| EGM on 20:38 - Jul 26 with 3087 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
| EGM on 20:07 - Jul 26 by D_Alien |
It's as if all the time and effort put in by the Trust and its members just a very short while ago didn't happen
Given that the Trust community assett fund bid plays a key role in whether the loan by SC & RK is required, were the Trust not consulted before the loan was made public? |
Maybe the management consultant firm was not for the clubs benefit, more for the benefit of SG, who has been told the full extent of the chaos that the club is now in and he wants out ASAP, but can’t get out as nobody wants to buy the club, and having debts secured on the assets is the next best option.
I’m sure he originally had good intentions (as well as being a chairman of a football club looks good and fuel egos) but the more I read the more I see a desperate man trying to get out and get his cash back. Nothing has suddenly happened to make this need to be rushed through, it’s just the longer it takes the more questions will be asked! |  |
|  |
| EGM on 20:49 - Jul 26 with 3026 views | HullDale |
August 2022
"Whilst an unwanted public hostile takeover attempt was unprecedented in the history of our club, the consortium of serving Directors have stepped in and prevented a hostile takeover and then delivered a truly fan owned and fan-led club."
December 2022
"It has become essential that we look for outside investment. Anybody putting in this level of investment may want to take a controlling stake in the club at some stage in the future and the board are open to exploring how to facilitate this"
July 2023
"This would also mean the boards preference would be to find an investor that just wants a minority stake in the club as we would not be being driven by cash flow demands"
It feels a lot to me like this loan against the ground is a way for Simon to remain in control, despite all of the performance issues discussed to death previously, with a 'what if' gun to shareholders' heads... albeit with no facts being shared about why this has suddenly become so urgent. [Post edited 26 Jul 2023 20:50]
|  | | |
| EGM on 21:28 - Jul 26 with 2893 views | turnthescrew |
| EGM on 20:19 - Jul 26 by Rodingdale |
I’d like a range of options put to the trust membership including:
Do you have confidence in the current Chairman in his competence to run RAFC. |
Having read the statements from yesterday and today from all parties, I don't see why there is so much scepticism about the plea from SG.
Why the apparent distrust? Why are some sticking the boot in? It seems to be a genuine and honest request for urgent funds to keep us afloat, whilst we await appropriate investment from whichever group or individual(s) agree to come on board. That inevitably is a long and complicated process. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. It might have been done clumsily, but the urgency of the plea surely outweighs the pile on.
It's the club that we're fighting to save. Creating unnecessary rifts is surely counter-productive. This isn't DRB we're dealing with, although the memory lingers along with the nasty taste. If this undue suspicion and negativity carries on we (fans and Trust) will be pulling in a different direction to the Board. That would be disastrous. Let's think carefully about the proposal and look for the benefits. Trusting folk works both ways and we will all benefit if this succeeds. |  | | |
| EGM on 21:29 - Jul 26 with 2889 views | D_Alien |
| EGM on 20:29 - Jul 26 by 100notout |
Still no email despite always getting previous email.
Did they mean 24 hours or days? |
I've emailed office@rochdaleafc.co.uk and cc'd George Delves about this
There's a danger that the club could be in breach of its statutory duty regarding AGM/EGMs with regard to shareholders. I fully appreciate our COO will be very busy right now, but this needs to be brought to his attention
I included my share certificate number and that i can provide proof of receiving previous email correspondence with regard to the share issue, i.e. they have my email address
I've waited till now but the levels of incompetence are soon going to land the club in serious trouble if they're not addressed |  |
| |
| EGM on 21:45 - Jul 26 with 2844 views | judd |
| EGM on 21:28 - Jul 26 by turnthescrew |
Having read the statements from yesterday and today from all parties, I don't see why there is so much scepticism about the plea from SG.
Why the apparent distrust? Why are some sticking the boot in? It seems to be a genuine and honest request for urgent funds to keep us afloat, whilst we await appropriate investment from whichever group or individual(s) agree to come on board. That inevitably is a long and complicated process. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. It might have been done clumsily, but the urgency of the plea surely outweighs the pile on.
It's the club that we're fighting to save. Creating unnecessary rifts is surely counter-productive. This isn't DRB we're dealing with, although the memory lingers along with the nasty taste. If this undue suspicion and negativity carries on we (fans and Trust) will be pulling in a different direction to the Board. That would be disastrous. Let's think carefully about the proposal and look for the benefits. Trusting folk works both ways and we will all benefit if this succeeds. |
Bang on.
If we can focus on the immediate need for cash, and ignore the fog of mistakes made, then move on to the next stage.
2 directors are offering to loan personal funds with a caveat, having spent substantialy on shares or face possible ruination at the behest of a vexatious unfair prejudice claim, I don't blame their desire for security.
There is a programme of fan engagement in place whereby flowery man bags and beach towels.can be discussed but in the meantime, the Directors have a duty to make decisons that manage the business.. |  |
| |
| EGM on 22:12 - Jul 26 with 2768 views | kel |
Having spoken to people I trust implicitly I feel a bit better about this proposal than I did this time yesterday. Still not happy with how it’s been handled and people still not receiving emails is pathetic.
I’ve still not fully made my mind up how I’ll vote but I certainly won’t be swayed by some virgin bellend on Twitter claiming you’re not a REAL Rochdale fan if you vote for what’s being proposed. |  | | |
| EGM on 22:27 - Jul 26 with 2726 views | 442Dale |
The overwhelming feeling should always be a desire to do what’s best for the future of the club. It certainly shouldn’t ever be about whatever views people might hold on individuals/board/Trust /manager/players/fans etc etc.
Could be miles off, but it’s more about people wanting a better understanding of our situation, both now and after any EGM vote, that is causing many of the issues.
That in itself possibly still may not impact any vote that ensures the best possible future for the club. It still doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be addressed wherever possible to the benefit of fans and the club.
It’s certainly not a time for extreme reactions and rants, more calm heads and enquiries. [Post edited 26 Jul 2023 22:28]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| EGM on 22:52 - Jul 26 with 2653 views | Shun |
| EGM on 21:28 - Jul 26 by turnthescrew |
Having read the statements from yesterday and today from all parties, I don't see why there is so much scepticism about the plea from SG.
Why the apparent distrust? Why are some sticking the boot in? It seems to be a genuine and honest request for urgent funds to keep us afloat, whilst we await appropriate investment from whichever group or individual(s) agree to come on board. That inevitably is a long and complicated process. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. It might have been done clumsily, but the urgency of the plea surely outweighs the pile on.
It's the club that we're fighting to save. Creating unnecessary rifts is surely counter-productive. This isn't DRB we're dealing with, although the memory lingers along with the nasty taste. If this undue suspicion and negativity carries on we (fans and Trust) will be pulling in a different direction to the Board. That would be disastrous. Let's think carefully about the proposal and look for the benefits. Trusting folk works both ways and we will all benefit if this succeeds. |
Exactly what I was getting at last night. |  | | |
| EGM on 23:23 - Jul 26 with 2574 views | 49thseason |
| EGM on 21:28 - Jul 26 by turnthescrew |
Having read the statements from yesterday and today from all parties, I don't see why there is so much scepticism about the plea from SG.
Why the apparent distrust? Why are some sticking the boot in? It seems to be a genuine and honest request for urgent funds to keep us afloat, whilst we await appropriate investment from whichever group or individual(s) agree to come on board. That inevitably is a long and complicated process. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. It might have been done clumsily, but the urgency of the plea surely outweighs the pile on.
It's the club that we're fighting to save. Creating unnecessary rifts is surely counter-productive. This isn't DRB we're dealing with, although the memory lingers along with the nasty taste. If this undue suspicion and negativity carries on we (fans and Trust) will be pulling in a different direction to the Board. That would be disastrous. Let's think carefully about the proposal and look for the benefits. Trusting folk works both ways and we will all benefit if this succeeds. |
Good post.
We dont know how much money is involved, the loan is repayable and the charge on the ground will be lifted if it is. If an investor comes in to buy the club he may or may not pay off the loan... all we know a the moment is that the runway of cash is getting tight and 2 directors have offered a loan to fix the problem. The charge on the ground only means that in the event of liquidation, they get their loan back when and if the ground is eventually sold off and, if there is money left after the loan is repaid at the end of the liquidation process, all the shareholders will get an amount per share too.
Its a prudent move by the board, rather than stiffing suppliers etc.by non- payment per other local clubs, if it is enough to get to a point where an investor can be found, it will have been a masterstroke, if we dont get an investor.... thats the time to get arsey because the club will be going bust. [Post edited 27 Jul 2023 12:54]
|  | | |
| EGM on 23:24 - Jul 26 with 2573 views | SalwaDale |
| EGM on 21:29 - Jul 26 by D_Alien |
I've emailed office@rochdaleafc.co.uk and cc'd George Delves about this
There's a danger that the club could be in breach of its statutory duty regarding AGM/EGMs with regard to shareholders. I fully appreciate our COO will be very busy right now, but this needs to be brought to his attention
I included my share certificate number and that i can provide proof of receiving previous email correspondence with regard to the share issue, i.e. they have my email address
I've waited till now but the levels of incompetence are soon going to land the club in serious trouble if they're not addressed |
Let us know how you get on. Everything I have done so far has been fruitless.
Basics .....
Edit: I take that back. Seems a few of us fell off the distribution list.
[Post edited 26 Jul 2023 23:35]
|  |
| |
| EGM on 23:30 - Jul 26 with 2559 views | D_Alien |
| EGM on 23:24 - Jul 26 by SalwaDale |
Let us know how you get on. Everything I have done so far has been fruitless.
Basics .....
Edit: I take that back. Seems a few of us fell off the distribution list.
[Post edited 26 Jul 2023 23:35]
|
Was just going to post...
Yes, we'd "fallen off" the distribution list
I can only assume GD has banged a few heads together, in which case, fair play to him | |
| |
| EGM on 02:04 - Jul 27 with 2487 views | Sandyman |
The debate on here has been a passionate and well thought out one, from many contributors.
The bottom line for me is Article 79(a) of the articles of association, otherwise known as the "Morris Amendment". How this was dealt with in the days of the Stadium Company is beyond me. The fact is, Article 79(a) of the articles of association, in 2023, is there and acts as a vital protection to secure the ground, in that any activity to put a charge on the ground must be put to a special resolution of the company's shareholders. A great tool to fook off MH and the like trying to get hold of our biggest asset. RK and SG are acting properly in asking for an EGM to amend Article 79(a).This will require a 75% vote of approval from attending shareholders/proxies, something that needs to be considered.
My concern is, if wanting to put a charge on the land and buildings to alleviate a cash flow problem, what sort of cash injection equates to what % of the asset? How would that calculation be worked out? It most certainly has not been communicated to shareholders, so far, and a "surprise on the night" is bad form at best. If this special resolution is carried, surely a precedent is being set where it could be done again, and again, and from there, where does the club's biggest asset end up?
If two directors have come up with this seemingly benevolent proposal, one has to ask, why are we in this mess on their watch? Up to June 2021, we know why. Since then, as 442 pointed out,
29/4/22
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/
“the club has a stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season. We have returned during 2021/22 to being a properly and prudently run football club…”
“…we seek to achieve break even or better financial result in each operating season.”
“The Board is planning for a significantly increased playing budget for next season.”
The above statements never materialised. 7 months later a desperate share issue was announced that was never going to replicate the success of the £0.8 millon garnered in the 2021 share issue.
The situation wasn't stable. The increased playing budget was wasted in a manner that is incomprehensible. Yet we are asked by the custodians of this calamity to trust them when their judgement, on evidence, has been terrible, and has landed us where we are. Of course inflation, energy costs etc etc have to be taken into account but that's something every Dale fan has to deal with in real life.
Fully expecting the doom and gloom / Armageddon scenario to be levelled at shareholders at the EGM without prior knowledge of the numbers on the night.
Happy to be convinced otherwise in the days to come, but gut instinct says messing with Article 79(a) is a no no. |  | | |
| EGM on 07:03 - Jul 27 with 2366 views | Trev |
| EGM on 23:23 - Jul 26 by 49thseason |
Good post.
We dont know how much money is involved, the loan is repayable and the charge on the ground will be lifted if it is. If an investor comes in to buy the club he may or may not pay off the loan... all we know a the moment is that the runway of cash is getting tight and 2 directors have offered a loan to fix the problem. The charge on the ground only means that in the event of liquidation, they get their loan back when and if the ground is eventually sold off and, if there is money left after the loan is repaid at the end of the liquidation process, all the shareholders will get an amount per share too.
Its a prudent move by the board, rather than stiffing suppliers etc.by non- payment per other local clubs, if it is enough to get to a point where an investor can be found, it will have been a masterstroke, if we dont get an investor.... thats the time to get arsey because the club will be going bust. [Post edited 27 Jul 2023 12:54]
|
Surely the time to get arsey is before we go bust? | | | |
| EGM on 07:19 - Jul 27 with 2333 views | Rodingdale |
| EGM on 21:28 - Jul 26 by turnthescrew |
Having read the statements from yesterday and today from all parties, I don't see why there is so much scepticism about the plea from SG.
Why the apparent distrust? Why are some sticking the boot in? It seems to be a genuine and honest request for urgent funds to keep us afloat, whilst we await appropriate investment from whichever group or individual(s) agree to come on board. That inevitably is a long and complicated process. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. It might have been done clumsily, but the urgency of the plea surely outweighs the pile on.
It's the club that we're fighting to save. Creating unnecessary rifts is surely counter-productive. This isn't DRB we're dealing with, although the memory lingers along with the nasty taste. If this undue suspicion and negativity carries on we (fans and Trust) will be pulling in a different direction to the Board. That would be disastrous. Let's think carefully about the proposal and look for the benefits. Trusting folk works both ways and we will all benefit if this succeeds. |
“Why the distrust”. It’s not a new thing. The turning point for me was the infamous Chairman’s new year statement. In which he sprang the “move away from fan owned” news and went on the have a go at fans for having given up. Gauge is the Chairman who oversaw our meek relegation, acting indecisively in January. He has proven impervious to criticism, has a my way or the high way attitude. Treats fans with contempt in the way he “mushroom manages” communication. He has failed to grow the commercial offer of the club, you still can’t by a pie with your pint in the Ratcliffe. Yes Antony is doing a great job, he’s not getting much help from the board is he if we can’t do something as simple as sell pies to fans with their pre-match pint! The trust is given lip service despite being a large shareholder, constantly blindsided and reacting to out of the blue announcements from the board. There is no vision for the club projected for the club, as noted back in May - the chairman stating his plan for the club at when the season tickets were launched?Communication is patchy error strewn and often reactive. Where’s the comms plan to support the vision, oh hang on their isn’t a vision.The army of fans offer withered on the vine. If you wanted a textbook example of running a business or football club down - this would be it.
Others have called for a change at the top, I haven’t because I can’t see an alternative, I want SG to start to respect fans and shareholders, people who know Rochdale and what the football club represents. Others particularly TS who I agree with 90% believe he is incapable of change. I’m at that point now. I do not in life blindly trust those in positions of leadership without evidence. The latest episode of incompetence is the reason I’m critical. It’s not a sudden decision to “stick the boot in”.
More to the point how do you trust SG? - what evidence do you base that judgement on? [Post edited 27 Jul 2023 7:23]
| | | |
| EGM on 07:29 - Jul 27 with 2321 views | TalkingSutty |
| EGM on 02:04 - Jul 27 by Sandyman |
The debate on here has been a passionate and well thought out one, from many contributors.
The bottom line for me is Article 79(a) of the articles of association, otherwise known as the "Morris Amendment". How this was dealt with in the days of the Stadium Company is beyond me. The fact is, Article 79(a) of the articles of association, in 2023, is there and acts as a vital protection to secure the ground, in that any activity to put a charge on the ground must be put to a special resolution of the company's shareholders. A great tool to fook off MH and the like trying to get hold of our biggest asset. RK and SG are acting properly in asking for an EGM to amend Article 79(a).This will require a 75% vote of approval from attending shareholders/proxies, something that needs to be considered.
My concern is, if wanting to put a charge on the land and buildings to alleviate a cash flow problem, what sort of cash injection equates to what % of the asset? How would that calculation be worked out? It most certainly has not been communicated to shareholders, so far, and a "surprise on the night" is bad form at best. If this special resolution is carried, surely a precedent is being set where it could be done again, and again, and from there, where does the club's biggest asset end up?
If two directors have come up with this seemingly benevolent proposal, one has to ask, why are we in this mess on their watch? Up to June 2021, we know why. Since then, as 442 pointed out,
29/4/22
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/
“the club has a stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season. We have returned during 2021/22 to being a properly and prudently run football club…”
“…we seek to achieve break even or better financial result in each operating season.”
“The Board is planning for a significantly increased playing budget for next season.”
The above statements never materialised. 7 months later a desperate share issue was announced that was never going to replicate the success of the £0.8 millon garnered in the 2021 share issue.
The situation wasn't stable. The increased playing budget was wasted in a manner that is incomprehensible. Yet we are asked by the custodians of this calamity to trust them when their judgement, on evidence, has been terrible, and has landed us where we are. Of course inflation, energy costs etc etc have to be taken into account but that's something every Dale fan has to deal with in real life.
Fully expecting the doom and gloom / Armageddon scenario to be levelled at shareholders at the EGM without prior knowledge of the numbers on the night.
Happy to be convinced otherwise in the days to come, but gut instinct says messing with Article 79(a) is a no no. |
I would suggest most shareholders and Trust members have very limited knowledge regarding the possible implications of what a no or yes vote really means. Would it be a idea for the Trust committee to seek professional legal advice to help their members make a more educated decision on whether to support this motion? It's the implications of what a yes vote will mean should a investor not be found that is my biggest concern. This vote could signal the end of the club, even if we vote yes.
The evidence shows that Simon Gauge etc are not fit for purpose when it comes to running the club, the communication and lack of detail regarding this EGM is further proof of that. It's good of them to lend further monies but that will also be to protect the money they have already invested. I think that's their main reason. There has been talk of potential investors for months but does anybody really believe that is the case? Has the Chairman shared the details with the Supporters Trust for example, if he hasn't then today would be a great time for him to do it. If that information is shared with the Chairman of the Trust who is then involved in the discussions with the potential investors then that would give a bit more confidence, just a bit. Otherwise it could just be a smokescreen. If they are confident of a investor coming forward then why are none of the other Directors not throwing more money into the pot to buy a bit more time?
What are the implications of a no vote, we have a stadium that's worth about £3 million. We have a strong supporters trust and plenty of savvy fans. We have enough to start again and rebuild the club. What expertise do those who are currently running the club have that the support base doesn't? Could we not attract investors/ sponsors ourselves? It's already been implied that we could be looking at liquidation even if we vote yes, so why don't we grasp the nettle and do what we should have done originally and run the club ourselves. Why are we trusting people who have proved that they aren't fit for purpose when it comes to running the football club? That's not being nasty, they've made a pigs ear of things and the trend has continued this week. In the best case scenario we would then have to just suck it and see with new investors running the club, strangers who invest to make money. The only people we can trust with the club are ourselves the fans, it would be our club and we could look after it properly at a level that is sustainable. We are being asked to vote to potentially lose the stadium. If there is a 'yes' vote the club continuing its nosedive into liquidation would be the best scenario for Gauge and Knight should a investor not be found. Why would they want to fight tooth and nail to save it under those circumstances, what motivation would they have?
It's a difficult question i know, have they been fighting tooth and nail since they purchased the MH shares to get the club firing on all cylinders again or have they just concentrated all their efforts on trying to bring in a investor in order to recoup their outlay? Just keeping the club ticking along, treading water with no forward plan or real direction? That's how it feels to me, every aspect of the club has been under performing and valued members of staff have walked away. [Post edited 27 Jul 2023 14:30]
|  | | |
| EGM on 08:29 - Jul 27 with 2210 views | HK_Dale |
Bit later than some to this, but if there is options for an alternative approach, I think using a market making / distribution platform like Tifosy may be a good route. We could either list the shares or Bond issuance on their and broaden the access of potential smaller investors.
https://www.tifosy.com/en/exchange
From a quick glance, the most relevant listings are Stevenage's Share issuance (offering up 12% of the club's equity) and an unsecured bond issuance from Peterborough - looking to raise £1.5 - 2.5m. The key aspect of the latter is that this in unsecured and has a specific objective listed.
Per SG's response in the trust update - I wonder if this platform has been considered? On the face of it, it would enable us to raise capital (equity or debt) from a broader pool than just fans - fans of course could participate. |  | | |
| EGM on 08:39 - Jul 27 with 2160 views | judd |
| EGM on 08:29 - Jul 27 by HK_Dale |
Bit later than some to this, but if there is options for an alternative approach, I think using a market making / distribution platform like Tifosy may be a good route. We could either list the shares or Bond issuance on their and broaden the access of potential smaller investors.
https://www.tifosy.com/en/exchange
From a quick glance, the most relevant listings are Stevenage's Share issuance (offering up 12% of the club's equity) and an unsecured bond issuance from Peterborough - looking to raise £1.5 - 2.5m. The key aspect of the latter is that this in unsecured and has a specific objective listed.
Per SG's response in the trust update - I wonder if this platform has been considered? On the face of it, it would enable us to raise capital (equity or debt) from a broader pool than just fans - fans of course could participate. |
That's a question for the forum, I would suggest. | |
| |
| EGM on 08:41 - Jul 27 with 2157 views | electricblue |
| EGM on 18:13 - Jul 26 by Thacks_Rabbits |
I’m afraid I don’t believe a bloody word they say now, they have reacted to the criticism and put a story together, how much if any of it is true lord knows!
If we are that skint then it’s due to their total lack of acumen when it comes to running a football club. You don’t employ a management consultant if you know what you’re doing and it’s desperate measures time. They want their cash back and if we agree to allowing them to borrow on the back of assets they will get it back!
They have realised that they have money in something that is essentially a money pit because they are not up to turning it around, but they won’t take a hit on the share price to get out (which I believe that CD and co were looking to do)
I would urge everyone to vote no to this, if we have to cut staff and be ruthless so be it, but this stinks of smoke and mirrors from the bloody start, as has much of the behaviour of the board. Remember Bottomley, this is exactly the kind of thing he would do thinking he is smarter than these clueless fans!
Incidentally, they could in theory get a loan secured on the assets, then purchase the shares they need to get a controlling majority of the club, then do what the hell they like. It’s a way to get out and make a profit and in my opinion we should be bloody wary. |
This BoD have been in Tenure for over 2yrs and now they mention how many staff employed other than players...
George Delves mentioned in his video chat that where there are two people in a role concerning team coaching if one leaves he/she is not replaced.
Mr Delves himself combines several roles so why have the BoD not started upon reducing the bloated amount of staff within their first year as directors.
All last season thd BoD often mentioned losing £30k a week so a part from cutting the players wages budget to help address those loses have they done anything else... [Post edited 27 Jul 2023 12:17]
|  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| EGM on 09:21 - Jul 27 with 2058 views | samueloneils |
Many people are turning this vote into a vote of no confidence in the Board.
This is not what it is.
It is a vote to enable the Club we love to draw down essential funds to enable it to continue in day to day operations. We need to concentrate on that.
The alternative is clear.
The time for settling grievances should be later. | | | |
| EGM on 09:50 - Jul 27 with 1970 views | BillyRudd |
| EGM on 10:26 - Jul 26 by Albert_Whitehurst |
Although I don’t necessarily doubt the intentions of the board, I do question their competency as many others have.
So, to give them additional monies secured against the ground to continue managing the business in a similar vein would probably send us beyond the brink. Unless, there is a specific reason for a boost in funding which could see a change in fortunes.
Understanding their ultimate goal at the EGM alongside the Plan B (what happens if the motion is not passed) will be critical for Shareholders, including myself, to make a decision.
Desperate times and difficult to put a positive spin on it. |
I have no opinion of the motives, competency or character of the parties involved in this. I have never had contact with either. They may be saints, they may be sinners.
However based on my own interaction with the club, the way this has been handled with the typical secret squirrel approach and the trajectory of the club downwards in practically every aspect, I,m confident of one thing.
Namely to give this board funds (however raised) is hope over experience. I cannot buy into the argument that it is a stop gap to gain time for a deal with interested parties. I have heard talk of interested parties since 1969 and other than rich benefactors such as Ratcliffe nothing has come to pass.
Stop gap funding for what we are told is an emergency without any supporting case other than what is reactively dragged into the shareholder debate is a case for a "No" vote in itself. More funding without a change in direction is akin to loading more coal onto the Titanic in mid Atlantic in order to go faster.
It is all very depressing. | | | |
| EGM on 09:51 - Jul 27 with 1968 views | windowsbug2002 |
| EGM on 09:21 - Jul 27 by samueloneils |
Many people are turning this vote into a vote of no confidence in the Board.
This is not what it is.
It is a vote to enable the Club we love to draw down essential funds to enable it to continue in day to day operations. We need to concentrate on that.
The alternative is clear.
The time for settling grievances should be later. |
It's an issue of trust for me.
And I certainly have no trust for this current board of directors. |  | | |
| EGM on 10:00 - Jul 27 with 1938 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
| EGM on 07:29 - Jul 27 by TalkingSutty |
I would suggest most shareholders and Trust members have very limited knowledge regarding the possible implications of what a no or yes vote really means. Would it be a idea for the Trust committee to seek professional legal advice to help their members make a more educated decision on whether to support this motion? It's the implications of what a yes vote will mean should a investor not be found that is my biggest concern. This vote could signal the end of the club, even if we vote yes.
The evidence shows that Simon Gauge etc are not fit for purpose when it comes to running the club, the communication and lack of detail regarding this EGM is further proof of that. It's good of them to lend further monies but that will also be to protect the money they have already invested. I think that's their main reason. There has been talk of potential investors for months but does anybody really believe that is the case? Has the Chairman shared the details with the Supporters Trust for example, if he hasn't then today would be a great time for him to do it. If that information is shared with the Chairman of the Trust who is then involved in the discussions with the potential investors then that would give a bit more confidence, just a bit. Otherwise it could just be a smokescreen. If they are confident of a investor coming forward then why are none of the other Directors not throwing more money into the pot to buy a bit more time?
What are the implications of a no vote, we have a stadium that's worth about £3 million. We have a strong supporters trust and plenty of savvy fans. We have enough to start again and rebuild the club. What expertise do those who are currently running the club have that the support base doesn't? Could we not attract investors/ sponsors ourselves? It's already been implied that we could be looking at liquidation even if we vote yes, so why don't we grasp the nettle and do what we should have done originally and run the club ourselves. Why are we trusting people who have proved that they aren't fit for purpose when it comes to running the football club? That's not being nasty, they've made a pigs ear of things and the trend has continued this week. In the best case scenario we would then have to just suck it and see with new investors running the club, strangers who invest to make money. The only people we can trust with the club are ourselves the fans, it would be our club and we could look after it properly at a level that is sustainable. We are being asked to vote to potentially lose the stadium. If there is a 'yes' vote the club continuing its nosedive into liquidation would be the best scenario for Gauge and Knight should a investor not be found. Why would they want to fight tooth and nail to save it under those circumstances, what motivation would they have?
It's a difficult question i know, have they been fighting tooth and nail since they purchased the MH shares to get the club firing on all cylinders again or have they just concentrated all their efforts on trying to bring in a investor in order to recoup their outlay? Just keeping the club ticking along, treading water with no forward plan or real direction? That's how it feels to me, every aspect of the club has been under performing and valued members of staff have walked away. [Post edited 27 Jul 2023 14:30]
|
Fantastic post TS. Nail on the head totally!
We don’t have the required information to cast a vote with real confidence but the reason we don’t have this is that we get snippets as and when it suits. I don’t trust SG and his ability to run a football club and nothing since the stopping of the hostile takeover has been done with any level of sensible forward planning or competence.
I have said many times that we are in a fortunate position that we have a lot of fans that would offer their skills and knowledge free of charge, but instead we pay for management consultants. If the club are losing 30k a week then release the full costs in detail with names excluded to the trust and get people capable of helping with this involved. If we have to sign a confidentiality clause I would be happy to do that.
1.5m losses sound a lot but reducing it dramatically is not that difficult, and remember who’s tenure these losses have come under. I don’t know SG personally but 2 years plus of poor communication, basic errors, lack of foresight and an attitude that is not endearing leads me to think we need a change.
This emperor needs to wake up and realise his shiny suit does not exist and those he treats as children that know nothing may actually know a lot more than he does! | |
| |
| EGM on 10:19 - Jul 27 with 1868 views | Cedar_Room |
| EGM on 19:18 - Jul 25 by Shun |
I'm with you on every word of this. It was my first thought on seeing the EGM news. And, perhaps we're a naturally suspicious bunch while we're still feeling Bottomley's burns, but I do wonder why it wasn't the first thought of every other fan, too.
It's been documented numerous times that although Gauge and co. aren't suited to running a football club, they don't seem the type who would sell off the ground for personal gain. So, accepting that this statement really should've been published before the EGM announcement, and it does look like there's been an active attempt to bury the story behind other announcements, I do again wonder why their financial security wasn't the first assumption made when this story was first announced.
Two men have poured untold amounts of money into the club to save its life. If liquidation did occur I'd feel far worse for those two potentially bankrupt men and their families than I would for myself not being able to watch Dale anymore. |
"they don't seem the type who would sell off the ground for personal gain"
No but are they the type to sell off the ground to cover personal losses? Of course they are. Not saying there are many who wouldn't - but this is why taking out a loan against the ground is such a dangerous idea. |  | | |
| EGM on 10:22 - Jul 27 with 1860 views | Cedar_Room |
| EGM on 09:21 - Jul 27 by samueloneils |
Many people are turning this vote into a vote of no confidence in the Board.
This is not what it is.
It is a vote to enable the Club we love to draw down essential funds to enable it to continue in day to day operations. We need to concentrate on that.
The alternative is clear.
The time for settling grievances should be later. |
but if you don't have confidence in the board you are hardly going to vote for this | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
