THE election of a new board at Worcester City’s annual general meeting looks set to stand despite a discrepancy in the voting procedure.

Twelve directors were elected by shareholders following last Friday’s meeting.

However, there is confusion over the decision to appoint Jon Prescott ahead of club sponsor Martin Pinches after the latter polled more votes.

Pinches, who represented the Shareholders Action Gr-oup (SAG), received 44,478 ‘yes’ votes, while Prescott only gained 43,741.

A document issued to shareholders before the meeting clearly stated nominees would be elected based on the number of such votes.

It said: “If there are more than 12 persons with more yes votes than no votes, only those first 12 persons with the most number of yes votes in descending order will be selected.”

Yet Prescott was appointed because the difference be-tween his ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes was significantly more than Pinches — 5,968 to just 167.

Shareholders and fans contacted the Worcester News complaining the procedure listed had not been followed and that Pinches should be the recipient of the board position.

However, the club maintain the plan to appoint directors based on the margin of difference between positive and negative votes was outlined during the meeting, to which this newspaper was denied access.

Chairman Anthony Hampson was unavailable for comment but newly-elected director Keith Stokes-Smith, who was unable to attend the AGM because of a prior engagement, said: “I have spoken to the chairman about it and he has advised me that he made shareholders aware at the meeting of the actual procedures to be followed and, as far as he was concerned, he followed them.”

Stokes-Smith, who drafted the proposals for the document issued, added: “I was aware that there were alternative procedures and on the night alternative procedures were adopted.”

Stuart Ness, from City’s solicitors March and Edwards, said he had nothing to do with the document but was acting on instructions from the club.

“It’s the difference (between votes) that was taken because Martin had a smaller margin of success,” he said.

“The correct procedure was followed. This particular document is not a legal document, it’s a document of assistance.”

But he added: “I don’t believe it is misleading.”

Supporters Trust chairman Colin Layland polled the most ‘yes’ votes with 77,860, while Stokes-Smith was second with 74,534.

SAG have already written to March and Edwards, who were acting as independent adjudicators, questioning the validity of the meeting. The group’s three other representatives were also defeated.