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

WillPS

eskbanker said:

Having said that, my understanding remains that the objective of the petition was essentially to deliver an SGM, rather than trying to build critical mass as such, so, once the threshold of 500 qualifying members is met (plus some contingency), it doesn't really matter whether 5,000 or 50,000 sign it, i.e. there's no intrinsic value in larger numbers?

I don't think that's entirely true:

https://nationwide-virgin-money-member-vote.org.uk/2024/04/22/proposed-takeover-of-virgin-money-by-nationwide-is-full-of-red-flags-🚩/

eskbanker

WillPS said:

eskbanker said:
Having said that, my understanding remains that the objective of the petition was essentially to deliver an SGM, rather than trying to build critical mass as such, so, once the threshold of 500 qualifying members is met (plus some contingency), it doesn't really matter whether 5,000 or 50,000 sign it, i.e. there's no intrinsic value in larger numbers?

I don't think that's entirely true:

https://nationwide-virgin-money-member-vote.org.uk/2024/04/22/proposed-takeover-of-virgin-money-by-nationwide-is-full-of-red-flags-🚩/

But surely that's just content shared to try to stir up opposition to the proposed deal and to provoke action - the means of actually doing something about it remains to call the SGM, which has no more weight with 50,000 petitioners than 500?

WillPS

26left said:

eskbanker said:

friolento said:

This entire debate is putting me off being a Nationwide member at all. I really don't want to have my money in accounts of a company where the other account holders are fighting each other, and where the company Management needs to waste time calming down the warring factions.

It's sometimes easy to be unduly influenced by the tone of debate on places like this, but perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that, over a month after the petition was started, for every Nationwide member who's signed it, there are more than 4,000 who haven't!

I guess the challenge for a small campaign staffed by part time volunteers is getting the message out given limited / no resources, vs significant numbers of paid advisors for both NW and VM who can control the timetable and message, plus communicate en masse to millions of members simultaneously eg 2x chairman letters sent out in March. 

In a David vs Goliath battle all you can do is keep throwing stones. 

... or you could attempt to engage with them and figure out a path to getting a resolution passed as quickly as possible, rather than attempting to strongarm them then pointing fingers at individual society employees when they dutifully tell you that you're not on.

It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure David didn't beat Goliath by selectively ignoring rules and then wingeing to the assembled crowd of Israelites that Goliath or his henchman is some kind of enemy of democracy.

WillPS

eskbanker said:

WillPS said:

eskbanker said:
Having said that, my understanding remains that the objective of the petition was essentially to deliver an SGM, rather than trying to build critical mass as such, so, once the threshold of 500 qualifying members is met (plus some contingency), it doesn't really matter whether 5,000 or 50,000 sign it, i.e. there's no intrinsic value in larger numbers?

I don't think that's entirely true:

https://nationwide-virgin-money-member-vote.org.uk/2024/04/22/proposed-takeover-of-virgin-money-by-nationwide-is-full-of-red-flags-🚩/

But surely that's just content shared to try to stir up opposition to the proposed deal and to provoke action - the means of actually doing something about it remains to call the SGM, which has no more weight with 50,000 petitioners than 500?

You're right, I'm conflating the petition with the motivations of Armstrong/the group running the petition rather than the petition itself.

masonic

WillPS said:

eskbanker said:

WillPS said:

eskbanker said:
Having said that, my understanding remains that the objective of the petition was essentially to deliver an SGM, rather than trying to build critical mass as such, so, once the threshold of 500 qualifying members is met (plus some contingency), it doesn't really matter whether 5,000 or 50,000 sign it, i.e. there's no intrinsic value in larger numbers?

I don't think that's entirely true:

https://nationwide-virgin-money-member-vote.org.uk/2024/04/22/proposed-takeover-of-virgin-money-by-nationwide-is-full-of-red-flags-🚩/

But surely that's just content shared to try to stir up opposition to the proposed deal and to provoke action - the means of actually doing something about it remains to call the SGM, which has no more weight with 50,000 petitioners than 500?

You're right, I'm conflating the petition with the motivations of Armstrong/the group running the petition rather than the petition itself.

Clearly the organisers of the petition aren't just trying to deliver a SGM, or even just force a vote on the VM deal. They want to prevent the deal taking place. It doesn't appear this is possible, and it is by no means assured that even if there were a vote it would deliver a majority against completion of the deal. The consequences of abandoning it would need to be taken into consideration. Ultimately the VM brand was planned to be retired, but the intention was to strip the carcass first. If you know you can't force a SGM before September, that a vote on the deal itself is unlikely to be brought about soon enough to make any difference, and by that time such a vote is likely to appear frivolous and damaging to the society, the likelihood of it going the way the organisers would wish is much reduced. So what to do?

Money_Grabber13579

WillPS said:

eskbanker said:

WillPS said:

eskbanker said:
Having said that, my understanding remains that the objective of the petition was essentially to deliver an SGM, rather than trying to build critical mass as such, so, once the threshold of 500 qualifying members is met (plus some contingency), it doesn't really matter whether 5,000 or 50,000 sign it, i.e. there's no intrinsic value in larger numbers?

I don't think that's entirely true:

https://nationwide-virgin-money-member-vote.org.uk/2024/04/22/proposed-takeover-of-virgin-money-by-nationwide-is-full-of-red-flags-🚩/

But surely that's just content shared to try to stir up opposition to the proposed deal and to provoke action - the means of actually doing something about it remains to call the SGM, which has no more weight with 50,000 petitioners than 500?

You're right, I'm conflating the petition with the motivations of Armstrong/the group running the petition rather than the petition itself.

What it does do though is provide an indication of what might happen at a SGM if one were called. With only 4,000 signatories, it’s pretty clear what the outcome of a SGM would be if that was to reflect actual support (so from that perspective, there would be motivation to try and attract as many supporting individuals as possible, so that it sends a bigger signal to Nationwide as to what to expect)

Malthusian

Money_Grabber13579 said:

What it does do though is provide an indication of what might happen at a SGM if one were called. With only 4,000 signatories, it’s pretty clear what the outcome of a SGM would be if that was to reflect actual support (so from that perspective, there would be motivation to try and attract as many supporting individuals as possible, so that it sends a bigger signal to Nationwide as to what to expect)

4,000 may be a small minority of Nationwide members, but you can't take it for granted that the silent majority would bother to vote "aye" to the takeover.

It may well be likely that a special vote on the takeover would be waved through by most members in the way they wave through the board's remuneration and the rest of the AGM agenda every year. But stranger things have happened.

I'm not sure any "quick vote" shenanigans (i.e. making it much easier to vote Yes than No) would be possible for an SGM with only one item on the agenda (or the one item plus the £25k cheque), but I may be underestimating the ingenuity of the board of directors.

WillPS

Malthusian said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

What it does do though is provide an indication of what might happen at a SGM if one were called. With only 4,000 signatories, it’s pretty clear what the outcome of a SGM would be if that was to reflect actual support (so from that perspective, there would be motivation to try and attract as many supporting individuals as possible, so that it sends a bigger signal to Nationwide as to what to expect)

4,000 may be a small minority of Nationwide members, but you can't take it for granted that the silent majority would bother to vote "aye" to the takeover.

It may well be likely that a special vote on the takeover would be waved through by most members in the way they wave through the board's remuneration and the rest of the AGM agenda every year. But stranger things have happened.

I'm not sure any "quick vote" shenanigans (i.e. making it much easier to vote Yes than No) would be possible for an SGM with only one item on the agenda (or the one item plus the £25k cheque), but I may be underestimating the ingenuity of the board of directors.

This is probably the reason Armstrong was gunning for an SGM rather than a resolution at AGM.

That being said, I don't see why Nationwide couldn't add their own contrary resolution to an SGM meeting, along with another to ensure the generosity of the £25k deposit payer is taken up, then add an autovote button and charity incentifve but maybe I'm mistaken on that.

All academic unless there's a delay to the takeover (when does it become literally a done deal? after the VM shareholder vote?), or the campaign shifts focus to getting rules added for future takeovers rather than trying to derail this one. On the latter point I wouldn't support that but I imagine they'd have significantly more membership support for that than trying to interrupt the ongoing business.

TheBanker

WillPS said:

Malthusian said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

What it does do though is provide an indication of what might happen at a SGM if one were called. With only 4,000 signatories, it’s pretty clear what the outcome of a SGM would be if that was to reflect actual support (so from that perspective, there would be motivation to try and attract as many supporting individuals as possible, so that it sends a bigger signal to Nationwide as to what to expect)

4,000 may be a small minority of Nationwide members, but you can't take it for granted that the silent majority would bother to vote "aye" to the takeover.

It may well be likely that a special vote on the takeover would be waved through by most members in the way they wave through the board's remuneration and the rest of the AGM agenda every year. But stranger things have happened.

I'm not sure any "quick vote" shenanigans (i.e. making it much easier to vote Yes than No) would be possible for an SGM with only one item on the agenda (or the one item plus the £25k cheque), but I may be underestimating the ingenuity of the board of directors.

This is probably the reason Armstrong was gunning for an SGM rather than a resolution at AGM.

That being said, I don't see why Nationwide couldn't add their own contrary resolution to an SGM meeting, along with another to ensure the generosity of the £25k deposit payer is taken up, then add an autovote button and charity incentifve but maybe I'm mistaken on that.

All academic unless there's a delay to the takeover (when does it become literally a done deal? after the VM shareholder vote?), or the campaign shifts focus to getting rules added for future takeovers rather than trying to derail this one. On the latter point I wouldn't support that but I imagine they'd have significantly more membership support for that than trying to interrupt the ongoing business.

I don't support the campaign, and I think a resolution to accept the £25k should be added. However adding an auto-vote button with a charity incentive would be very unfair. I have no idea what the rules say, but being subject to this type of 'assumption' by Nationwide's directors would probably persuade me to vote in favour of Armstrong's resolution out of principal. Whereas if I was offered a fair choice I would probably support the Nationwide Directors... 

WillPS

TheBanker said:

WillPS said:

Malthusian said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

What it does do though is provide an indication of what might happen at a SGM if one were called. With only 4,000 signatories, it’s pretty clear what the outcome of a SGM would be if that was to reflect actual support (so from that perspective, there would be motivation to try and attract as many supporting individuals as possible, so that it sends a bigger signal to Nationwide as to what to expect)

4,000 may be a small minority of Nationwide members, but you can't take it for granted that the silent majority would bother to vote "aye" to the takeover.

It may well be likely that a special vote on the takeover would be waved through by most members in the way they wave through the board's remuneration and the rest of the AGM agenda every year. But stranger things have happened.

I'm not sure any "quick vote" shenanigans (i.e. making it much easier to vote Yes than No) would be possible for an SGM with only one item on the agenda (or the one item plus the £25k cheque), but I may be underestimating the ingenuity of the board of directors.

This is probably the reason Armstrong was gunning for an SGM rather than a resolution at AGM.

That being said, I don't see why Nationwide couldn't add their own contrary resolution to an SGM meeting, along with another to ensure the generosity of the £25k deposit payer is taken up, then add an autovote button and charity incentifve but maybe I'm mistaken on that.

All academic unless there's a delay to the takeover (when does it become literally a done deal? after the VM shareholder vote?), or the campaign shifts focus to getting rules added for future takeovers rather than trying to derail this one. On the latter point I wouldn't support that but I imagine they'd have significantly more membership support for that than trying to interrupt the ongoing business.

I don't support the campaign, and I think a resolution to accept the £25k should be added. However adding an auto-vote button with a charity incentive would be very unfair. I have no idea what the rules say, but being subject to this type of 'assumption' by Nationwide's directors would probably persuade me to vote in favour of Armstrong's resolution out of principal. Whereas if I was offered a fair choice I would probably support the Nationwide Directors... 

The same happens at every AGM though, and all the other ones I've been invited to vote in so far this year have offered the same (Mansfield, YBS, Ecology). I'm not saying it would happen, I doubt an SGM will happen at all for starters, just calling out that I don't see why they wouldn't be able use the same 'incentives' as they already do at AGM.

FWIW - I don't agree with 'autovote', at least in the 'tick this and leave the rest to us' sense. It's not within the scope of this campaign to change the rules, tho.