26-08-2013, 01:00 PM
I think we’ve all seen the email from Mick soliciting proxies from Steve by now, and I can understand how it would have put the wind up the execs, as Mick has shown he has some pulling power in the past. Whether Steve knew about it or not, I would say their counter-reaction in those circumstances is understandable and probably legit. Perhaps Steve might consider dropping this particular point?
My issue with the proxies is that while they seemed (in some cases) to have been solicited en masse for the purpose of 'stopping Steve from stopping Hamish' (yes I know it sounds comical) some such proxies were actually also used to unseat someone else. I only mention this again because that was one of Steve’s original points and it is not invalidated by any ‘counterattack’ on Steve. It’s not the only point Steve has made that I agree with, but that has been blamed on Steve’s ‘sour grapes’ without being engaged with.
On which… in other forums I have been on, trying to dismiss people’s views by second-guessing their motivation is against the rules. Can’t be followed 100% obviously, but can I suggest this is quite a good general rule?
My issue with the proxies is that while they seemed (in some cases) to have been solicited en masse for the purpose of 'stopping Steve from stopping Hamish' (yes I know it sounds comical) some such proxies were actually also used to unseat someone else. I only mention this again because that was one of Steve’s original points and it is not invalidated by any ‘counterattack’ on Steve. It’s not the only point Steve has made that I agree with, but that has been blamed on Steve’s ‘sour grapes’ without being engaged with.
On which… in other forums I have been on, trying to dismiss people’s views by second-guessing their motivation is against the rules. Can’t be followed 100% obviously, but can I suggest this is quite a good general rule?