I agree completely with posters pointing out the necessity of the SRP! Yes, absolutely! The association cannot be a replacement for an SRP.
I see SRP and shareholders association as independent. We should not have either one or the other, but we should have both.
What they have in common, is a "just in case" attidude. It would be fine if the SRP would never have to be exercised, and it would be completely okay if the shareholders association would never have to try to actually change things. However, both should be in place before it is too late! It could well be that certain things will not happen at all because their is an SRP, because their is a shareholders association. At least is is better to have an SRP and a shareholders association in place and don't need them than vice-versa!
Robvanhooren: If this is serious, a lawyer needs to be involved.
Me: Yes, indeed!
Robvanhooren: I strongly believe it's too early.
Me: Better too early than too late!
Dash8400: I do not want to step on the company toes, but we really need that SRP.
Me: Good point! I don't see the association as a means to step on the company's or someone else's toes. Instead I'd love good communication and cooperation with the company and other stakeholders. Stepping on toes would only be done if necessary. ;-)
Andrea ("Powered by POET")
