The fate of Chelsea Building Society is decided this week...

cardsharps

hansi wrote: »

They're not being taken over, they're merging with YBS.

The official line is that this is a merger, the reality is that it's a take-over.

D1zzy

baby_boomer wrote: »

Don't know if you write for the Evening Standard, or whether the Standard reads the site, or great minds think alike - but that's exactly what the Standard suggests the new society is called!

No nothing to the with Standard - just a vague recolection(from childhood history) of the Norman invasion & the battle of "Stamford Bridge" - in Yorkshire ........so not a bad compromise name

oni_2

i think we must reject it. i don't believe that the boards of both societies have our best interest in their minds. ybs didn't bother to ask for my vote last time they merged.

baby_boomer

cardsharps wrote: »

The official line is that this is a merger, the reality is that it's a take-over.

I agree. It's standard practice to keep the name of weaker society alive for up to 3 years in order to smooth the transition and not ruffle feathers so that the vote is all but unanimous.

Mithos wrote: »

I also apologise to baby-Boomer for thinking the Daily Fail and The Financial Mail were the same paper.

No need to apologise.

Financial Mail on Sunday's account of this "merger" should make interesting reading tomorrow, and is likely to be revealing.

I'm personally going to vote against unless the architects of this fiasco at Chelsea give up some of their humungous pensions, as Royal Bank of Scotland's Fred Goodwin eventually did. Surely the board of a mutual has even more obligations to its members. It's the principle of the thing. Why should there be such collosal reward for such abject failure? It's time that ordinary people stood up to be counted .

Chelsea needs 75% support for this vote to go through. Don't let them get away with it.

Hungerdunger

I have now received official notification of the "merger" from both societies, and both have included a supposedly useful Q & A sheet.

Yet neither of them answer what to my mind is the most important question: What guarantee will I have from the FSCS as my total savings (in fixed-term accounts) with both societies are in excess of £50k?

Personally I'm not too worried about this, but I really think they should have established and explained the position.

Fella

You have to laugh, when it suited the Building Societies boards to protect their own cushy jobs by rejecting all the Carpetbaggers' attempts to get them to convert they were all falling over themselves to say how the Carpetbaggers were pure evil ridding future generations of a wide choice of who to invest with.

But now it's suddenly in everyone's best interests.

(or is it just in their own best interests, once again....)

I'd like to see this merger/takeover blocked but there's no chance it will be. Far too high a percentage of people simply vote whichever way the board tells them regardless of whether it's actually in their best interests or not.

baby_boomer

I seem to recall that there were two (rejected) attempts to convert Chelsea BS in around 1999 and 2002, which would both have resulted in £1000 payouts to members had they been successful.

It's a shame that the payout now is £0.

All the windfalls have gone to the culpable Chelsea board who will be sunning themselves in overseas hotels for the next 40 years .

alanq

Hungerdunger wrote: »

Yet neither of them answer what to my mind is the most important question: What guarantee will I have from the FSCS as my total savings (in fixed-term accounts) with both societies are in excess of £50k?

I hadn't noticed the omission. Perhaps because I had read the answer in newspaper reports.

"Individuals who have share or deposit accounts with Chelsea which become share or deposit accounts with the Yorkshire on the merger taking effect will continue to enjoy the protection of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). Eligible Chelsea savers at the time of the merger who are eligible savers with the Yorkshire immediately prior to the merger will be entitled to a separate FSCS limit of £50,000 for each of his or her "Chelsea" and "the Yorkshire" branded savings. The current dual brand cover is a measure which is in place until 30 December 2010." (my emphasis)
http://www.thechelsea.co.uk/aboutchelsea/merger_questions.html

Inactive

Fella wrote: »

)

I'd like to see this merger/takeover blocked but there's no chance it will be. Far too high a percentage of people simply vote whichever way the board tells them regardless of whether it's actually in their best interests or not.

I am a Chelsea member, I will be voting against this merger.

It will be interesting to read the ( biased ) wording on the vote form..:rolleyes:

boomerangs

Inactive wrote: »

I am a Chelsea member, I will be voting against this merger.

It will be interesting to read the ( biased ) wording on the vote form..:rolleyes:

You can be guaranteed that they'll get at least 90% of the votes in favour of the merger, they always do. They wouldn't be having a vote in the 1st place if they didn't already know the outcome.