[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]
an error is an error. They could have sent an apology .
There was no provision for 'Apologies' on the formal agenda, only the Resolutions.
The absence of the Chairman and his Deputy was mentioned in delegating Chair duties to RM and MS, but no explanation was offered.
I just find this utterly bizarre. Perhaps I am in a minority of one but this just seems upside down to me.
CAFC Plc is selling its 'crown jewels' and the person chairing the meeting on behalf of CAFC plc and seeking shareholder approval is 'the other party' who is buying them.
Nothing against any of the Directors, far from it, thinks its a very decent thing that has been done but I would have thought RM and BW should have been excluded from the formal meeting and it be chaired by the Plc Chairman.
Comments
I just find this utterly bizarre. Perhaps I am in a minority of one but this just seems upside down to me.
CAFC Plc is selling its 'crown jewels' and the person chairing the meeting on behalf of CAFC plc and seeking shareholder approval is 'the other party' who is buying them.
Nothing against any of the Directors, far from it, thinks its a very decent thing that has been done but I would have thought RM and BW should have been excluded from the formal meeting and it be chaired by the Plc Chairman.