Reality Check

Folks,
it staggers the imagination as to the effort and keyboard hours that have been expended on the concerted efforts to propose alternative boards and obtain the consent of individuals to nominate to these phantom positions. All based on an assumption promoted aggressively by certain prolific posters, this being that if a NO vote prevails, the board room of CTP will instantly be vacated, and that a B or C Team needs to be waiting in the lobby to rush in before the chairs are cool to somehow save the day in the face or some or another corporate catastrophe.
This scenario simply put is quite foolish. In the event of a NO vote, if any member of the board would feel a need to resign, then a replacement director would be chosen and appointed by the remaining board members. And so on, with the appointees being endorsed or otherwise by a shareholder vote at the next General Meeting. If necessary, the existing board would have to act in this way in the interests of all shareholders.
The only way that B or C Team hopefuls could succeed to the board without endorsement by the existing board would be by a 249 requisition for a board spill, whereby a GM would have to be called and all new parties put to the vote. But as we know this formal procedure is lengthy, reasonably complicated and with an uncertain outcome. And if initiated before a YES/NO outcome is known, and the YES prevails, then before it could take place the company would already have been delisted and be in MacBnk's hands. And if the NO vote prevails, then in the absence of any unforeseen traps, the company will remain listed and director hopefuls can have their chance to nominate at the next AGM/GM when election or re-election of directors is routine. And no funds wasted on an ego driven board spill.
It is difficult to see why such a frenzied panic in relation to instant board replacement has taken hold. In a minor way it is a bit reminiscent of the collective hysteria of the Salem witch hunts.
Anyway, this is how it seems to me, although not being a corporate lawyer perhaps I have missed something???? If so I am sure it will be promptly pointed out.