VOTE now! Proposed take over of Virgin Money - Nationwide members should be given a vote

Foxhouse

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

The folk on these threads who have been taunting other forum members who are trying to make a difference are doing a disservice to Nationwide. If they are now gleeful at the prospect of being able to vote to ensure the 500 lose their deposits then it just shows their lack of understanding about what mutuality is about.  We've had clear examples of folk simply not understanding how the mutual model works and what it means to own a share of a mutual building society.  Maybe Nationwide should use some of their excess profits and advertising space to explain the mutual model, rather than to misleading claim to be better than the other banks?  I.e. Walk the walk.

Or they'd want the business to remain mutual and want to deny carpetbaggers the oxygen of further futile "democratic opportunities" unless they're willing to waste their time at their own expense.

I wonder why and how that stipulation was added? Could it possibly be that it was added as a result of a democratic vote of members at an AGM to prevent exactly this sort of behaviour, at the height of entryism by self-entitled actors in the 90s? Just a wild guess.

All academic anyway as this whole attempt has been bodged. Perhaps we should divert our collective energy in to the board pay report vote at the AGM? I've decided I am going to vote this year. I can't be content with being passive when there are clearly other members who wish to undermine the society and are going to great lengths to assert themselves under the cloak of "democracy" (albeit failing at the admin to give any of it half a chance of sticking).

If I've understood things correctly, I am a bit perplexed by why one person would be willing to put up £25000 of (presumably) their own money to fund this. Out of the goodness of their own heart? Out of a love of mutuality? Hmmm.

Makes no sense to me unless there is a hidden agenda. Very odd.

WillPS

Foxhouse said:

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

The folk on these threads who have been taunting other forum members who are trying to make a difference are doing a disservice to Nationwide. If they are now gleeful at the prospect of being able to vote to ensure the 500 lose their deposits then it just shows their lack of understanding about what mutuality is about.  We've had clear examples of folk simply not understanding how the mutual model works and what it means to own a share of a mutual building society.  Maybe Nationwide should use some of their excess profits and advertising space to explain the mutual model, rather than to misleading claim to be better than the other banks?  I.e. Walk the walk.

Or they'd want the business to remain mutual and want to deny carpetbaggers the oxygen of further futile "democratic opportunities" unless they're willing to waste their time at their own expense.

I wonder why and how that stipulation was added? Could it possibly be that it was added as a result of a democratic vote of members at an AGM to prevent exactly this sort of behaviour, at the height of entryism by self-entitled actors in the 90s? Just a wild guess.

All academic anyway as this whole attempt has been bodged. Perhaps we should divert our collective energy in to the board pay report vote at the AGM? I've decided I am going to vote this year. I can't be content with being passive when there are clearly other members who wish to undermine the society and are going to great lengths to assert themselves under the cloak of "democracy" (albeit failing at the admin to give any of it half a chance of sticking).

If I've understood things correctly, I am a bit perplexed by why one person would be willing to put up £25000 of (presumably) their own money to fund this. Out of the goodness of their own heart? Out of a love of mutuality? Hmmm.

Makes no sense to me unless there is a hidden agenda. Very odd.

It's all hearsay so we can't interrogate that person, but if what @26left has said is true they were mislead to believe that they'd definitely get their money back.

I suspect, presuming they do exist, the SGM petition is successful and it's possible for that one petitioner to cover all 500 "two year qualified member" deposits (and I have big doubts on at least 2 of these) - they wouldn't be up for it if there was a chance they might not get their money back. But the only person who'd know is @26left and they claim otherwise.

I would certainly share your skepticism if against all odds they were in fact still up for it.

26left

WillPS said:

Foxhouse said:

WillPS said:

Section62 said:

The folk on these threads who have been taunting other forum members who are trying to make a difference are doing a disservice to Nationwide. If they are now gleeful at the prospect of being able to vote to ensure the 500 lose their deposits then it just shows their lack of understanding about what mutuality is about.  We've had clear examples of folk simply not understanding how the mutual model works and what it means to own a share of a mutual building society.  Maybe Nationwide should use some of their excess profits and advertising space to explain the mutual model, rather than to misleading claim to be better than the other banks?  I.e. Walk the walk.

Or they'd want the business to remain mutual and want to deny carpetbaggers the oxygen of further futile "democratic opportunities" unless they're willing to waste their time at their own expense.

I wonder why and how that stipulation was added? Could it possibly be that it was added as a result of a democratic vote of members at an AGM to prevent exactly this sort of behaviour, at the height of entryism by self-entitled actors in the 90s? Just a wild guess.

All academic anyway as this whole attempt has been bodged. Perhaps we should divert our collective energy in to the board pay report vote at the AGM? I've decided I am going to vote this year. I can't be content with being passive when there are clearly other members who wish to undermine the society and are going to great lengths to assert themselves under the cloak of "democracy" (albeit failing at the admin to give any of it half a chance of sticking).

If I've understood things correctly, I am a bit perplexed by why one person would be willing to put up £25000 of (presumably) their own money to fund this. Out of the goodness of their own heart? Out of a love of mutuality? Hmmm.

Makes no sense to me unless there is a hidden agenda. Very odd.

It's all hearsay so we can't interrogate that person, but if what @26left has said is true they were mislead to believe that they'd definitely get their money back.

I suspect, presuming they do exist, the SGM petition is successful and it's possible for that one petitioner to cover all 500 "two year qualified member" deposits (and I have big doubts on at least 2 of these) - they wouldn't be up for it if there was a chance they might not get their money back. But the only person who'd know is @26left and they claim otherwise.

I would certainly share your skepticism if against all odds they were in fact still up for it.

The person who offered to do this did so knowingly, having read the rules and understanding the risk.

WillPS

Makes you think, doesn't it?

26left

WillPS said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at?

The petition is now approaching 700
signatories. 

masonic

26left said:

WillPS said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at?

The petition is now approaching 700
signatories. 

The story in TiM seems to have been very helpful. There may even be a sufficient number of qualifying members within that number.

The challenge is now herding them towards an effective submission to Nationwide HQ, having started the clock ticking yesterday. This part will be more of a challenge.

Hoenir

26left said:

WillPS said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at?

The petition is now approaching 700
signatories. 

How many will actually part with £50. 

26left

Hoenir said:

26left said:

WillPS said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at?

The petition is now approaching 700
signatories. 

How many will actually part with £50. 

Unclear at the moment how many will need to - the society is yet to respond on whether one or a few members can pay the deposit on behalf of the 500, whether it can be debited from an existing account etc.

The rules state “£50 for each member”, not by each member. 

Foxhouse

26left said:

Hoenir said:

26left said:

WillPS said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at?

The petition is now approaching 700
signatories. 

How many will actually part with £50. 

Unclear at the moment how many will need to - the society is yet to respond on whether one or a few members can pay the deposit on behalf of the 500, whether it can be debited from an existing account etc.

The rules state “£50 for each member”, not by each member. 

I am no fan of the Nationwide board, especially for the last 15 years or so. They are paying lip service to true mutuality, in my opinion.

But because we're not happy with Nationwide not following the rules (effectively), we're happy to bend the actual rules to suit our purpose?

If folk aren't prepared to put their hands in their pockets, and put their own money up, then their motivation is at best lukewarm, and at worst entirely open to question.

To quote the OP; "I don't think that's right, or fair".

26left

Foxhouse said:

26left said:

Hoenir said:

26left said:

WillPS said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at?

The petition is now approaching 700
signatories. 

How many will actually part with £50. 

Unclear at the moment how many will need to - the society is yet to respond on whether one or a few members can pay the deposit on behalf of the 500, whether it can be debited from an existing account etc.

The rules state “£50 for each member”, not by each member. 

I am no fan of the Nationwide board, especially for the last 15 years or so. They are paying lip service to true mutuality, in my opinion.

But because we're not happy with Nationwide not following the rules (effectively), we're happy to bend the actual rules to suit our purpose?

If folk aren't prepared to put their hands in their pockets, and put their own money up, then their motivation is at best lukewarm, and at worst entirely open to question.

To quote the OP; "I don't think that's right, or fair".

The law and the rules are clearly open to interpretation - if Nationwide management and board have chosen their favourable interpretation, why can’t members? Fairness cuts both ways.

Further, £50 might be a meaningful sum for some members in a cost of living crisis. If others are prepared to put up the deposit - which ultimately is a deterrent against wasting time and resources (hence the quorum and meeting cost riders as the only reasons not to refund) - what’s the concern?