When Yahoo holds its first board meeting tomorrow–with three new board members, including shareholder activist Carl Icahn–there will be little time for getting-to-know-you chitty-chat.

In fact, it should be all business for the group, which needs to push the reset button hard for Yahoo.

Definite topics: the progress of talks to buy AOL from Time Warner (TWX)–probably Yahoo’s most attractive option, if it can get a good price–and which are more serious than has been reported; whether the company has any strategic interest in making up with Microsoft (MSFT) after a year of acrimony; how the company can attract new top-level talent to reinvigorate itself; how to make nice with disgruntled major investors; and, of course, how to react to the troubled economy, which is sure to impact the advertising business.

In fact, Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Jerry Yang is acutely aware that he and his management team have only a few months to really show investors and employees that they can get things moving at the beleaguered company.

Oddly enough, the Wall Street meltdown might not be such a bad thing for Yahoo, given that investors have a lot of other bigger problems to worry about now.

In relative terms, with a strong balance sheet, the company is quite healthy compared with many firms.

While a possible recession and subsequent negative impact on the ad market is not a good thing for Yahoo, it is not a good thing for anyone in the space.

And Yahoo remains one of the top players in terms of size and will be the place advertisers flee to in times of uncertainty.

“There is a lot to focus on, so we’re not in the spotlight as much,” said one source at the company. “That gives us a little breathing room.”

Well, a just a little. It is true that major Yahoo shareholders, such as Capital Research & Management’s Gordon Crawford, have more troubled stocks to pay attention to.

But Yahoo should use this time to rebuild badly damaged bridges here, and relations are still tense.

In fact, as was seen in the shareholder vote at the August annual meeting, the patience of investors like Crawford–who saw Yahoo turn down a $31 per share offer from Microsoft and now are living with a $19 price–is paper-thin.

So they will be ill-inclined to support management’s efforts without some effort by Yang and the board to clearly give them a road map to recovery.

(Memo to Jerry: Take Gordy to lunch alone and say sorry a lot.)

That support will be especially important if Yahoo tries to buy AOL, which it is again strongly considering as a way to bolster its ad business, international portfolio and email and content offerings.

Several sources I have spoken to recently have said that Yahoo leadership is very interested in doing such a deal, although not at the $10 billion price tag that Time Warner wants. (Think half and add a little more.)

In addition, there are some daunting regulatory and integration issues–AOL and Yahoo email and messaging combo would be a giant in the space, and the HQs of the companies are on opposite coasts.

But, the deal would give Yahoo some more experienced executives it needs, and make it more attractive to others who might not consider going to Yahoo in its present state.

Yang had been pinging a lot of execs over the last year and has had little uptake.

But a stronger and more flexible Yahoo–i.e., it knows it has to change dramatically–would surely be more enticing, especially in a down economy.

In addition, such a move–which was once opposed by some Yahoo execs–would now be seen as injecting energy in the company.

A Yahoo-AOL combination, however fraught, would still be a powerhouse, which would be bolstered by the 5 percent ownership Google (GOOG) has in AOL and its search partnership with the company.

Of course, that deal would doubtlessly get a lot of scrutiny, especially since Yahoo and Google’s impending ad-search deal is under pressure too.

And, obviously, the troika would get a lot of flak from Microsoft, which lost it takeover battle with Yahoo and has been engaged in a shooting match with Google on many fronts.

But some at Yahoo think a combo with AOL would give it a better chance to consider strategic partnerships with Microsoft too.

“A stronger Yahoo has more leverage with Microsoft,” said one source. “A lot of people think that it is not out of the question to restart a relationship with them when things settle down.”

Indeed not, although all this will require perfect execution on the part of Yang and Yahoo leadership, which has been sorely lacking over the last year.

But recent open initiatives and a focus on getting new products out the door are promising signs, as well as a sense that Web 2.0 companies that have made Yahoo look like a digital senior citizen are under pressure to perform financially, as Yahoo already does.

In other words, Yahoo has the chance to pull itself out of the fire–and, one hopes, not back into the frying pan.

Yesterday–in a patented playbook move–some top Microsoft execs didn’t miss a chance to slap around Yahoo over its shareholder vote debacle, letting it be known to industry insiders (on the very loud QT, of course) that the Internet company knew full well that its biggest investor, Capital Research & Management, was going to vote a large number of shares against it.

Thus, it was just a hop, skip and a leak before their sentiments got hand-delivered to the doorstep of BoomTown HQ.

In essence, Microsofties are arguing that knowledge of a major investor’s dissatisfaction should have prompted Yahoo (YHOO) to question its unusually positive voting results at its annual meeting on Friday and ask the outside voting tabulator to recheck its numbers before officially releasing them.

As it turned out, the tally by Broadside Financial Solutions, an outside firm that conducts the tabulating for investors, was highly inaccurate related to the number of shares withheld by investors for particular board members.

As reported Friday, for example, Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang only had 14.6 percent of shareholder votes withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him, which was better than the year before.

The new results saw Yang’s disapproval more than double what was previously reported, rising to 33.7 percent.

This huge delta was due to errors in counting the no votes from funds owned by Capital Research, which holds an overall stake of about 17 percent in Yahoo.

“They had to see the discrepancies,” said one source close to Microsoft’s (MSFT) thinking. “Yahoo was hoping no one would notice.”

While BoomTown is careful to consider the sources here–the collapse of Microsoft’s takeover bid for Yahoo has left quite a bit of acrimony between the pair–they actually might have a point.

Sources at Capital Research certainly agree, saying they unequivocally told Yahoo leadership that they were going to withhold a substantial number of votes from certain members of the company’s board.

Those targeted included Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and Chairman Roy Bostock (pictured here), as well as several other board members.

“They knew our intention,” said one source at Capital, referring the many news stories about, in particular, the disgruntlement of Capital Research Global Investors fund head Gordon Crawford. “Everyone knew.”

Capital Research Global Investors–one of two funds separately managed at Capital Research–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings, and its Capital World Investors fund owns 9.8 percent.

As this column previously reported, Capital Research’s proxy committees had recommended to its various funds that they withhold votes from Yahoo leadership.

But sources familiar with Yahoo’s thinking said that while the company was surprised by the better-than-expected vote last Friday announced after the meeting.

They noted that while opposition was a “little light,” Yahoo could not tell exactly which votes came from where.

Yahoo sources acknowledged that while the company was well aware of the unhappiness from Capital Research, they received no definitive communication–such as a letter–outlining its exact voting intent.

They also assert that Capital Research’s many custodians who handled the voting for the investment giant’s many funds made have made the voting more difficult to parse.

In addition, Yahoo sources said that Capital Research waited until late in the week to vote, which also added to the confusion.

The new correct vote did not impact the re-election of Yahoo’s current directors, although the much lower numbers for leaders like Yang and Bostock are a significant sign that they are actually operating from a much weaker position.

It is a weakness that a company like Microsoft, as well as other critics calling for Yang and Bostock’s ouster, could take advantage of in the coming months, especially if Yahoo stumbles in any way.

In any case, Yahoo was not at fault for the tabulating errors made by Broadridge, mistakes which were corrected today.

Sources at Yahoo said the company did not think there were problems until Capital Research called Yahoo and Broadridge about problems in the vote.

“We double-checked their results,” said a source close to Yahoo about the wrong numbers the company received from Broadridge Friday. “But mistakes got made.”

That, in fact, is the definitive understatement of this whole mess.

Broadridge Financial Solutions’ corrected tabulation of the vote at the Yahoo annual meeting on Aug. 1, without the “truncation errors,” came out and, it seems, shareholders are actually mighty irked at Yahoo leadership.

Most glaringly, the new result shows Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang’s disapproval more than double what was previously reported, rising from 14.6 percent votes withheld to 33.7 percent. Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock saw his shares withheld rise from 20.5 percent to 39.6 percent.

Yang (pictured here), who has been under fire for his management of Yahoo (YHOO), is likely to now endure yet another round of questioning about whether he should stay in his job in the wake of this massive show of disapproval by investors.

Here is part of Yahoo’s press release, with the correct and incorrect tables below:

Yahoo! Acknowledges Tabulation Error by Broadridge

Jerry Yang (893,055,602/85.4%; 153,039,982/14.6%)

Here’s the full statement (below) from the outside firm, Broadridge Financial Solutions, that tabulated Yahoo’s recent shareholder vote.

Bottom line: An underreporting of shares withheld for certain directors, which the Lake Success, N.Y., shareholder services firm is calling an “isolated incident” and also a “truncation error.”

That sounds painful.

And it is likely Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang will feel much of that pain, as sources said the shares are largely those that were withheld from him by disgruntled shareholders.

While the mistake will not change the vote’s overall outcome, in which all current Yahoo (YHOO) directors were re-elected, it will surely make the no-vote tally worse than first reported for many directors, and underline more clearly the increased investor disappointment directed at Yahoo leadership.

As reported Friday, for example, Yang only had 14.6 percent withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him, which was better than the year before.

A Yahoo spokesman said the company was redoing its results, based on the new information, and would release the new numbers soon. The Internet company did not do the vote tabulation.

The examination of the results was prompted by an unusually positive Yahoo shareholder vote, when it did not seem to include the withheld votes of one major Yahoo shareholder.

Thus, Capital Research & Management asked Broadridge for a recount of its votes.

The problem centered on how shares were tallied in the Yahoo annual meeting, specifically related to a group of votes withheld by Capital Research Global Investors.

That fund owns almost seven percent of Yahoo, and its head, Gordon Crawford, had recommended withholding votes from Yahoo.

Here is the statement from Chuck Callan, Senior Vice President Regulatory Affairs at Broadridge:

On August 4, Broadridge was notified by an investor of a potential discrepancy in a reported vote at the Yahoo Annual Meeting on August 1.

On August 4th Broadridge notified Yahoo’s Inspector of Elections and Tabulator of the problem, and a revised report was issued on August 5th.

All Yahoo needs now is for former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to show up and start recounting votes.

It could happen, given all the crazy characters who have been drawn to the much-beleaguered Internet company like a magnet, in 2008.

It’s almost as if there is a voodoo curse on Yahoo (YHOO).

So, you didn’t think the digital gods would let it have more than one weekend of good news, did you?

No, they will not, it seems.

After the annual meeting last Friday, which went off without a hitch and, more importantly, without an expected major shareholder vote against the company’s management and board, you could feel a palpable easing of tension among Yahoo leadership and its exhausted PR team.

By Monday, the Yahoo shareholder kerfuffle–in essence, one major shareholder of Yahoo has asked for its outside tabulator of investor votes at the annual meeting for a recount–had landed with a thud.

The problem is how shares were tallied in the Yahoo annual meeting, specifically around whether a group of votes withheld by Capital Research Global Investors was not counted, counted incorrectly or even voted incorrectly by the investor.

Parent company Capital Research & Management confirmed that it had asked Broadridge Financial Solutions, a Lake Success, N.Y.-based financial services company that does securities clearing and processing, to investigate whether those votes were correctly counted on behalf of its Capital Research Global Investors fund.

Capital Research Global Investors–one of two funds separately managed at Capital Research & Management–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings, and Capital World Investors owns 9.8 percent.

Capital Research Global Investors is run by legendary media investor Gordon Crawford (pictured here), who has become disenchanted with Yahoo over the last year.

Because of that, sources close to the fund’s thinking said Crawford had recommended that the fund withhold votes from CEO Jerry Yang and some other board members.

It’s not clear whether that actually happened or, if it did, whether the votes were tallied properly.

That’s because Yang, for example, only had 14.6 percent withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him.

The votes withheld seemed low to Capital, considering Crawford’s large stake and how many shareholders have been deeply unhappy with Yahoo management this year.

Instead, overall results for Yang and the Yahoo board were mostly better than last year.

Everyone is investigating, of course–from Capital Research to Broadridge to Yahoo, which does not do its own tabulation, although it has hired an outside proxy solicitor to manage the process–to try to find out what’s what.

It is likely there’s a nonsinister reason for the voting results.

And there might be a lot of possible explanations, but I am partial to blaming the confusion that followed after activist investor Carl Icahn pulled his proxy fight a week before the meeting and made nice with Yahoo.

Unfortunately, Icahn’s golden proxy ballot was already in the hands of investors, many of whom might have voted for it and then had that vote essentially voided.

Wrote one BoomTown reader and Yahoo shareholder:

“I hold 23,000 shares of YHOO. I had 17,000 on the date of record. I voted to ‘withhold all’ … I think twice. Then I voted for all of Carl’s team. Now I have learned that the Carl votes did not count and a day AFTER the annual meeting I received my new ballot. I wonder how many other people were disenfranchised??? Who can I complain to?? Is this how Jerry got his support??”

Another commenter on the site also wrote:

“As a stockholder, I was curious *which* of my proxy letters actually was counted–I received four. One was from Icahn, the other three were from Yahoo. The last of which arrived today, August 4th. Does this strike anyone as odd?”

Actually, Yahoo’s twisting journey passed odd a long time ago and is now headed toward “The X-Files” territory.

(So let’s all triple-hope Yang’s upcoming trip to China for the Olympics goes smoothly. Have a good time, Jerry, we’ll be back here counting!)

There is a mini-tempest brewing over how shares were tallied in the Yahoo annual meeting last Friday, specifically around whether a group of votes withheld by one of Yahoo’s major shareholders was not counted, counted incorrectly or even voted incorrectly by the investor.

According to sources close to the thinking at Capital Research & Management, the proxy committees for its two large funds that hold a significant stake in Yahoo (YHOO) recommended last week that they withhold votes specifically from CEO Jerry Yang and from various board members, such as Chairman Roy Bostock, to register disappointment with their performance.

Thus, the investment fund confirmed it had approached outside vote tabulator Broadridge Financial Solutions, a Lake Success, N.Y.-based financial services company that does securities clearing and processing, to investigate whether those votes were correctly counted on behalf of its Capital Research Global Investors fund.

Capital Research Global Investors–one of two funds separately managed at Capital Research & Management–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings, and Capital World Investors owns 9.8 percent.

Capital Research Global Investors’ investor Gordon Crawford has been vocal about his disappointment with Yang and the board at Yahoo.

And sources close to the fund’s thinking said Crawford recommended that it withhold votes from Yang and some other board members.

Capital World Investors has been less critical of Yahoo, but sources said it was also leaning toward voting at least some of its stake against the company’s leadership.

But Yang, for example, only had 14.6 percent withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him. Bostock fared worse, grabbing only 79.5 percent of the yes vote, with 20.5 percent withheld.

That would mean, assuming a large part of Capital Research’s votes to withhold were counted, that only a few other investors voted against Yahoo.

This is highly unusual in a year when many shareholders have been deeply unhappy with its management.

But, in fact, overall results for both Yang and Bostock were actually better than last year.

I called Broadridge for comment and am awaiting a response.

Yahoo does not do its own tabulation, which must be done by a third party, although it has hired MacKenzie Partners as a proxy solicitor to manage the process.

Said a spokesman in response to my inquiry about the situation:

“The independent inspector of elections certified the results of the election and Yahoo! accurately announced those results. Yahoo! did not participate in the execution of the votes and was not a party to any errors which may have been made either by a voting institution or a proxy processing intermediary acting on behalf of banks, brokers and institutions.”

While the recommendations of the proxy committees at Capital Research are apparently not binding on some individual directors of smaller funds that make up the larger ones, they typically follow along with the overall decision from the top.

They might not have in this case, of course, or they might not have voted the shares at all, although it is also possible they could have voted incorrectly or that the votes were not tallied properly.

This is better than a hanging chad!

Another unusual issue around the voting: The amazing drop in the number of shares that were voted at all.

In 2008′s shareholder tally (see below for individual director numbers), only 75.8 percent, or 1,046,095,584 out of 1,381,008,701 possible share votes, were cast.

There were 1,205,435,371 votes cast in 2007 and 1,276,175,601 in 2006, a much higher percentage of overall votes.

Sources at Yahoo speculated that this could be due to the fact that most investors vote automatically in an uncontested election and were waiting for an outcome in the proxy fight between activist investor Carl Icahn and Yahoo.

After that issue was settled right before the annual meeting, though, some investors might not have even bothered to vote.

More to come, but here are the pertinent stats on the Yahoo vote as of Friday:

Roy J. Bostock (Shares for: 832,023,657/79.5 %; Shares Withheld: 214,071,927/20.5%)

Ronald W. Burkle (849,373,291/81.2%; 196,722,293/18.8%)

Eric Hippeau (948,862,579/90.7%; 97,233,005/9.3%)

Vyomesh Joshi (971,594,650/92.9%; 74,500,934/7.1%)

Arthur H. Kern (814,871,925/77.9%; 231,223,659 /22.1%)

Robert A. Kotick (967,044,818; 92.4%; 79,050,766/7.6%)

Mary Agnes Wilderotter (964,939,727/92.2%; 81,155,857/7.8%)

Gary L. Wilson (856,006,576/81.8%; 190,089,008/18.2%)

Jerry Yang (893,055,602/85.4%; 153,039,982/14.6%)

It is not exactly news that influential major Yahoo investor Gordon Crawford (pictured here) was displeased with Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, given the amount of money Crawford must have lost by now, backing the troubled Internet company.

While BoomTown referenced it in a more veiled way last week, the New York Post yesterday reported that the Capital Research Global Investors honcho was considering withholding votes from Yang and others on its current board at Yahoo’s annual meeting Friday to show his unhappiness publicly.

More to the point, I would assume the move is to perhaps prompt others to ponder whether Yang should remain in his current job for much longer.

What effect that will have on Yang, though, will probably be negligible–except for perhaps feeling badly, as he has great regard for Crawford–because I think he has never been more determined to stay put.

In fact, I predict a series of partnerships and high-profile announcements–starting this week ahead of the annual meeting–to give Yahoo and Yang the image of momentum they dearly need.

While many kibitz over Yang’s fate and wonder who activist investor Carl Icahn is dreaming of replacing him with once he gets on board (AOL’s Jon Miller? Google’s Tim Armstrong?) at the company, I think Yang is aiming at finally getting the chance to prove he can run Yahoo without the Sturm and Drang of a hostile takeover hanging over him.

Yang (pictured here) clearly thinks he deserves more time to turn around Yahoo’s core businesses and improve employee morale.

And he will probably get it, if he wants to stay, because there is actually no one who can effectively oust him, until, that is, Yahoo (YHOO) stock drops to the mid-teens based on troublesome future financial signals.

That could come if the Google (GOOG) search-ad outsourcing deal does not pan out as well as expected, for example, especially in the current economic downturn, or if Yang cannot hang onto the talent he has left to work with.

But all these chickens, should they come home to roost, are at least six to nine months away, the same amount of time Yang has been caught in Yahoo’s current Twilight Zone of mess.

Of course, due to all that, Yang’s tenure has been particularly rocky, almost since he took over in a rush from former CEO Terry Semel.

It was at last year’s board meeting on June 12 that Yang told those assembled that he had no interest in filling the then-open CTO slot, even jokingly saying he preferred to play golf.

Of course, he was in the CEO seat within a week, part of some still-mysterious moves that got Semel out and Yang in.

Does it feel like 134 years since then, or is it just me?

It certainly must feel like a long time to Yang, although he seems only to have gotten more emboldened throughout this whole circus, made up largely of what feels like an endless series of freak acts.

Such hijinks are a nightmare to mannered investors like Crawford, who frowns on such behavior from all sides and tries to convince the leadership of companies he invests in to act with more realism and less emotion.

Too bad the Yahoo situation has been a soap opera from the start, which is definitely not what Crawford likes.

I wrote about the troubled relationship between Crawford and Yahoo when the threat of a proxy fight by Icahn was still looming.

Sources then told me that Crawford was considering backing Icahn, who is not exactly his first choice. But his dissatisfaction with Yahoo leadership was by then running very deep.

I also posted, for Yang’s benefit, an excerpt from my second book about how the normally polite, erudite and calm Crawford had finally had enough with AOL Time Warner’s (TWX) Steve Case and helped give him the heave-ho many years ago.

Crawford’s Capital Research Global Investors fund–one of two separately managed at Capital Research & Management–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings. (Capital World Investors, which is not run by Crawford, owns 9.8 percent.)

Thus, when he wants to, Crawford can wield a mighty cudgel–and a vote of “no confidence” by withholding votes, especially such a big stake, would clearly look bad for Yang, even if it were largely a symbolic move.

But bad does not mean fatal, and it could be, once again, that Yang will live to fight yet another day.

The troubled meeting that took place last Tuesday in Los Angeles between Capital Research Global Investors’ Crawford (pictured here) and Yang–accompanied by three Yahoo board members–could be seen as a portent of what is to come at the company’s annual meeting on August 1.

And those signs are definitely not good for Yahoo’s current leaders.

At the meeting, according to several sources with knowledge of the encounter, Yang–as well as Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock and board members Ron Burkle and Gary Wilson–strongly defended their actions thus far.

That included claiming Yahoo’s recent management reorganization was sound–despite internal unrest over it–and calling top execs who have recently left the company “MBA types,” even though several were key tech leaders.

Yang also underscored his opinion that Yahoo needed to keep its online ad search business intact with its display business, rather than sell it off to Microsoft (MSFT), although he noted the company was open to all proposals.

But Crawford and his top analysts aggressively questioned Yang’s assertions and pressed him on Yahoo’s strategy going forward.

And they indicated they had lost patience, as Yahoo shares have drifted downward in the wake of the collapse of Microsoft’s takeover attempt.

Microsoft had offered $31 a share for Yahoo and dangled a $33 price for the company, whose stock has been trading lately in the low $20s.

According to sources, Crawford told the Yahoo contingent that he was considering backing Icahn’s new board slate–although he has not yet firmly committed to it–if the company did not engage with Microsoft over some sort of deal or find a suitable alternative.

Crawford’s Capital Research Global Investors fund–one of two separately managed at Capital Research & Management–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings. Capital World Investors, which is not run by Crawford, owns 9.8 percent.

Abandonment by Crawford, an influential investor who has become increasingly and publicly disdainful of Yang and its board, means the unlikely chance that Icahn could topple Yahoo’s board and make good on his promise to throw the Yahoo co-founder out becomes a much more distinct possibility.

Of course, that got another boost today with a classic wrestling double-body slam that Icahn and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer perpetrated on Yang today by unveiling their own dysfunctional love match–united in hatred of current Yahoo leadership.

The move was a little sneaky and a lot crude–and mostly served to unveil just how much Microsoft dissembles about its shifting interest and non-interest in Yahoo.

But it was still an effective blow.

Wrote Icahn in an open letter to Yahoo shareholders:

“Steve made it clear to me that if a new board were elected, he would be interested in discussing a major transaction with Yahoo!, such as either a transaction to purchase the ‘Search’ function with large financial guarantees or, in the alternative, purchasing the whole company.”

Like Tweedledee to Tweedledum, Microsoft quickly followed up with its own clearly coordinated statement:

“We confirm, however, that after the shareholder election Microsoft would be interested in discussing with a new board a major transaction with Yahoo!, such as either a transaction to purchase the ‘Search’ function with large financial guarantees or, in the alternative, purchasing the whole company.”

It is a union weary Yahoo investors like Crawford might welcome.

“I never though Carl [Icahn] would really prevail,” said one Yahoo source last week. “But losing the support of a major investor like Crawford would create a very slippery slope.”

Indeed, as the stock situation has deteriorated, investors have been pressuring Yahoo and also Microsoft for weeks to engage in new talks about a sweeping search and investment deal and perhaps more.

While Microsoft has been considering a sweetened bid, it was irked by Yahoo’s recent filing that called the software giant “unresponsive and inconsistent” in its intentions toward buying Yahoo.

Yahoo has clearly been trying to make the case that Microsoft had never intended to actually buy the company.

In its own statement about the Icahn-Microsoft lovefest, Yahoo said: “If Microsoft and Mr. Ballmer really want to purchase Yahoo!, we again invite them to make a proposal immediately.”

Well, as it turned out today, Microsoft doesn’t intend to buy Yahoo now–at least from Yang.

Said Microsoft in its statement today:

“Despite working since January 31 of this year, as well as in the early part of last year, we have never been able to reach an agreement in a timely way on acceptable terms with the current management and Board of Directors at Yahoo!. We have concluded that we cannot reach an agreement with them.”

Icahn is another story, of course. For now.

Yesterday, the powerful portfolio manager at Yahoo’s largest investor, Gordon Crawford (pictured here) of Capital Research Global Investors, a division of Capital Research & Management Co., made some very public and very harsh remarks directed at Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Jerry Yang for blowing the Microsoft (MSFT) deal.

All told, between two funds, Capital Research owns 16% of Yahoo. The fund run by Crawford, a legendary money manager and media power broker, holds 6% of that total. No surprise, then, that those funds took a big hit yesterday after the Microsoft takeover bid for Yahoo collapsed.

So a lot of people paid attention yesterday when Crawford, in a high-profile interview with The Wall Street Journal, laid into Yang (pictured here) in such an in-your-face manner.

Said Crawford: “I’m extremely disappointed in Jerry Yang. I think he overplayed a weak hand.”

Crawford was fuming even more to the New York Times yesterday:

“I am extremely angry at Jerry Yang and at the so-called independent board. … I’m hoping that there is such an outpouring of outrage that the board is embarrassed into revisiting this thing, but I’m not optimistic about that.”

Uh-oh, because BoomTown has seen this story before.

It was back in 2002 and the exec under Crawford’s withering gaze then was former AOL Time Warner (TWX) Chairman Steve Case (pictured here).

Jerry Yang might want to take notes, as the situations are a little too familiar to ignore.

Thus, here is a longish excerpt from my book, “There Must Be a Pony In Here Somewhere,” which shows just how active and relentless Crawford can be as an investor when he gets irked by execs who disappoint him:

Gordon Crawford was still very, very angry.

“He did not do it to embarrass Steve,” said this person. “Steve was just a festering boil at AOL that needed to be cauterized and removed.”

Note: Case resigned on Jan. 12, 2003.

BoomTown feels like a digital postal carrier today, delivering a small message each for Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer and Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Jerry Yang from some of your bigger shareholders–some of whom own you both, in fact, and with whom we like to check in with from time to time to gauge their mood:

Steve: Greetings! Well, not greetings, exactly, since many of us are still really annoyed by the mean letter you sent to Yahoo two weekends ago.

Actually, we would not have minded a mean letter directed solely at Yang and the board.

In fact, if you had just focused on Yahoo’s lack of cooperation and your frustration in wanting to start negotiating and reiterated how valuable Yahoo was to you, that would have given us cover to phone up Yahoo and complain about inaction.

Instead, you threatened a price drop, which is like delivering a Kung Fu Panda blow right to the collective windpipe of big shareholders and makes it impossible for us to do anything but complain about Microsoft.

Which is precisely what Legg Mason’s Bill Miller did like clockwork, of course.

“The problem is Microsoft blundered with the letter this weekend,” Miller said flatly in an interview in The Wall Street Journal. “Telling the shareholders you’re going to take something away from them is not a way to get their support.”

So, now to assuage us, you probably have to raise the price. A poll of those BoomTown talked to said $2 more would do it and $3 would be a clincher.

Our advice: Lob a call into Miller and also Capital Research & Management and all the other big owners of Yahoo shares and do a little sweet-talking.

Dear Jerry:

Salutations! Well, not salutations, exactly, since many of us are perplexed at what exactly is the plan.

OK, we like all the activity of late, as it is keeping the pressure on Microsoft. But we are deeply dubious of the efficacy of all the various plans.

While we would grudgingly accept a union with AOL, with an investment from Time Warner (TWX) and even a stock buyback, we are nervous that it could be a disaster.

Most of all, there is the question of leadership and who would run this obviously hard-to-manage organization. We are not so sure that anyone in either team is up for it, and we just cannot imagine making that call to Steve Case and Bob Pittman to reassemble the old band.

And, while we love the idea of Google adding $1 billion in cash flow to the bottom line via an outsourcing deal to take over search-ad monetization, it’s a risky move fraught with regulatory questions, potential legal quagmire and increased aggression from Microsoft.

In fact, given how clear the Microsoft option is, especially if the price goes up or it switches to an all-cash deal, we still maintain that the most likely outcome is that we will support a richer Microsoft bid, since it presents us with the most clarity.

Or, as Fergie sings in her delicious “Big Girls Don’t Cry”: “Clarity, Peace, Serenity.”

So whatever happens, remember that big companies don’t cry either.

Have a great weekend and enjoy the video:

On Dec. 31, 2007, Capital held 5.2% of Yahoo’s outstanding shares. As of March 31, it holds 10.1%. Now, while it’s possible that the company could have increased its Yahoo stake before Microsoft’s acquisition offer Feb. 1, it’s more likely that it increased it afterward, betting that the software giant would be forced to raise its bid to close the deal.

“That was smart,” analyst David Hilal said of the move, which makes Capital the largest Yahoo shareholder. “I’m still of the belief that Microsoft is going to buy Yahoo and they’re going to raise their bid. And I’m assuming they’re making the same bet over there [at Capital].”

On Dec. 31, 2007, Capital held 5.2% of Yahoo’s outstanding shares. As of March 31, it holds 10.1%. Now, while it’s possible that the company could have increased its Yahoo stake before Microsoft’s acquisition offer Feb. 1, it’s more likely that it increased it afterward, betting that the software giant would be forced to raise its bid to close the deal.

“That was smart,” analyst David Hilal said of the move, which makes Capital the largest Yahoo shareholder. “I’m still of the belief that Microsoft is going to buy Yahoo and they’re going to raise their bid. And I’m assuming they’re making the same bet over there [at Capital].”