Peak Rail Annual Report and Action Group

My apologies to moderators as this might be off topic but this forum might be interested in the 3 BFI film clips of the WSR in 1970's. The link is here
www.wsr.org.uk/news.htm
Comparisons with PR - I really couldn't say -??? However the transformation 40 years on is remarkable.

 

It's a complete mystery.

Although Pete Waterman did recently become the Peak Rail President, completely out of the blue and without any prior communication from the Board.

I don't recall anyone saying that we were desperately short of a President. Having said that, the Board never bothers to communicate to Shareholders anyway, so at least they were being consistent.

There'also a loan to help make up the difference in the money owed, I believe from a Director but I stand to be corrected.

There hasn't been any explanation of the President's remit or powers or the terms of his use of Rowsley shed. Again, that's normal behaviour for the Board which operates on a need to know basis i.e. it's confidential to the Directors and the rest of you don't need to know.

 

Has PRAG been reaching out to some of the long lost disenfranchised shareholders to gather. Proxys or to get them to attend the AGM to bump up the numbers?

 

For those of you who read Pete Briddon's Weekend Rails blog on a Monday.
Pete has since added a postscript to this week's blog regarding Peak Rail.

 

Mmm be very interested to see the auditors logic. I don’t see that in the Companies House guidance and the impression I get is that members get accounts in full and reduced versions can be filed but those reductions do not apply to public companies like PR.

That apart is it even wise to try and keep accounts hidden. I am sure a member is entitled to receive the full accounts and they can then appear on the Internet.

Leaves a bad impression.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes given the current circumstances it would be better to share information openly, rather than relying on those dedicated Shareholders who can take time off work to attend an AGM on a Thurs afternoon to scrutinise the Auditor's 23 notes whilst playing a full and active part in the proceedings!

 

I'd like to go but I really don't think I'm going to be able to get away. I do hope the meeting will not be limited to discussing the "Strategic Report" with a few bits hastily tacked on the end. One question is whether the relevant directors have enough practical knowledge to make realistic predictions, judged on the past record.

Peak Rail has a steam operating programme of about 120-130 days per year and urgently needs more than one operating steam locomotive. Last years minutes record that the boiler of Royal Pioneer was under repair and that it was hoped it would return in "The New Year" (for those who have the minutes it is at LMS, not the GCR). My recollection is that the word used was "January". It would be interested to know how far the boiler work has now got, and where the company thinks the money is to come from to complete it. The identical boiler from "The Duke" is undergoing similar work in the same workshop and our programme is generally costing £2-5,000 per month, every month. "The Duke" is a little ahead in the queue, but it is clear there are months of work before our boiler returns.

How do the directors propose to rebuild the working capital of the company? They reckon to have spent £75,000 on legal fees defending the case. That has come largely at the expense of the "cash at bank", which was supposed at one time to be for the boiler repairs. Why were the fees so high compared to those of Grinsty at £22,000 plus assessment costs plus the further costs on the injunction application? The bottom line is that the company has so far spent or incurred over £100,000, plus further costs to be assessed defending a case which it settled for £108,000.

 

Perhaps peak rail will in the fullness of time become one man's trainset? Hopefully, in a few hours there will be a room in Darley Dale full of disgruntled and disenfranchised share holders that will make their views known by voting against the current board......
I wasn't joking when in previous post about some collecting buckets!!!!

 

About 20 shareholders here so far, the lioness pacing around in front of the directors table.

 

At this rate, they will need more chairs!

 

Tin hats at the ready. Good luck everyone!

 

Fingers crossed, don't forget to post an update later, pretty please!

 

........and hopefully they may have many PROXY voting slips.

 

Board used the expansion dead cat to waste more than an hour of the meeting, however probably ten or so shareholders had their proxy votes voided...... The chairman had about fifty proxy votes to add to Mrs Statham's 8! So at the moment the status quo continues. On vote per share basis, there is half million votes to be had, the rebels have just got find them! Mr Grinsy had a verbal attack from Mrs S, chairman cut the exchanges to make it one sided to the boards favour....

 

Sigh, is there a feeling that the tide is changing though? Surely there is more of a feeling of unity and structure among the opposition now they have a group to form behind?

 

Were any shareholder proxy votes accepted as valid? How many?

 

Was this with just cause and processed with transparency, or was it done secretly with spurious reasons?

Keith

 

Does it matter, if the chair is sitting on ample proxies then there is no consequence of disallowing a few minor proxies. Indeed it would look better to turn a blind eye.

The Q is how many votes were actually deployed out of 750,000

Look forward to seeing what gets filed at Companes House accounts wise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

With respect, it does matter. If for the sake of argument the proxies held on each side are roughly equal, but the board then start to void opposition proxies without proper reasons just to maintain their position, then it shows what the board are made of and the lengths they will go to to hold on to power. Also see WSRA.

Keith

 

The question regarding the chair's proxy votes is this: the PRA has a holding of peak rail shares, who is authorised to decide how those shares are deployed?
A question from the floor of the meeting, asking about the voting rights on the shares owned by the PLC itself, the chair replied that the PLC didn't own any shares in itself....
From the top of my head, I estimate approx 100,000 shares in the meeting, so the action group need to get the use of 450,000 shares and then see how many the PLC produce at the next AGM / EGM?