etc in branches to vote a certain way. That's why they always get 95% voting whichever way the management want.