| Chris Dunphy 18:24 - Feb 5 with 11879 views | HullDale |
Surprised this hasn't already been posted to be honest, but Chris Dunphy has indicated on Facebook that he (& a group of friends) would be interested in taking back over at Dale.
There are lots of caveats from him, including reservations about the unknown total debt, but he would be willing to step in if given 'total control' with a board of his choosing & no 'terrorists in the boardroom'.
I'm sharing this without opinion on the outcome, but do want to call out (before there is a huge clamour for the current board to go) that the current board stepped up to save the club after the exact person who forced Dunphy out originally left us up the proverbial creek for personal benefit. |  | | |  |
| Chris Dunphy on 18:29 - Feb 5 with 6316 views | HullDale |
"I would be back in a heartbeat under the right circumstances but I couldn’t afford to cover the “reported” accumulated financial deficit"
"In short I don’t know, but seeing the club at the bottom of the league it is very hard for me take and stand by and do nothing. Over 60 years watching Dale is not a habit you can break overnight. I would be happy to return and devote the time needed to rebuild the club and I could probably persuade a few other old friends to join me but financing the unknown deficit and getting the existing board to step aside are the two major obstacles"
"Unlikely because I would need full control and know that I was surrounded by fully supportive people. There is no room for terrorists in the boardroom as I know from past experience" | | | |
| Chris Dunphy on 18:31 - Feb 5 with 6301 views | NigelWatson |
| Chris Dunphy on 18:29 - Feb 5 by HullDale |
"I would be back in a heartbeat under the right circumstances but I couldn’t afford to cover the “reported” accumulated financial deficit"
"In short I don’t know, but seeing the club at the bottom of the league it is very hard for me take and stand by and do nothing. Over 60 years watching Dale is not a habit you can break overnight. I would be happy to return and devote the time needed to rebuild the club and I could probably persuade a few other old friends to join me but financing the unknown deficit and getting the existing board to step aside are the two major obstacles"
"Unlikely because I would need full control and know that I was surrounded by fully supportive people. There is no room for terrorists in the boardroom as I know from past experience" |
He's right! Competent. And one of life's good guys |  | | |
| Chris Dunphy on 18:36 - Feb 5 with 6279 views | ThreeLions |
Like you say this is a hard one to decide upon as the current board were there to save the club when it needed it and put their money where their mouths were. Many have short memories and are forgetting this. Could Dunphy raise enough money to buy out the investment the current board put in and inject cash into either league survival or a non league promotion push next season? He indicates possibly not on his social media post. This is probably a big non starter |  | | |
| Chris Dunphy on 18:39 - Feb 5 with 6250 views | 442Dale |
Before stating he wants “full control” would it not be a good idea to actually try and meet with the current board?
Why would there be any issues with that if they’ve never worked together before? |  |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:03 - Feb 5 with 6111 views | NorthernDale |
I would also find it more suitable, if Dunphy worked with the present board, rather then have total control. I don't and would never question his loyalty to the Dale, but it would be unfair to force out the present board, especially a very good chairman in Simon, because even Chris Dunphy would admit he made mistakes previously, we do not need disharmony at the moment, we need a united club.
So message to Mr Dunphy would be,
'Chris, please work with Simon, the present board and the fans, by coming onto the board and working with all concerned, you don't need control, but you can show your loyalty to the Dale by putting the club, before one's self interest' | | | |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:16 - Feb 5 with 6032 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Chris Dunphy on 18:39 - Feb 5 by 442Dale |
Before stating he wants “full control” would it not be a good idea to actually try and meet with the current board?
Why would there be any issues with that if they’ve never worked together before? |
There's a more practical issue 442.
Taking the quote as literally stated, I fully doubt "full control" is possible of an EFL club given the EFL's change of stance on rules following our issues when they changed their rules last June.
Also - and as far as we know - Dunphy isn't actually a currently shareholder of the club in any way having sold his shares, alongside other individuals to Dan Altman and Emre Marcelli on 4th October 2019.
Dunphy sold 46,010 and assuming the Americans paid £2 for them netted just short of £100,000 for the privilege. Not a bad sum of money to walk away with in 2019 before the then Board and new Chairman put us up for sale.
The EFL written reasons Paragraph 18 told us quite openly:
"Back in 2019 the Club had already been exploring proposals for external investment, which could have involved an investor acquiring a controlling interest."
Altman and Marcelli then appear to have traded those shares on to Morton House in July 2021, we will know when the next confirmation statement gets released. Morton House bought 212,895, something we know from the EFL and that 212,895 you would have thought included Dunphy's 46,010 shares given Morton House claimed to have bought 42% of the club.
As a club and because of that whole debacle, we are sitting on a six point suspended EFL penalty which lasts until October 2024. Take six points off what we have now and on 14 we are certainly relegated to the National League. That is before you price up the cost financially and in time terms that could have been spent elsewhere.
I know Dunphy has been out of football for 5 years but these are the rules in 2023:
https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appe
And the EFL made it very clear in their reasons against the club published in October 2022:
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/8a7f1cd734c545c6a9e4d3114325d9c8/221014---efl-
In the EFL's own words:
"The OADT imposes restrictions and conditions on who may be involved in ownership, control, directorship, or senior management of EFL member clubs (defined as “Relevant Persons”).
That is backed up by obligations on clubs and individuals to provide information to the EFL concerning such matters, including advance information where there is a proposed change of ownership or control of an EFL club.
The EFL’s clear and declared intention of the OADT is to protect the image and integrity of the EFL and its competitions, the well-being of its member clubs, and the interests of all the stakeholders in those clubs."
So there is probably absolutely nothing to stop Dunphy buying a large chunk of the 450,000 shares available in the club which would probably keep him below the threshold but certainly would not grant him "full control"
And even if he could get "full control" by buying enough shares, he would have to satisfy the EFL who are required to grant approval. |  |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:19 - Feb 5 with 6017 views | judd |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:16 - Feb 5 by RAFCBLUE |
There's a more practical issue 442.
Taking the quote as literally stated, I fully doubt "full control" is possible of an EFL club given the EFL's change of stance on rules following our issues when they changed their rules last June.
Also - and as far as we know - Dunphy isn't actually a currently shareholder of the club in any way having sold his shares, alongside other individuals to Dan Altman and Emre Marcelli on 4th October 2019.
Dunphy sold 46,010 and assuming the Americans paid £2 for them netted just short of £100,000 for the privilege. Not a bad sum of money to walk away with in 2019 before the then Board and new Chairman put us up for sale.
The EFL written reasons Paragraph 18 told us quite openly:
"Back in 2019 the Club had already been exploring proposals for external investment, which could have involved an investor acquiring a controlling interest."
Altman and Marcelli then appear to have traded those shares on to Morton House in July 2021, we will know when the next confirmation statement gets released. Morton House bought 212,895, something we know from the EFL and that 212,895 you would have thought included Dunphy's 46,010 shares given Morton House claimed to have bought 42% of the club.
As a club and because of that whole debacle, we are sitting on a six point suspended EFL penalty which lasts until October 2024. Take six points off what we have now and on 14 we are certainly relegated to the National League. That is before you price up the cost financially and in time terms that could have been spent elsewhere.
I know Dunphy has been out of football for 5 years but these are the rules in 2023:
https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appe
And the EFL made it very clear in their reasons against the club published in October 2022:
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/8a7f1cd734c545c6a9e4d3114325d9c8/221014---efl-
In the EFL's own words:
"The OADT imposes restrictions and conditions on who may be involved in ownership, control, directorship, or senior management of EFL member clubs (defined as “Relevant Persons”).
That is backed up by obligations on clubs and individuals to provide information to the EFL concerning such matters, including advance information where there is a proposed change of ownership or control of an EFL club.
The EFL’s clear and declared intention of the OADT is to protect the image and integrity of the EFL and its competitions, the well-being of its member clubs, and the interests of all the stakeholders in those clubs."
So there is probably absolutely nothing to stop Dunphy buying a large chunk of the 450,000 shares available in the club which would probably keep him below the threshold but certainly would not grant him "full control"
And even if he could get "full control" by buying enough shares, he would have to satisfy the EFL who are required to grant approval. |
I imagine "full control" means of the board and how it is made up.
Shareholders have a lot.more bite since Chris served us so well. |  |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:23 - Feb 5 with 5979 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Chris Dunphy on 18:31 - Feb 5 by NigelWatson |
He's right! Competent. And one of life's good guys |
The June 2020 statement from Andrew Kelly certainly didn't lay it out like that.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2020/june/statement--andrew-kelly/
"After returning, 2019 proved to be a very difficult year. The Accounts showed losses in excess of £1.2m in the last year of CD’s stewardship. The Board in an effort to steady the ship reverted to the well worn path of player sales. I was personally very worried up until our cup run and the Craig Dawson deal, which between them in view of the previous losses, steadied the ship.
And:
"One year later, he sold his private shares to the same people and only CD can explain the rationale behind his decision. He is not obliged to do so, it is entirely his personal and private affair. I have heard anecdotally that he made the Board aware of his intentions to sell. I will swear on a Bible I was not aware of his intentions and as far as I know, no other member of the Board knew either." | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Chris Dunphy on 19:30 - Feb 5 with 5940 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:19 - Feb 5 by judd |
I imagine "full control" means of the board and how it is made up.
Shareholders have a lot.more bite since Chris served us so well. |
Brings into play Article 91.
This requires 2/3rd of current Board Directors to vote for the appointment of any new Director followed by shareholder approval at the following AGM.
As Morton House, Southall, Jarvis, Curran, Rose etc found out, our constitution is unique to modern day football having been drafted in 1910! [Post edited 5 Feb 2023 19:31]
| |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:30 - Feb 5 with 5936 views | 442Dale |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:16 - Feb 5 by RAFCBLUE |
There's a more practical issue 442.
Taking the quote as literally stated, I fully doubt "full control" is possible of an EFL club given the EFL's change of stance on rules following our issues when they changed their rules last June.
Also - and as far as we know - Dunphy isn't actually a currently shareholder of the club in any way having sold his shares, alongside other individuals to Dan Altman and Emre Marcelli on 4th October 2019.
Dunphy sold 46,010 and assuming the Americans paid £2 for them netted just short of £100,000 for the privilege. Not a bad sum of money to walk away with in 2019 before the then Board and new Chairman put us up for sale.
The EFL written reasons Paragraph 18 told us quite openly:
"Back in 2019 the Club had already been exploring proposals for external investment, which could have involved an investor acquiring a controlling interest."
Altman and Marcelli then appear to have traded those shares on to Morton House in July 2021, we will know when the next confirmation statement gets released. Morton House bought 212,895, something we know from the EFL and that 212,895 you would have thought included Dunphy's 46,010 shares given Morton House claimed to have bought 42% of the club.
As a club and because of that whole debacle, we are sitting on a six point suspended EFL penalty which lasts until October 2024. Take six points off what we have now and on 14 we are certainly relegated to the National League. That is before you price up the cost financially and in time terms that could have been spent elsewhere.
I know Dunphy has been out of football for 5 years but these are the rules in 2023:
https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appe
And the EFL made it very clear in their reasons against the club published in October 2022:
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/8a7f1cd734c545c6a9e4d3114325d9c8/221014---efl-
In the EFL's own words:
"The OADT imposes restrictions and conditions on who may be involved in ownership, control, directorship, or senior management of EFL member clubs (defined as “Relevant Persons”).
That is backed up by obligations on clubs and individuals to provide information to the EFL concerning such matters, including advance information where there is a proposed change of ownership or control of an EFL club.
The EFL’s clear and declared intention of the OADT is to protect the image and integrity of the EFL and its competitions, the well-being of its member clubs, and the interests of all the stakeholders in those clubs."
So there is probably absolutely nothing to stop Dunphy buying a large chunk of the 450,000 shares available in the club which would probably keep him below the threshold but certainly would not grant him "full control"
And even if he could get "full control" by buying enough shares, he would have to satisfy the EFL who are required to grant approval. |
Yes, most of us are aware of what has happened before and probably have our own views on what went well/wrong previously. Instead of looking for issues, which have already been acknowledged, both sides should be open to finding a way to work together. That’s why I pointed out any talk of “control” is unnecessary right now.
You’ll have seen numerous posts on here around the mistakes made under previous regimes, it’s about finding positives for the good of the club. If that is looking for a way to involve people with relevant experience who want to help, then it needs all involved to put aside their individual feelings and making sure it happens.
Would you agree with that? | |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:30 - Feb 5 with 5937 views | TomRAFC |
I get on with both Simon and Chris in person, they're both really good blokes who love the club. I'm not sure how to phrase this without sounding like I'm taking sides.
Dunphy would want to come in and make executive decisions, and might not have the necessary funds. Dunphy tried to return to the club before this board took over. Graham Morris did not back his return and was the driving force behind recruiting our current board. Since then, I've heard both Dunphy / at least 2 members of the current board speak negatively about eachother. Collaboration seems almost impossible, although I'd love to be proven wrong and see them working together.
I've seen the thread on Chris' personal Facebook page, and it would be unfair to treat it as some kind of press release. Maybe Chris wants to run the club again, maybe he gave up that idea a while ago but has gotten nostalgic over a bit too much wine with Sunday lunch... Happens to the best of us. [Post edited 5 Feb 2023 19:33]
| |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:39 - Feb 5 with 5880 views | Brierls |
There will be plenty of fans clamouring for Chris Dunphy's return without a single thought for the message he's putting across.
I think it's very clear that the club is desperate for a bit of footballing nous in the boardroom. The current board, and us as fans, are finding that out the hard way. They've certainly been dealt a few harsh lessons. It can't be forgotten that this group stepped up when the club were in dire need. Twice.
If Chris Dunphy were to return, on his stated terms, he (and 'old friends') would have to buy a large percentage of the current board's shares. That's the only way the current board could step aside, they can't be expected to simply retain their shareholding with no say. That wouldn't be additional investment coming into the club. Even if that happened, you still have a club with no money, albeit with a Chairman and BOD who have been there and done it before.
Fair play to Chris Dunphy for answering questions honestly. I just don't think his 'terms' are realistic. |  | | |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:40 - Feb 5 with 5866 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:30 - Feb 5 by 442Dale |
Yes, most of us are aware of what has happened before and probably have our own views on what went well/wrong previously. Instead of looking for issues, which have already been acknowledged, both sides should be open to finding a way to work together. That’s why I pointed out any talk of “control” is unnecessary right now.
You’ll have seen numerous posts on here around the mistakes made under previous regimes, it’s about finding positives for the good of the club. If that is looking for a way to involve people with relevant experience who want to help, then it needs all involved to put aside their individual feelings and making sure it happens.
Would you agree with that? |
Of course.
The club was saved in Summer 2021 from a pre-determined fate that had been decided for it by others and crucially by Andrew Kelly's stoicism not to sell when others did.
What has always puzzled me since is that having stayed quiet in 2021 as an amalgam of Trust and fans came together to fight off Morton House across a Crowdfunding, the High Court and across mischievous social media , Dunphy wasn't there.
Not even in a small part way or as a minor shareholder, in fact, I don't think I have seen him at any game since 2018.
Dunphy certainly wasn't there when shareholders removed Bottomley and Rawlinson in June 2021 but then he wasn't a shareholder any longer at that point.
If what's reported is genuine and serious - and there is no reason to suspect not - then there is a really easy way for him to get involved:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2022/november/shareissue_181122/ | |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:41 - Feb 5 with 5852 views | 442Dale |
Seeing some of what has been posted was fully expected and I can certainly say there are reservations about some choices made in the past, but this is EXACTLY what I meant. It is not beneficial to finding some positive ground.
If there isn’t going to be any, then let’s get it out of the way and move on. Because right now, any distraction and division won’t help our current cause. All individuals involved should reflect on this. | |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:43 - Feb 5 with 5830 views | 442Dale |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:40 - Feb 5 by RAFCBLUE |
Of course.
The club was saved in Summer 2021 from a pre-determined fate that had been decided for it by others and crucially by Andrew Kelly's stoicism not to sell when others did.
What has always puzzled me since is that having stayed quiet in 2021 as an amalgam of Trust and fans came together to fight off Morton House across a Crowdfunding, the High Court and across mischievous social media , Dunphy wasn't there.
Not even in a small part way or as a minor shareholder, in fact, I don't think I have seen him at any game since 2018.
Dunphy certainly wasn't there when shareholders removed Bottomley and Rawlinson in June 2021 but then he wasn't a shareholder any longer at that point.
If what's reported is genuine and serious - and there is no reason to suspect not - then there is a really easy way for him to get involved:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2022/november/shareissue_181122/ |
“Yes” would have sufficed.
See my subsequent post about the rest. We know. | |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:44 - Feb 5 with 5813 views | golfaduffy |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:30 - Feb 5 by RAFCBLUE |
Brings into play Article 91.
This requires 2/3rd of current Board Directors to vote for the appointment of any new Director followed by shareholder approval at the following AGM.
As Morton House, Southall, Jarvis, Curran, Rose etc found out, our constitution is unique to modern day football having been drafted in 1910! [Post edited 5 Feb 2023 19:31]
|
Reading between the lines it sounds like there would be resistance from the new board in Dunphy coming back. We should be above all this.
I kinda understand this reluctanse because Chris sold up a few years back, but we all know that was because it was a toxic place with Roger argueing with everyone and genrally being a control freak.
The club is bigger than anyone's ego. Past or present. The new board should at least speak with Dunphy to see how he can help.
I heard he had problems with a couple of our (now) Life Presidents and they may be advising againt a comeback. | | | |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:51 - Feb 5 with 5740 views | 442Dale |
It’s certainly an interesting debate and hopefully one which can move forwards to assist the club.
Brierls post includes a lot of good analysis. | |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:54 - Feb 5 with 5732 views | TomRAFC |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:40 - Feb 5 by RAFCBLUE |
Of course.
The club was saved in Summer 2021 from a pre-determined fate that had been decided for it by others and crucially by Andrew Kelly's stoicism not to sell when others did.
What has always puzzled me since is that having stayed quiet in 2021 as an amalgam of Trust and fans came together to fight off Morton House across a Crowdfunding, the High Court and across mischievous social media , Dunphy wasn't there.
Not even in a small part way or as a minor shareholder, in fact, I don't think I have seen him at any game since 2018.
Dunphy certainly wasn't there when shareholders removed Bottomley and Rawlinson in June 2021 but then he wasn't a shareholder any longer at that point.
If what's reported is genuine and serious - and there is no reason to suspect not - then there is a really easy way for him to get involved:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2022/november/shareissue_181122/ |
Whilst I usually agree with most of what you say, it's somewhat inaccurate to say Chris was quiet in 2021. He tried to return to the club, as outlined in Fitz's article. The reasons this did not receive the necessary backing was outlined in an episode of this websites podcast (I think I've linked the right one). Not saying he should have taken over instead of the current board, but it's hard to be involved when your attempt at involvement doesn't come off.
https://rochdaleafcnews.com/2021/03/27/chris-dunphy-set-for-rochdale-afc-return/
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/episode-41-winning-at-home-a-chat-with-ric [Post edited 5 Feb 2023 21:11]
| |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 20:14 - Feb 5 with 5632 views | electricblue |
CD would have many drooling over the idea but i dont like the idea of full control...
Should CD be that really interested then he and the board have to work together for the best interests of the club and cast all past ill feelings to one side....
Should this work out then it should be put to the shareholders if CD and if anybody else can purchase a non controlling percentage.....
Keep the club fan owned is imperative at present.. |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 20:23 - Feb 5 with 5566 views | RAFCBLUE |
Thanks.
I'd forgotten about that March 2021 article which was before all of the gory details of April and May 2021 had come out, including Bottomley's infamous April 2021 YouTube video about the Trust needing to follow the "law of the the land".
Imagine if he had come back then or bought the 212,895 shares from the selling directors - the last two years may have been very different.
As we know, the club is openly looking for investment so there is definitely a line of communication open if desired and who knows what may or may not become of it.
Briels' third paragraph above is spot on. There's nothing to stop Chris Dunphy aside from a Board Director needing to be a shareholder and a share purchase of scale is possible with a number of open shares for sale, however to want full control I think a bit far-fetched given the EFL's current stance. | |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 20:25 - Feb 5 with 5542 views | 49thseason |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:44 - Feb 5 by golfaduffy |
Reading between the lines it sounds like there would be resistance from the new board in Dunphy coming back. We should be above all this.
I kinda understand this reluctanse because Chris sold up a few years back, but we all know that was because it was a toxic place with Roger argueing with everyone and genrally being a control freak.
The club is bigger than anyone's ego. Past or present. The new board should at least speak with Dunphy to see how he can help.
I heard he had problems with a couple of our (now) Life Presidents and they may be advising againt a comeback. |
I think the Articles of Association allow for up to 15 Directors. If Chris Dunphy were to approach the board, I think it would be reasonable to expect him ( them) to buy their 25,000 Directors shares and and a similar number number of shares as the current board bought off MH. 2, 3, or 4 new Directors paying in up to £100,000 or maybe more each would be more than usefull right now.
None of this will help the current on-pitch circumstances of course but it will maybe make the current board be more open about the state of the current finances. I sense that we are going to need all hands on deck, especially those with highly relevant experience and generous bank balances, certainly there need to be discussions, what harm could it do? |  | | |
| Chris Dunphy on 20:33 - Feb 5 with 5470 views | fourfourtwo |
| Chris Dunphy on 19:16 - Feb 5 by RAFCBLUE |
There's a more practical issue 442.
Taking the quote as literally stated, I fully doubt "full control" is possible of an EFL club given the EFL's change of stance on rules following our issues when they changed their rules last June.
Also - and as far as we know - Dunphy isn't actually a currently shareholder of the club in any way having sold his shares, alongside other individuals to Dan Altman and Emre Marcelli on 4th October 2019.
Dunphy sold 46,010 and assuming the Americans paid £2 for them netted just short of £100,000 for the privilege. Not a bad sum of money to walk away with in 2019 before the then Board and new Chairman put us up for sale.
The EFL written reasons Paragraph 18 told us quite openly:
"Back in 2019 the Club had already been exploring proposals for external investment, which could have involved an investor acquiring a controlling interest."
Altman and Marcelli then appear to have traded those shares on to Morton House in July 2021, we will know when the next confirmation statement gets released. Morton House bought 212,895, something we know from the EFL and that 212,895 you would have thought included Dunphy's 46,010 shares given Morton House claimed to have bought 42% of the club.
As a club and because of that whole debacle, we are sitting on a six point suspended EFL penalty which lasts until October 2024. Take six points off what we have now and on 14 we are certainly relegated to the National League. That is before you price up the cost financially and in time terms that could have been spent elsewhere.
I know Dunphy has been out of football for 5 years but these are the rules in 2023:
https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/appe
And the EFL made it very clear in their reasons against the club published in October 2022:
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/8a7f1cd734c545c6a9e4d3114325d9c8/221014---efl-
In the EFL's own words:
"The OADT imposes restrictions and conditions on who may be involved in ownership, control, directorship, or senior management of EFL member clubs (defined as “Relevant Persons”).
That is backed up by obligations on clubs and individuals to provide information to the EFL concerning such matters, including advance information where there is a proposed change of ownership or control of an EFL club.
The EFL’s clear and declared intention of the OADT is to protect the image and integrity of the EFL and its competitions, the well-being of its member clubs, and the interests of all the stakeholders in those clubs."
So there is probably absolutely nothing to stop Dunphy buying a large chunk of the 450,000 shares available in the club which would probably keep him below the threshold but certainly would not grant him "full control"
And even if he could get "full control" by buying enough shares, he would have to satisfy the EFL who are required to grant approval. |
I find your anti-Dunphy theme very surprising and is a clear indication of how the board view him. It doesn’t impress me if I’m honest. Yes the BOD have been unbelievable in their actions off the field. However they have also produced the worst Rochdale side for many a generation. They need help.
Some of the anti-Dunphy comments I’ve also seen tonight have been surprising. He’s not perfect. He made mistakes. He was a brilliant chairman.
This guy oversaw the most successful period in the history of the club. Discussion over really. If he wants to get back involved then the BOD should do what they can to make it happen.
I’ve seen the word naive banded about a lot lately. To pass up the opportunity to bring a willing Chris Dunphy back would be bloody naive. | | | |
| Chris Dunphy on 20:37 - Feb 5 with 5437 views | electricblue |
Would somebody care to elaborate about the reason for the ill feelings towards CD from certain people... | |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 20:45 - Feb 5 with 5390 views | judd |
| Chris Dunphy on 20:33 - Feb 5 by fourfourtwo |
I find your anti-Dunphy theme very surprising and is a clear indication of how the board view him. It doesn’t impress me if I’m honest. Yes the BOD have been unbelievable in their actions off the field. However they have also produced the worst Rochdale side for many a generation. They need help.
Some of the anti-Dunphy comments I’ve also seen tonight have been surprising. He’s not perfect. He made mistakes. He was a brilliant chairman.
This guy oversaw the most successful period in the history of the club. Discussion over really. If he wants to get back involved then the BOD should do what they can to make it happen.
I’ve seen the word naive banded about a lot lately. To pass up the opportunity to bring a willing Chris Dunphy back would be bloody naive. |
Dunphy and Hill.
He didn't do anything of note with other appointments | |
| |
| Chris Dunphy on 20:49 - Feb 5 with 5351 views | fourfourtwo |
| Chris Dunphy on 20:45 - Feb 5 by judd |
Dunphy and Hill.
He didn't do anything of note with other appointments |
In 116 years of existence how many successful managers have we had? Rochdale has always been the pits of the football league but Dunphy played more of a part in changing that mantra than anyone.
Are you Anti-Dunphy as well Judd? You must be to quote my response.
M | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
