OnTheMarket campaigner for ‘Vote No’ to flotation continues his fight

The agent trying to mobilise a ‘Vote No’ campaign to the proposal to float OnTheMarket on the stock exchange says he has had some dubious responses to his call to action.

Graeme Lumsden – a supporter of OTM but who is now concerned that the original principles are being ditched – told EYE last night that some of his contact has been from people purporting to be OTM members but who are not, leading him to query their motives.

Some responses to his ‘Vote No’ campaign, he said, look questionable, as though they are simply trying to find out further information.

However, Lumsden said that agents have clearly – and legitimately – expressed their dissent to the proposed stock market launch, which would hand shares to OTM boss Ian Springett, the management team and the board, while bringing new, external, investors on board.

Those who have contacted Lumsden have specifically agreed that their messages can be highlighted to EYE, but not the names of individuals or their agencies.

One message to Lumsden said: “I have asked a number of questions and have been promised answers which I have not received. I was at the first meeting and when the questions got more interesting we got cut off.

“I am very unhappy about the float. It is short-sighted.

“[There is to be a] 20% float. Board gets newly 20%. Agents could sell 10% and then another 10%. When the five years are over we could already be in a position that over 50% is publicly owned e.g. only profit counts. The agents will have no more say – whatever promises we get now.

“I asked what will happen if I vote no.

“No comprehensive answer has been given. I get the shares but then can’t sign up for the new listing agreement any more. This is blackmail. These should be independent processes. Should 90% vote yes the other 10% should be able to sign too so max value can be achieved.

“I questioned the validity of the share options to the board. This was not explained to us at the outset when we signed up and Ian admitted that this was an agreement from the start with the founder agents. It becomes clear that this must have been his intention from the start. Why else would he have asked for this option from the outset? Is it legally correct to have hidden this information from us when we signed up? What would the FSA say?

“Alternatives have not been explained and explored sufficiently.

“The presentation was an insult to all the owners and directors present, treating us as if we have no idea what is going on and that we can be hood-winked into believing and signing it there and then.

“I will vote no, because we deserve more options and exploration into alternatives. I still believe in the project.”

Another message said: “I think this is being dealt with far too hastily without proper consultation with the members.”

EYE has asked a number of questions from OnTheMarket, having seen the papers sent out to members and also receiving considerable feedback from the roadshows.

The Vote No campaign website is here:


Separately a Facebook group for OTM members has been set up.

Group member applicants will be required to give their real name, trading name/company, trading address and OTM membership number before they will be allowed in.



Email the story to a friend


  1. Typhoon

    Mr Lumsden should be careful what he wishes for. The industry is becoming more vulnerable daily as Rightmove and Zoopla get stronger. THE INDUSTRY NEEDS OTM TO SUCCEED, OTHERWISE RM AND ZOOPLA WILL DESTRY US IN TIME.

    If OTM fail, and when RM and Z allow private sellers to list, Mr L may regret his campaign

    1. sb007ck

      Yes, but it needs OTM to succeed in the way that was originally intended, or at least the way it was pitched to its members. If OTM floats it will become a mirror image to Rightmove and Zoopla, just another portal to drain agent money, offering nothing different or unique, allowing the call centre types to advertise on there, and perhaps in the future private sellers. Where is the benefit it that?

    2. MarkRowe

      With all due respect, I don’t think Mr Lumsden is wishing for RM and Zoopla to become stronger. But he is wishing for us to regain control of what we, as member agents, believed in at the start.

      Now, you could argue that this is the best option, however, no other ideas have been put forward to the members… shocker! It’s been the same all along. Ian and the board know best… apparently!

      1. AgentV

        OTM has a unique offering that if run properly to maximum advantage for independents could be synomonous with what Full Service Agents offer to the public.

        It could be a tool for intelligently driving awareness, trust and credibility with our existing customers and attracting future new business.

        It could become THE DISRUPTER PORTAL with new ideas and products specifically serving our sector. No other portal can do this because they have entrenched loyalties to other parties, and exist to make maximum profits for their shareholders.

        OTM can only become THE DISRUPTER PORTAL if it remains mutual and is run intelligently to maximum effect by members on a board who believe in this.

        This is now clearly what has not happened to date.

    3. GeoW10

      Raising a bunch of cash to re launch OTM is a short term attempt to fix a long term problem in a market that’s in the middle of a “Perfect Storm”.

      The only people who are insulated are Rightmove, Zoopla and their investors who will weather the storm by continuing to extract ever increasing revenues from agents etc.

      A formula which a listed OTM will copy to satisfy their shareholders and investors!

      While agents will continue to suffer from lower transactions with lower fee income per sale.


    4. Bless You

      typhoon. Did you paste that answer from 2 years ago? It already has failed and members should be voting to get rid of ceo not make him rich.

    5. Bless You

      at this rate it will be on the market , that will be allowing private sellers.


      bit like brexit. You want freedom but still need rightmove.. Ha,, perfect.

  2. MarkRowe

    After the meeting in London, I’m a No Vote.

    It didn’t help that I received a charge notice for driving in a bus lane… whilst on my way to listen to Ian talk about gaining millions of pounds in shares.

    1. AgentV

      It feels like the board were incentivised for failure!

  3. DA05

    Pound for pound signing a 5 year agreement with OTM was by far the worst investment I have made for my business – OTM was a very clever plan to make lots of money for the board – please don’t line their pockets at your expense

    1. Outspoken

      OTM is asking each agent to commit to paying then for 5 more years, well over £15,000 each in exchange for shares that might be with almost that in 5 years time. No wonder they can raise extra cash with that binding commitment from its customers.

      imagine asking your landlords to give you a 5 year fixed price contract they couldn’t get out of. Does anyone agree that this one sided agreement isn’t the way forward and is lining the pockets of the board?

      You’ve seen that OTM will take legal action if you try to leave so why not vote no and stop this self serving plan?

      Maybe we should ask Zoopla what deal they’d offer of we all joined them with a five year commitment. I bet we could negotiate shares and a very keen price to be on an  established portal. Perhaps Zoopla will be willing to make us a counter offer?


      1. PeeBee

        “OTM is asking each agent to commit to paying then for 5 more years…”

        No, ‘Outspoken’ – that is incorrect.  It is a new 5-year Agreement – but there are still over two years of the original Agreements left to run which the ‘new’ Agreement will supercede.

        So 40% of your “well over £15,000” is already spoken for.

        If you’re going to try to stir the 5h!t at least make sure you’ve got a suitable spoon.



  4. smile please

    Interesting comment regarding the FCA.

    Maybe a written complaint should be presented to them.

    Sadly time is running out, OTM have pushed this idea through and rushed agents to make a choice.

  5. AgentV

    and Ian admitted that this was an agreement from the start with the founder agents. It becomes clear that this must have been his intention from the start. Why else would he have asked for this option from the outset.


    At the initial interview;

    ‘ Mr S, we are going to pay you half a mill a year to run the project. If after a couple of years it isn’t going as successfully as hoped, we will float the company and you get 40 years of money in one go, once you have run it for 5 more years.

    So we will look at how it is doing in a couple of years or so time.


    1. Bless You

      sounds like something from 19th century when the pied piper came into town and took money to set up invisible rail roads. I thought city watch dogs stopped this kind of thing happening? Suppose no one cares if investers lose money..not populist enough.

  6. AgentV

    “I asked what will happen if I vote no.
    “No comprehensive answer has been given. I get the shares but then can’t sign up for the new listing agreement any more. This is blackmail. These should be independent processes. Should 90% vote yes the other 10% should be able to sign too so max value can be achieved.

    So so this is not a free vote then? You can’t vote the way you want to without incurring a penalty if it’s not the way the board want you to vote?
    Isn’t that the type of blackmail that third world dictatorships use at election votes?

    1. mark_one

      I have voted no. So your saying I wont be able to list with OTM anymore. if the vote is a yes. I just get my shares and sent on my merry way.

      1. AgentV

        I was quoting this from the article Mark….but I think this is a question that PIE really  needs to seek clarification on. Other people have said they perceived the same.

        So either there is a penalty…which is outrageous and biasing the vote….or people are being mislead into believing this is the case…..same effect at the end.

        Lets be clear about this….to my mind members should be able to vote NO without fear of reproach or penalty, and if the vote goes the other way they should be entitled to anything the same as those who voted yes.

        To have any other scenario is creating a false voting regime rather than a free voting one…that cannot be ethical!

        Please PIE…..can you ask for clarification!

  7. danny

    I’ve had a fairly consistent opinion all along on this forum  about Ian and I love that someone verbed this the other day saying “you’ve been  Springetted” . The man gave himself and his board and his management about 30% of the share options and then just over two years later is on a roadshow telling everyone he has no plan B . I think this justifies my decision not to join but I have question why no-one is calling for a vote of no confidence ? Your about have your company stolen from beneath your feet …..

    1. AgentV

      As a manager of a new project knowing that if you don’t make it succeed you will get 40 times your annual salary in one go…can’t have concentrated the mind on all that you could possibly do to make it work better and better….could it?

      1. Bless You

        sounds like purplebricks plan. Who did you say was advising them again?

    2. smile please

      I would hazard a guess as estate agents we do not have the confidence or knowledge how to push through a vote in time.

      1. AgentV

        Does any member of OTM even know how to raise the motion?

  8. markpne

    I’m voting yes I was one of the first on rightmove did not get anything out of it when they flotted on the market could distroy the other portals stick together move forward vot YES YES YES

    1. AgentV

      There is a very good chance the shares will stall in value as OTM loses its uniqueness, and you will at best get your commitment membership costs for the next five years back.

      Then at some stage it will drift into oblivion……or be snapped up for a song by the big boys.

      But you can be reassured, happy in the knowledge that the board will have still made a lot for themselves by then!

    2. smile please

      You are not even an agent. So clear from your postings.

    3. Industry_Pro

      Mark – “I’m voting yes I was one of the first on rightmove……..”

      …..and will you be voting for ever increasing portal fees yet again? Where will you cut your costs to compensate or will you take a lesser income yourself? Or will you list and sell more in a shrinking market?

      The external investors are being asked to inject around £50m for which they will want/need a substantial return in the short term – long term investors are extremely rare these days.

      Who do you think will end up paying for that return?

      Yes OTM needs investment, but on reasonable and affordable terms. What it needs more is;

      i) a management team without a self-invested interest above all other members

      ii) a sound and forward thinking strategy and one which will future proof its business model.

      1. MD


        OTM has plateaued last year and has made little or no progress since in gaining new members.  Personally, this is last chance saloon for me – if we stay as we are it will almost definitely fail in the short to medium term  – the float, extra money, the chance to persuade [even bribe] some of the key fence sitters [some big players] to sign up now the OOPR has been dropped [or will be] is key.  If successful, then sure some agents may decide to cash in down the line but hopefully, most [like me] will realise that this would be counter productive in the longer term.

        Either way, I don’t see staying as is an option and I haven’t seen anywhere on any of these news feeds over the past year or two, `ideas’ that will solve `how to get more members’ on board if we do.

        If someone can explain how they think OTM will suddenly get back on track staying as is then I am all ears as I am sure most members would probably rather stay mutual IF someone had a convincing argument to suggest it has the best chance of success that way.

        1. SJEA


          Whilst I agree that membership has gained little progress over the last 12 months – is this due to the court case and lack of advertising / awareness during this court case ?

          The dropping of OOPR would allow the fence sitters to join OTM at relatively low cost and I do not think offering them further financial incentives is needed.

          Adding new homes would add further stock to the website – something I asked should be included at the meetings before the launch of OTM.

          There are many other ideas from hundreds of experienced industry professionals that could also be explored before jumping in with both feet allowing investors to steer the path of our future business !

        2. AgentV

          MD…….OTM is perfectly placed to take the ‘Full Service Independent’ proposal through social media….engaging with customers in an intelligent way, giving people what they want, building trust and following that the FSI is the best way of selling a property.

          There are ideas out there to drive this forwards in a concerted way with new products, innovation and engagement.

          However those ideas can’t be voiced in open forum, because they would be equally useful to the online lister community…..and they already have the funds available.

          It would take some investment (not huge amounts), £50,000 initially and upto £1,000,000 over a couple of years (less than 5% of Mr S’s bonus or two years of his purported salary) to push Collective Adaptive Intelligent Marketing forwards. OTM and AM are the perfect platforms to drive this for gaining extra business for FSI agents…..and increasing membership of OTM

          Just imagine if say 5,000 agents got behind one message to engage with the public in an intelligent and honest way to counter the cynical and misleading marketing carried out by many new entrants into our industry!

          OTM already has the platform in existence to achieve this.

          Comtact us and join in the ideas network


  9. smile please

    Can i ask were Celia is in all this?

    They were suppose to be the saviour of the independent.

    On one of the biggest topics to face independents we have not heard a peep.

    Surely if they were looking to gather members, and really were there for the good of the industry they would be orchestrating a cohesive no vote and rallying the troops.

    Rather than leave it to poor Graeme.


    1. AgentV

      Think you might have prompted them out of the blocks now!

    2. PeeBee

      smile please.

      Only three of CIELAs ten ‘Founder Member’ companies are OTM advertisers and/or AM Members.  The bloke at the yoke of the organisation has been previously – and is currently – extremely negative in respect of Agents Mutual and OTM.

      He is now ‘Doing a Shinerock’ – loudly and publicly sniggering and crowing “I told you so” in the expectation that it wins him some credibility for calling the ball three years ago. Heads or tails – the coin has to come down on one side and let’s face it, the odds were always stacked heavily against it not changing the world as we know it.

      Even then, they couldn’t call the ball if it smacked them on their respective kissers – they’d need someone else to tell them what had happened first.  All along this long and treacherous path they have simply regurgitated what was being said by many others – but they had the capability of shoving those borrowed thoughts down the throats of readers by being afforded column inches where the vast majority of other commentators were limited to posting on Industry news forums such as EYE.

      If I was looking for one overriding reason to support the Demutualisation, it would be to see their faces and wait with joy for their ‘take’ on the landscape after a ‘Yes’ vote – because they haven’t got a Scooby today what they would say to that on 5 September – and I doubt they would then, either.

      (Only because as of yet we haven’t written it for them, of course… ;o) )

      But I wouldn’t be so short-sighted as to make a choice based on such petty reasons.

  10. Thomas Flowers

    NEWSFLASH COMPARABLE? : Agency Boss agrees a 22% sales commission on a £250,000,000 sale plus marketing costs!

    Is this the highest % agency fee ever?

    Asked how he achieved this fee the boss said I just asked for it.

    The sellers didn’t negotiate.

    I am just hoping that they do not negotiate before the cooling off notice period as an average 1% fee would have been fairer.


    £250,000,000 million value divided by £5 = 50,000,000 shares.

    10,000,000 shares at £5 = Capital raised £50,000,000

    A rounded 12,000.000 shares valued at £5 to CEO, key workers, and board = a rounded value of £60,000,000!

    50,000,000 shares divided by 12,000,000 shares = 22% of those shares.

    A rounded 12,000.000 shares awarded to the team was obtained from this PIE article a few days ago:

    As EYE has already reported, Springett would pick up almost £20m worth of shares if the float is successful and the 4m (in round figures) shares allocated were valued at £5.
    Key members of the management team would get 4.8m shares as part of an incentive plan.
    Additionally, the board members, excluding NAEA boss Mark Hayward, would pick up just over 3.1m shares between them.
    The documentation says it expects shares to be £4 to £5, and that OnTheMarket is likely to achieve a valuation of between £200m and £250m.

    VOTE NO- DRAW BREATH-NEGOTIATE! An additional £60 million capital to spend (£110,000,000) would make far more difference than this board, some of whom are already paid much more than most?



    1. E11SNP73

      I have tried to join the facebook page, but I have not been able to, despite being an OTM agent and ready to give my details, there does not seem to be a facility to allow me to enter them. No wonder there are only 11 members to date

      1. GPL

        I will contact the Member running the Facebook Campaign as they started that before I wheeled out my Soapbox.

  11. J1

    The medium and larger agencies across the U.K. Will have no option but to vote for this, as most are struggling just like countrywide

    those with directors who have not earned enough this last ten years will want the cash, either because they feel they deserve it or because it will allow them the money to retire.

    OTM is doomed as a mutual !!!

    The old boys out there will kill it for the cash.

    1. SJEA


      I think many will be influenced by the short term gains – but one company – one vote, so size is not so important in the initial vote.

      I was one of the biggest supporters of OTM from the beginning and now I am on the fence. So many reasons to vote ‘No’, but only one to vote ‘Yes’ and that is the uncertainty of what if OTM fails?


      1. AgentV

        But OTM has clearly had a board behind it for two years motivated not to do all they could to make it succeed. How could they possibly have done it, knowing in the back of their minds failure would bring an absolute life changing financial windfall for them.

        Get a new board with new ideas, innovation and drive to make it succeeed at all costs and give them the rest of the initial five years to do it in…….then look at the way things stand then!

        Flotation should not even be considered until this has been tried. If 75% of agents still want to consider the option in three years time, OTM will be in a much stronger position and worth a lot more to all its members.

  12. GPL

    Typhoon mentioned at the start of this Thread “Mr L should be careful what he wishes for…”

    I, that is Mr Lumsden, and it seems many, many other agents want OTM to succeed. Despite the the “Float or Fail” Option that has been presented by Ian Springett & The Board as the “only option”.

    A NO Vote is actually viewed by the many members who have contacted me as a Positive, as an opportunity, as a signal for change.

    It is NOT solely about the rich rewards sitting just beyond the “Golden Gateway” for that small band around the Captains Table.

    What is crystal clear is that many members are Voting NO now to seek change, to hear alternative options, to be actively consulted/involved, to be heard – and they have every right to expect that versus the…. “plonk the For Sale Board, Sell, get rich quick option” …and be controlled by a different Board & perhaps Captain, that they have had no say whatsoever in appointing?

    So, to the contrary, those Members Voting NO see that as a Positive Vote for the collective future of OTM & Our Industry. A Yes VOTE is actually the Negative Vote.


    1. BigQs09

      Couldn’t agree more with the above sentiment!


      A yes vote surely goes against every single principle OTM was created around!

  13. coleface

    I’m really surprised at the level of anger and vitriol. I can understand some frustration, but surely the problem has been not the board or the current members, but all the agents who complained about the duopoly and then failed to back an alternative.

    Then we got hit by a massive Zoopla backed legal case that clearly harmed any momentum the brand was getting. That’s not ours or the boards fault either.

    The brand needs a massive injection of agent support or it will die. The model doesn’t work as a competitive challenge to the big two with 6000 agent branches signed up. So how do you expect the board to seriously achieve a doubling or tripling of that take up, when so many agents are apathetic? Without a serious cash injection? I’m not seeing viable alternatives put forward, mostly just complaints about management share options. That’s miles down my list of concerns.

    My company has not benefited from membership on a lead generation basis like i assume most others. Morally i still believe i did the right thing though. You cant complain about the system as it was and do nothing and then say how clever you were to stay out – it was people like you that have created this issue. If you did sign up then to say its the worst financial decision you made in business is also crazy. You followed your convictions and you now have a share option that will recover most of if not all your expenditure and gives the brand another chance at success. Its a risk of course, but it always was. t no point was this project guaranteed to succeed, but i’d rather try and fail than fail to try.

    Yes its a compromise. Yes its coming away from some of the original proposition, but that’s business. You have to adapt to the market and the situation just like we are all facing up to internet agent challenges and having to adapt. None of us want to do that, but the market may dictate we have to. OTM is heading for failure if it doesn’t adapt.A no vote as far as i can tell guarantees this and then the fees we’ve all paid really will be truly wasted.

    Respect all the comments but i genuinely can’t see how this solution is so awful compared to OTM failing and the duopoly returning with even more power than it had before.

    All IMHO – do your own research.

    1. AgentV

      I still believe there is much more that could be done, that hasn’t been tried.

      When for instance has anyone from AM or OTM ever regularly posted articles or comments on PIE to put forward the benefits and gain ‘hearts and minds’ of agents that haven’t yet joined.

      When have new products or innovation been introduced for the benefit of members (and I don’t mean paid for premium products)…when the ideas are out there, and some are even being used by online listers in competition.

      The world is also a lot more different now than when AM was launched. Agents are facing much greater threats to their livelihoods. OTM is still a fantastic opportunity for the Full Service sector to get behind. If the vote is Yes it is handing that opportunity to investors set only on making profit at any cost.

    2. GPL


      You comment… OTM is heading for failure if it doesn’t adapt.A no vote as far as i can tell guarantees this and then the fees we’ve all paid really will be truly wasted.

      Let me know which crystal ball you are viewing which allows you to state as above – “OTM is heading for failure if it doesn’t adapt”

      Members clearly want change, they are willing to adapt.

      However, Members accepted The Board & Ian Springett knew what they were doing – their actions/choices etc have NOT delivered on many levels so rather then turn to the Membership to discuss the way forward we are simply expected to sign-up for…

      OTM The Sequel – Bigger, Better than before… a Blockbuster!

      Do you appreciate HOW COMMITTED AM/OTM Members have been despite the “Ghost like” performance from the helm.

      I haven’t read “vitriol” as you have commented, I have read sheer frustration that we are presented with “Float or Fail” & no real detail of the future, of change…. just pages of information about “Financial Gain”.

      If Ian Springett & The Board had delivered a performance for OTM & a compelling case for this particular Option then I’m sure the Vote NO Voice would be a whimper in a dark corner somewhere. I see that they designed a For Sale Sign branded OTM and now want to sell it, quickly!

      I read & hear “sheer frustration” from intelligent, hard working agents… what do Ian Springett & The Board hear …..in my view ….Nothing! ….. sadly they have not, and are not ….listening.

      I have spoken to Ian directly on a number of occasions, a polite, well skilled speaker and it appears historically, a successful businessman. However, with absolutely no personal agenda at all from me… he never seemed as if he was listening to the real debate, from members.

      Like the supermarkets? ….ignore your customers views at your peril – all the shiniest bells, whistles and a shed load of cash mean very little if you don’t listen to your customers/members.

      I sold a property years ago that Stan Laurel from famed “Laurel & Hardy” lived in…. “that’s another fine mess you’ve got us into…. ” was the famous duo’s catchline.

      I wonder if someone has scribbled that on the underside of the AM Boardroom Table?



      1. Thomas Flowers

        Part of a speech telling Neville Chamberlain to GO prior to Winston Churchill’s appointment as PM:
        Somehow or other we must get into the government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory. Some 300 years ago, when this house found that its troops were being beaten by the dash and daring of Prince Rupert’s cavalry, Oliver Cromwell spoke to John Hampden. In one of his speeches, he recounted what he said. It was this: “I said to him, ‘Your troops are most of them old, decayed serving men and such kind of fellows’… You must get men of a spirit that are likely to go as far as they will go, or you will be beaten still.”
        It may not be easy to find these men. They can be found only by trial and by ruthlessly discarding all who fail. We are fighting today for our liberty, for our all; we cannot go on being led as we are. I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”
        Study history. study history in history lies the secret to statecraft. Winston Churchill

        1. AgentV

          Somehow or other we must get into the government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory……….As ever wise words have been spoken in the past that are as relevant today as when they were first uttered. I really enjoyed reading them.

      2. coleface

        I stated clearly the was just my opinion, never claimed my opinion was a fact. I believe I’m entitled to give it though, despite being in the minority in this thread at least.  I do so resoctfiul of other viewpoints too and not questioning anyone’s intelligence.

        My opinion is based on this fact though… I don’t know any agent happy with the lead generation the investment in OTM is returning. Surely the No1 metric to judge it by.

        So if an enormous percentage of your consumers are dissatisfied with the results of using a product it would seem logical few of those will continue to use the product beyond the time they are obliged to.

        Nor would it seem likely the product is going to attract new consumers in the volumes it needs to.

        Based on these facts my opinion, nothing more, is it will fail.

        I’ll happily be proved wrong if someone can turn the supertanker round in another fashion as quickly as seems to be needed to stem the decline. I’m yet to be convinced of a suggestion yet on how this could be done. It’s a mammoth task I don’t think can be underestimated.

        1. AgentV

          Supposing OTM could become a vehicle for generating many more prospective vendor leads rather than just mainly buyer leads? Suppose at the same time that increased customer awareness of the portal?

          Would that not then be very attractive for other members to join, bringing their stock with them…..and with increased stock that would bring more buyer leads.

          OTM needs to start progressing forwards with new ideas and innovation, rather than treading water waiting for the very expensive yacht to arrive and carry the board members off into an exceptionally lucrative sunset.


  14. GPL

    Contrast your “Float or Fail” with the Vote NO Members who have posted online, emailed or phoned…

    ….and remain very supportive of OnTheMarket on the basis of…

    Vote NO – Vote Change

    It only Fails if The Board & the CEO continue with a lacklustre strategy and neglect the Members as I and many others consider they have to date.

    A NO Vote is a Positive Vote because it means that Members want change and a new direction… to many, a Yes Vote could be viewed as Members giving up on the future and simply accepting what someone called “the filthy lucre”.

    The reality is all Members are Free to Vote either Yes or NO. I simply want the Voice of NO to be aired as much as the Voice of “Float or Fail”.

    Respect to everyone who actually casts their Vote.

    1. AgentV

      Our industry is in serious danger of tearing itself apart in a zombie fest of greed….few becoming rich, many a lot poorer.

      The one shining lighthouse ship on the distant horizon of the ocean of turmoil was AM/OTM….we may have not all managed to clamber aboard at the start, but many were starting to turn and look towards the light.

      Please don’t let our one beacon of hope forever be extinguished.

      1. GPL

        Ship Ahoy AgentV…

        I apologise if my Captain’s Table reference then steered us onto the Yacht Monthly Magazine of phrasing. lol

        I see land on the horizon with sea shells on the sea shore so let’s land on terra firma and rid ourselves of the high seas.

        Instead…. “Bandits at 9’o clock Ginger”

        1. AgentV

          Agreed, flag Bravo will be flying on my way in….I will be discharging explosives.

          1. E11SNP73

            Having listened to and questioned Ian S this afternoon I have to say he has my support.

            This should not be about how much he might earn in 5 years time if OTM succeeds, it should be about funding a viable alternative to RM & Z. if we don stand firm behind OTM then we can kiss goodbye to ever having a portal that agents can control at a sensible price. When the IPO goes through then agents will still have the majority of the shares. We need to stand behind this and move forward. It may not be the original concept but we have to give it a good go or retire now.


            1. AgentV

              Would he stand there and recommend the same course of action if his shares, equivalent to 40 years of current income, were being put back into the pot for agent members…… leaving him with just his salary for a few years……?

              What do you think?

              1. AgentV

                Every road show must end with people rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of the bonus they will be receiving when members end up voting yes because they see no alternative option other than the one which has been presented to them.

            2. Marketshare

              E11SNP73,  The proposal is to create a PLC, the job of a PLC is to make a profit, can you imagine us all buying shares in Rightmove and politely asking their board to reduce our costs?  We have had very little ‘control’ as a Mutual we will have zero control as a PLC.  Our ‘board’ has already indicated price rises in years 3 and 4 but more importantly the creation of premium products that will put agents in competition with agents.  These are already agreed and in the documentation, they will do whatever they can do to increase revenue.

  15. GPL


    That’s what is lacking… “a viable alternative?”

    Having read the Member Pack, experienced circa 3 Years of AM/OTM and looking at the frankly embarrassing lack of detail about how the expected £50 Million will be spent  …and who will actually be in charge?

    My clients get much more detail on what I am going to do, are doing, have done, costs, strategy, alternative strategy if Plan A not working…. I don’t arrive at the conclusion where I subtly recommend passing their home to another agent yet still charge a whacking fee?

    As much as The Board & CEO Rewards are frankly ridiculous and in NO way represent value, either past or it seems future performance… I would happily agree to a substantial reward for a substantial result – however there is little evidence to support a circa £40 – 50 Million Pound reward package for delivering an IPO and tying your Members into another blind 5 Years based on the actual performance of the previous 3 Years.

    If you are a multi-branch network and are driven like bees to the “filthy lucre honey” of shares…. then of course – you are likely to Vote YES?

    If those wishing to Vote Yes are so supportive of the “Float” idea, where exactly were your voices hollering for that change of direction… I don’t recall seeing a Posse of “Let’s Float Cowboys” riding to the AM Ranch over previous months?

    I have however over many, many months heard the Voices seeking Change – and Cashing-in/Floating was not at the forefront of their wish list.

    You can bet 1 thing in my opinion …..those potential investors & private institutions will have had a helluva lot more information re post-Float than the Members have!

    Information is the font of decision making, yet for me, that is what is most sadly lacking in this whole scenario which is being played out behind the walls of AM.

    The nearer V-Day gets the more distasteful this process appears.

    At least Voting NO I am free to walk away in 2 Years… and that is a sad situation for myself and many other Members because we believe that OTM can still deliver for Our Industry however the “offering” on the table is not worthy of further time & energy.

    If it looks like, smells like ?, tastes like ? …..then, most likely it is ?

    Goodnight & Goodluck.

  16. GPL

    Someone mentioned tonight that Agents Mutual already think they have it “in the bag” ….Yes Vote majority done & dusted.

    Can Agents Mutual please confirm to me (and I’m sure other Members) – AM Gold Member ….who actually receives the Postal Votes cast, how these are handled/kept secure, is there an independent adjudicator who opens the Postal Votes on the 6th of September, what proof is there that the envelopes opened are the ones posted and registered to the actual Voting Member….

    ….in other words, with a £40 – 50 Million Pounds Reward Windfall being granted to The Board, Ian Springett, Relatives? other “selected individuals?” in the event of a Majority Yes Vote…

    ….how secure/transparent is the whole Voting process and can it be independently examined? If simply Proxy Votes with “someone?” noting  the selected “Yes or No” Vote… how can one ascertain that these have been correctly recorded/registered to ensure scrupulous accuracy?

    Potentially a quarter of a billion pound OTM PLC Valuation and mind blowing Share Benefit Rewards for the aforementioned Parties – provide “Full Disclosure” on this process as circa only 2700 Members, if all cast their Vote, and if it is Yes….. will action a share allocation that will award Millions of Pounds. Likewise if a No Vote the same clarity applies.

    I have copied this email direct to Ian Springett tonight and will expect a prompt reply well before the Voting Deadline – Full Disclosure of the Vote counting process.

    Hopefully, knowing how secure & transparent the Vote counting process will ensure that whatever the result, there can be doubt it was diligently independently securely adjudicated.


  17. GPL

    Oops! …..that end of/2nd last line of my previous post should read “No doubt”

    ……just in case there was any doubt?

  18. markpne

    Yep just got in office rightmove putting fees up £150 pm I’m only one office where will it stop


You must be logged in to report this comment!

Leave a reply

If you want to create a user account so you can log in, click here

More top news stories

EYE NEWSFLASH: Competition watchdog finds ‘mis-selling’ of leasehold homes

Continue Reading ...

Why recommending a lawyer on the strength of their referral fee could put an agent in jail

Continue Reading ...

Rightmove, Zoopla and Dexters named as UK’s most recommended property brands

Continue Reading ...

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.