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

Inactive

boomerangs wrote: »

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.

I am sure you are correct, however I am still voting against.;)

boomerangs

Please don't vote, it'll only encourage them.

roddydogs

No windfall, no "Yes" vote, simples.......but the great majority will vote for it .

steady__eddie

I have stood up and been counted so many times in the past with the effect that it has started to take its toll on my knees. I shall go and constructively moan at the Chelsea S,G,M, (my doctor keeps telling me that I need to get out more).

apt

roddydogs wrote: »

No windfall, no "Yes" vote, simples.......but the great majority will vote for it .

Do you seriously think anyone will pay a windfall to takeover a society in Chelsea's position?

agsnu

roddydogs wrote: »

No windfall, no "Yes" vote, simples.......but the great majority will vote for it .

So you'd rather it went bust?

glider3560

agsnu wrote: »

So you'd rather it went bust?

My personal opinion is that their finances can't be that bad, otherwise a merger would be forced through by the FSA without a vote under Section 42B(1)(a) of the Building Societies Act 1986 (as was the case with Derbyshire, Cheshire and Dunfermline).

agsnu

glider3560 wrote: »

My personal opinion is that their finances can't be that bad, otherwise a merger would be forced through by the FSA without a vote under Section 42B(1)(a) of the Building Societies Act 1986 (as was the case with Derbyshire, Cheshire and Dunfermline).

It's significantly larger than those, so it can probably withstand more stress. But I don't think anyone realistically believes it can stay on independent. I suppose it could offer PPDS like West Brom was forced into, but arguably if too many start doing this it will be bad for the mutual sector as a whole.

baby_boomer

I'm not voting for a merger until the directors responsible give up some of their ludicrously lavish pensions.

Jeff Prestridge's editorial in Financial Mail on Sunday

".....None of the executives responsible [for the demise of six societies] paid a heavy price. In the case of Chelsea, the two men who brought the society to its knees, ex-finance director Peter Walsh and former chief executive Richard Hornbrook, walked away with the guarantee of pensions worth £192,000 and £204,000 a year for life. How about that as rewards for failure?"

This borders on the criminal.

And the current board is not even prepared to 'fess up to members about their past mistakes.

They need a kick up the backside and only a NO vote will do that.

baby_boomer

The Chelsea directors lied to members at April's AGM

Financial Mail on Sunday

Bosses' boast: Agm told that Chelsea was 'well managed'

"Most of Chelsea's members will be bitter about the lavish pensions and other rewards being enjoyed by the men who oversaw their society's ruin, but none more so than the 300 who turned up to the final annual meeting in April.

Many asked about the society's financial health. One member accused the board of hiding the true scale of the crisis from members and even called for a show of no confidence.

Questions about the scale of deposits being withdrawn from the society by institutional investors were not answered.

The then chairman, Trevor Harrison, and chief executive Richard Hornbrook repeatedly insisted that the society was sound. They also stressed that Chelsea was 'well managed' and 'had a future as a strong, independent business'

## - They lie to members because they think they can get away with it. Only a significant NO VOTE will persuade other executives, at Yorkshire & all the other societies, to be more truthful in the future.

We don't need to win. But we do need to send the !!!!!!!s a powerful message.