| New shares 19:46 - Mar 7 with 32151 views | TTNYear |
Apparently new/more shares are being issued from the club... this needs discussing. |  |
| Anti-cliquism is the last refuge of the messageboard scoundrel - Copyright Dorset Dale productions |
| |  |
| New shares on 01:29 - Mar 10 with 3004 views | kiwidale |
| New shares on 00:24 - Mar 10 by 100notout |
A few observations from me, some of which differ from those above .......
In simple terms, my understanding is ............
Res 1 - abolish the upper limit of shares available to purchase (currently 900,000)
Res 2 - allow the allotment of up to 697,043 shares (taking total share issued to 1.2m)
Res 3 - if res 1 rejected, allow the allotment of up to 397,043 (total shares issued 900k)
Res 4 - remove pre-emption rights for existing shareholders
so a couple of scenarios .......
Res 1 and Res 2 are passed - new investor(s) could have a majority stake in the club of 58% for a minimum cost of c£4.2m (estimated net cash injection of c£4m after fees)
Res 1 rejected and Res 3 passed - new investor(s) could have a stake of 44% for a minimum cost of £2,4m say £2.3m net to the club)
Current shareholders
As previously stated, the board of directors (who are all in favour of Res 1, 2 and 4) own just under 37%
Other significant shareholders include
Dale trust - 12625
Chris Dunphy - 46010
Graham Morris - 32072
David Kilpatrick - 22397
Leods Contracts Ltd - 22500
Bill Goodwin - 12500
These 6 individuals / entities collectively own 29.5% of the current shares and will therefore have a significant say in whether any of the resolutions are passed. Collectively if they so wished they could prevent the passing of the resolutions (which I think require 75% shareholder approval).
I am a shareholder albeit with a tiny % which individually is meaningless but for what its worth, my current view is that Res 1 should be rejected and Res 3 should be approved. This would provide a welcome cash injection whilst no individual would have a majority share.
I would politely suggest the trust call a meeting of members (possibly prior to one of the forthcoming home games?) to discuss these proposals and gauge opinions before casting its vote. |
Can you explain Resolution 3 in plain language so that thickos like me can understand it. I understand what allotment means but to whom? |  |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| New shares on 01:46 - Mar 10 with 2988 views | pioneer |
| New shares on 22:00 - Mar 9 by RAFCBLUE |
Thanks TR.
I wouldn't say "underhand" since what is being done is legal and following the Companies Act process.
I'm going to say "sneaky".
Effectively, all fans who are used to financial prudence and a view on those who have their hands on the controls are now being asked to give that blessing - with no proposal on the table - to five directors.
The future of the club in the hands of just five people.
I didn't hear that at the fans forum. I don't hear that when i hear the Trust.
For 18 months what is said and what happens is incongruous.
David Kilpatrick and Graham Morris started by getting young blood on the Board on the proviso they were Dale fans.
This proposal clearly sees that as non-sustainable. |
Or seeks to generate a perception that it is non sustainable in order to gain support for a proposal that enables them (the current board) to pursue other interests.
I dont claim to understand all these things . . . . but does anyone else think something doesn't quite smell right?
I am unable to attend fan forums and trust meetings so I very well might be missing something - happy to be better informed. | | | |
| New shares on 07:22 - Mar 10 with 2896 views | TalkingSutty |
| New shares on 01:46 - Mar 10 by pioneer |
Or seeks to generate a perception that it is non sustainable in order to gain support for a proposal that enables them (the current board) to pursue other interests.
I dont claim to understand all these things . . . . but does anyone else think something doesn't quite smell right?
I am unable to attend fan forums and trust meetings so I very well might be missing something - happy to be better informed. |
Agree with that. Yes,we recently had a bad set of financial figures but the extra monies generated over the last 12 months or so dwarf those losses. It might just be my perception but the cost of running the Club seems to have spiralled since the Boardroom re- shuffle, I’m sure it was quoted that the annual cost is now £6 million pounds, how has that happened? Compared to the majority of lower league Clubs we are in good financial health though, we own our Stadium and have very little debt..
It needed blood, sweat and tears to finally secure our own Stadium and now it seems that those in the Boardroom are willing to disrespect all those efforts and put the future of the Club at risk. You look at the money they have coughed up to secure a place in the boardroom and to be honest you aren’t talking sums of money that is beyond plenty of fans who pay to attend games week in and week out. How much of their own money do they actually stump up to keep the Club ticking over, which was the case decades ago ?....none I would suggest. We aren’t beholden to those in the Boardroom, they aren’t bankrolling the Club and that needs to be remembered.
Supporters past and supporters present, Chairmen and Directors past, we have all invested financially to keep the Club alive, far more than a bond required to sit on the board of Directors. If the current Chairman and Directors think they can just ride roughshod over all that blood, sweat and tears and historic struggle then I think they will be in for a shock. If it’s such a struggle for the Chairman, CEO, Directors then they should say the job is too big for them and invite individual fans, the Trust, ex Chairman and Directors to get involved, there doesn’t have to be a fall out about it. Instead it seems they would rather gamble the very future of the Club by inviting in outside investors....why would they want to do that to a club they purport to love?
Instinct tells me that all those with a love of the Club need to switch on to those in the boardroom because it’s pretty obvious that they are willing to put the Club/ Stadium etc in jeopardy. Anyway, i would imagine the shareholders will have something to say about this, maybe it’s time that the supporters had a greater say in the boardroom? The whole fanbase and not just Trust members have contributed to the Trust shares via fundraising etc,that’s also worth remembering when it comes to consulting with the whole fanbase . The problem with this lot charged with running the Club is they think they can pull the wool over our eyes, there is always a nagging feeling that somethings underhand is going on in the background. All of this could have been addressed at the recent fans forum by our mute Chairman, it was an ideal platform. [Post edited 10 Mar 2020 7:37]
|  | | |
| New shares on 07:27 - Mar 10 with 2881 views | DaleiLama |
| New shares on 01:46 - Mar 10 by pioneer |
Or seeks to generate a perception that it is non sustainable in order to gain support for a proposal that enables them (the current board) to pursue other interests.
I dont claim to understand all these things . . . . but does anyone else think something doesn't quite smell right?
I am unable to attend fan forums and trust meetings so I very well might be missing something - happy to be better informed. |
I have no knowledge of any of this other than what I've read on here, but there does seem to be more than an element of "just put your signature here" and when all is said and done, a blank cheque has been signed. I sincerely hope that this is a complete misconception, but if not, the blank cheque doesn't end up in wrong hands. It also feel like we are "breaking the glass in case of emergency" but the emergency isn't here (yet). Again, I hope I'm wrong. The fact that a cloak of secrecy has been requested just doesn't feel right after the transparency of the forum. Reassurances are needed. |  |
| |
| New shares on 07:39 - Mar 10 with 2853 views | Daley_Lama |
| New shares on 07:27 - Mar 10 by DaleiLama |
I have no knowledge of any of this other than what I've read on here, but there does seem to be more than an element of "just put your signature here" and when all is said and done, a blank cheque has been signed. I sincerely hope that this is a complete misconception, but if not, the blank cheque doesn't end up in wrong hands. It also feel like we are "breaking the glass in case of emergency" but the emergency isn't here (yet). Again, I hope I'm wrong. The fact that a cloak of secrecy has been requested just doesn't feel right after the transparency of the forum. Reassurances are needed. |
Going off accounts over the last few years, a 2.4M investment from shares would be a drop in the ever increasing ocean of spiralling expenditure.
This is set against the backdrop of what must be our most successful year for income what with Man U away, Newcastle home and away, Luke off to Wolves and the smallest squad in years.
I remember a very similar process at Bury in the early SD1 era. Forever Bury organised to vote by proxy on behalf of minor shareholders. Unfortunately for them, FB changed their mind on the night of the EGM and the rest as they say is history.
Intersting Times |  |
| |
| New shares on 09:26 - Mar 10 with 2740 views | tony_roch975 |
| New shares on 00:24 - Mar 10 by 100notout |
A few observations from me, some of which differ from those above .......
In simple terms, my understanding is ............
Res 1 - abolish the upper limit of shares available to purchase (currently 900,000)
Res 2 - allow the allotment of up to 697,043 shares (taking total share issued to 1.2m)
Res 3 - if res 1 rejected, allow the allotment of up to 397,043 (total shares issued 900k)
Res 4 - remove pre-emption rights for existing shareholders
so a couple of scenarios .......
Res 1 and Res 2 are passed - new investor(s) could have a majority stake in the club of 58% for a minimum cost of c£4.2m (estimated net cash injection of c£4m after fees)
Res 1 rejected and Res 3 passed - new investor(s) could have a stake of 44% for a minimum cost of £2,4m say £2.3m net to the club)
Current shareholders
As previously stated, the board of directors (who are all in favour of Res 1, 2 and 4) own just under 37%
Other significant shareholders include
Dale trust - 12625
Chris Dunphy - 46010
Graham Morris - 32072
David Kilpatrick - 22397
Leods Contracts Ltd - 22500
Bill Goodwin - 12500
These 6 individuals / entities collectively own 29.5% of the current shares and will therefore have a significant say in whether any of the resolutions are passed. Collectively if they so wished they could prevent the passing of the resolutions (which I think require 75% shareholder approval).
I am a shareholder albeit with a tiny % which individually is meaningless but for what its worth, my current view is that Res 1 should be rejected and Res 3 should be approved. This would provide a welcome cash injection whilst no individual would have a majority share.
I would politely suggest the trust call a meeting of members (possibly prior to one of the forthcoming home games?) to discuss these proposals and gauge opinions before casting its vote. |
excellent summary & agree about a Trust pre-meet - only resolution 4 (special) requires 75%, the other 3 are 'ordinary' so require simple majority.
Other significant shareholders (above 10,000) total c 212,000 shares/votes; 321 remaining minority shareholders hold c 106,000 (& Board c 185,000)
Resolution 3 would mean a majority shareholder only needing to buy 52,597 shares for overall control for what DL calls a 'drop in the ocean' | |
| |
| New shares on 09:37 - Mar 10 with 2724 views | tony_roch975 |
| New shares on 01:29 - Mar 10 by kiwidale |
Can you explain Resolution 3 in plain language so that thickos like me can understand it. I understand what allotment means but to whom? |
The Club has 900,000 share capital and has issued (sold) c 500,000. Resolution 3 seeks agreement (if Res 1 not passed) to allot (sell) the remaining c 400,000 up to the 900,000 limit. The agreement would last for 5 years unless changed by a future resolution. The shares must be offered for sale @ no less than £6 each.
The figure in Res 3 of £198,521.50 is half the no of shares (397,043 [or c 400,000]) because it is the nominal value which is 50p (originally capital £2000 divided into 4000 shares) [Post edited 10 Mar 2020 9:40]
| |
| |
| New shares on 11:17 - Mar 10 with 2608 views | 49thseason |
Until the identity of the new shareholder is known, we can only indulge in speculation, however, it seems to me to be an imperative that the trust contacts all shareholders and if they do not intend to be at the meeting, ask them to give the Trust their proxy vote. The hope would be that in doing so, the trust could hold a majority of shares or at least a much more significant holding.
Once the new shareholder has been announced, the Trust should then ask for a 14-day adjournment to enable it to assess its position with regard to the information given at the EGM and then go back to the shareholders with a competent explanation of the position and a clear course of action. This might include a second request for their (the shareholders) proxy votes either in favour or against the motion. It is somewhat unseemly to try and railroad the decision at an EGM without the opportunity for debate and reflection. If the new investor is serious about wanting to support the club, this should not be problematic, if he/she wants an immediate decision then .....At least this process will enable shareholders to decide what to do with more transparency and knowledge. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| New shares on 12:12 - Mar 10 with 2550 views | NewtonDale |
Apologies if I come across as slightly thick but are the shares up for sale to supporters? |  | | |
| New shares on 15:12 - Mar 10 with 2403 views | kiwidale |
| New shares on 09:37 - Mar 10 by tony_roch975 |
The Club has 900,000 share capital and has issued (sold) c 500,000. Resolution 3 seeks agreement (if Res 1 not passed) to allot (sell) the remaining c 400,000 up to the 900,000 limit. The agreement would last for 5 years unless changed by a future resolution. The shares must be offered for sale @ no less than £6 each.
The figure in Res 3 of £198,521.50 is half the no of shares (397,043 [or c 400,000]) because it is the nominal value which is 50p (originally capital £2000 divided into 4000 shares) [Post edited 10 Mar 2020 9:40]
|
Am I right to suspect that the price of six pounds a share is to price ordinary fans out? The whole thing stinks. The real problem in all this is we don't trust the Chairman or the CEO or the collective board. Hand on heart can anybody say I trust this man? | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| New shares on 15:54 - Mar 10 with 2358 views | Dorislove |
| New shares on 00:24 - Mar 10 by 100notout |
A few observations from me, some of which differ from those above .......
In simple terms, my understanding is ............
Res 1 - abolish the upper limit of shares available to purchase (currently 900,000)
Res 2 - allow the allotment of up to 697,043 shares (taking total share issued to 1.2m)
Res 3 - if res 1 rejected, allow the allotment of up to 397,043 (total shares issued 900k)
Res 4 - remove pre-emption rights for existing shareholders
so a couple of scenarios .......
Res 1 and Res 2 are passed - new investor(s) could have a majority stake in the club of 58% for a minimum cost of c£4.2m (estimated net cash injection of c£4m after fees)
Res 1 rejected and Res 3 passed - new investor(s) could have a stake of 44% for a minimum cost of £2,4m say £2.3m net to the club)
Current shareholders
As previously stated, the board of directors (who are all in favour of Res 1, 2 and 4) own just under 37%
Other significant shareholders include
Dale trust - 12625
Chris Dunphy - 46010
Graham Morris - 32072
David Kilpatrick - 22397
Leods Contracts Ltd - 22500
Bill Goodwin - 12500
These 6 individuals / entities collectively own 29.5% of the current shares and will therefore have a significant say in whether any of the resolutions are passed. Collectively if they so wished they could prevent the passing of the resolutions (which I think require 75% shareholder approval).
I am a shareholder albeit with a tiny % which individually is meaningless but for what its worth, my current view is that Res 1 should be rejected and Res 3 should be approved. This would provide a welcome cash injection whilst no individual would have a majority share.
I would politely suggest the trust call a meeting of members (possibly prior to one of the forthcoming home games?) to discuss these proposals and gauge opinions before casting its vote. |
Other significant shareholdings are Elizabeth Hazelhurst 16075 Geoffrey Brierly 14387 plus 15 others 2000 to 6360
Up to date shareholding list comes out 14 june and published at companies house usually no later than 14 days later. [Post edited 10 Mar 2020 15:56]
|  | | |
| New shares on 16:16 - Mar 10 with 2319 views | tony_roch975 |
| New shares on 15:54 - Mar 10 by Dorislove |
Other significant shareholdings are Elizabeth Hazelhurst 16075 Geoffrey Brierly 14387 plus 15 others 2000 to 6360
Up to date shareholding list comes out 14 june and published at companies house usually no later than 14 days later. [Post edited 10 Mar 2020 15:56]
|
ps - I have just discovered that at least 1 of the shareholders currently appearing in the Companies House register (and named as such in this thread) is no longer a shareholder - so our other shareholding assumptions may not be accurate? | |
| |
| New shares on 16:37 - Mar 10 with 2287 views | James1980 |
Will the money raised by enough for the training facilities the club desire so much? | |
| |
| New shares on 19:25 - Mar 10 with 2144 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
I would assume that the trust, or if not the whole trust, many individuals within it know the previous directors listed. Has any effort been made to contact them and try to find out their feelings?
For example if a major ex chairman or director, joined forces with or even joined the trust, that would strengthen our position.
What confuses me somewhat is that at least 1 member of the board would not do anything to risk the future of the club, so I can see why he would want to approve anything that could cause this? |  |
| |
| New shares on 19:36 - Mar 10 with 2116 views | aleanddale |
| New shares on 19:25 - Mar 10 by Thacks_Rabbits |
I would assume that the trust, or if not the whole trust, many individuals within it know the previous directors listed. Has any effort been made to contact them and try to find out their feelings?
For example if a major ex chairman or director, joined forces with or even joined the trust, that would strengthen our position.
What confuses me somewhat is that at least 1 member of the board would not do anything to risk the future of the club, so I can see why he would want to approve anything that could cause this? |
Has the Trust enough funds to make a significant purchase.
Agree we need some friends here maybe a gifted donation to the trust by current shareholders with the very best intentions.
I am glad this has come out heaven forbid there are flashing beacons left right and centre in the lower leagues of rogue owners.
Under no circumstances should a bury / Oldham / Bolton situation be allowed to happen.
Even if that means relegation back to lg2 or even the National league. | | | |
| New shares on 20:35 - Mar 10 with 2049 views | judd |
| New shares on 16:16 - Mar 10 by tony_roch975 |
ps - I have just discovered that at least 1 of the shareholders currently appearing in the Companies House register (and named as such in this thread) is no longer a shareholder - so our other shareholding assumptions may not be accurate? |
Where do you stand on this outing then?
And are you willing to identify on here the change in shareholding that you have discovered?
I look forward to you replying to these 2 questions |  |
| |
| New shares on 21:09 - Mar 10 with 2004 views | 100notout |
| New shares on 20:35 - Mar 10 by judd |
Where do you stand on this outing then?
And are you willing to identify on here the change in shareholding that you have discovered?
I look forward to you replying to these 2 questions |
From the publicly available list of shareholders as at June 2019
Jim Marsh (RIP) owned 35000 shares
Paul Hazelhurst (RIP) owned 16075 shares - looks like these have been transferred to his wife
Hilary Dearden (RIP) owned 50 shares
I'm sure there are others as well that have sadly passed away | |
| |
| New shares on 21:19 - Mar 10 with 1979 views | judd |
| New shares on 21:09 - Mar 10 by 100notout |
From the publicly available list of shareholders as at June 2019
Jim Marsh (RIP) owned 35000 shares
Paul Hazelhurst (RIP) owned 16075 shares - looks like these have been transferred to his wife
Hilary Dearden (RIP) owned 50 shares
I'm sure there are others as well that have sadly passed away |
Thanks 100notout, and also for your earlier post with your interpretation of the motions.
My own thoughts revolve around Leod and their shareholding, being as they are not listed in their accounts and Martyn McLeod left our/ the board some time ago. | |
| |
| New shares on 21:27 - Mar 10 with 1942 views | tony_roch975 |
| New shares on 20:35 - Mar 10 by judd |
Where do you stand on this outing then?
And are you willing to identify on here the change in shareholding that you have discovered?
I look forward to you replying to these 2 questions |
Judd, you may be reading more into my post than it deserves?
1. I was replying to a post naming individual holdings
2. I was saying assumptions (mine or anyone else's) that the Companies House register is up to date on individual holdings are false (see also 100notout's post)
3. I have no evidence (or suspicion) that the change in holding I discovered is linked to the EGM - it's more likely merely admin cock up.
Dorislove set out the register's revision process earlier. | |
| |
| New shares on 21:35 - Mar 10 with 1907 views | tony_roch975 |
| New shares on 19:36 - Mar 10 by aleanddale |
Has the Trust enough funds to make a significant purchase.
Agree we need some friends here maybe a gifted donation to the trust by current shareholders with the very best intentions.
I am glad this has come out heaven forbid there are flashing beacons left right and centre in the lower leagues of rogue owners.
Under no circumstances should a bury / Oldham / Bolton situation be allowed to happen.
Even if that means relegation back to lg2 or even the National league. |
if you really mean the last line that would be a massive indication as to how to vote at the EGM but do others agree? | |
| |
| New shares on 21:42 - Mar 10 with 1895 views | judd |
| New shares on 21:27 - Mar 10 by tony_roch975 |
Judd, you may be reading more into my post than it deserves?
1. I was replying to a post naming individual holdings
2. I was saying assumptions (mine or anyone else's) that the Companies House register is up to date on individual holdings are false (see also 100notout's post)
3. I have no evidence (or suspicion) that the change in holding I discovered is linked to the EGM - it's more likely merely admin cock up.
Dorislove set out the register's revision process earlier. |
Your response is very much appreciated, thank you.
I did ask where you stand on the issue being outed.
Many are aware of the date frailities of company's house listings.
You have discovered a change in shareholding that Dorislove kindly listed. That you chose to post this would indicate to me that it is a change of significance and not the respected small share holding of 100notout.
Over to you... | |
| |
| New shares on 21:55 - Mar 10 with 1849 views | tony_roch975 |
| New shares on 21:42 - Mar 10 by judd |
Your response is very much appreciated, thank you.
I did ask where you stand on the issue being outed.
Many are aware of the date frailities of company's house listings.
You have discovered a change in shareholding that Dorislove kindly listed. That you chose to post this would indicate to me that it is a change of significance and not the respected small share holding of 100notout.
Over to you... |
I wasn't aware of those frailities so thought my information would give people more knowledge (as it had me). I'm not sure what you mean by 'the issue being outed'.
I said the shareholding had been named on this thread but I deliberately didn't say who had posted the name. The size of the holding is of no more significance on its own than those ('respected small shareholdings') 100notout listed. | |
| |
| New shares on 21:59 - Mar 10 with 1834 views | Sandyman |
| New shares on 21:19 - Mar 10 by judd |
Thanks 100notout, and also for your earlier post with your interpretation of the motions.
My own thoughts revolve around Leod and their shareholding, being as they are not listed in their accounts and Martyn McLeod left our/ the board some time ago. |
6360 shares held by former director John Faulks who recently passed on.
There quite a few others on that list who have passed on but not transferred shares.
2500 held by James Fagan (The Keytech bloke?) |  | | |
| New shares on 22:08 - Mar 10 with 1808 views | judd |
| New shares on 21:55 - Mar 10 by tony_roch975 |
I wasn't aware of those frailities so thought my information would give people more knowledge (as it had me). I'm not sure what you mean by 'the issue being outed'.
I said the shareholding had been named on this thread but I deliberately didn't say who had posted the name. The size of the holding is of no more significance on its own than those ('respected small shareholdings') 100notout listed. |
Thanks again.
Statutort accounts have a 9 month window in which to be posted, by which time a company is well into another year.
The issue being outed refers to the OP and his/her challenge to the request for secrecy, or words to that effect.
Wirh regards shareholding, I thought you quoted Dorisloves list of names. If the change of share ownership you discovered is relatively small then ease feel free to confirm this as fact.
My feeling is that the change you have discovered is significant. Choosing to share the facts is up to you.
Up.the Dale | |
| |
| New shares on 22:25 - Mar 10 with 1776 views | tony_roch975 |
| New shares on 22:08 - Mar 10 by judd |
Thanks again.
Statutort accounts have a 9 month window in which to be posted, by which time a company is well into another year.
The issue being outed refers to the OP and his/her challenge to the request for secrecy, or words to that effect.
Wirh regards shareholding, I thought you quoted Dorisloves list of names. If the change of share ownership you discovered is relatively small then ease feel free to confirm this as fact.
My feeling is that the change you have discovered is significant. Choosing to share the facts is up to you.
Up.the Dale |
I had (& have) the same dilemma about maintaining the confidentiality requested but once others had started this thread and information was being released I decided it would be better to try to correct misinformation and pass on explanations where I could to enable a more informed debate. I hope I didn't make the wrong choice.
I did confirm exactly that in my last post - "The size of the holding is of no more significance on its own than those ('respected small shareholdings') 100notout listed." | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
