| EGM on 11:30 - Aug 3 with 3536 views | TalkingSutty |
| EGM on 11:04 - Aug 3 by Rodingdale |
To state the obvious- debt is not a problem- inability to repay debt is the problem- which is the central point about the way the club is or isn’t being run. Basically if we don’t get an investor soon the damage will be irreversible if it isn’t already. It’s the board who need to get a grip. |
The fact that the Chairman and Director haven't even mentioned the possibility of running the club in a far more efficient manner than we have seen,speaks volumes. This is the best they can do obviously. They will let others step up to the plate but it's on their terms and nobody else's. Offers of help from those who have maybe walked the walk and know the club better than them have been given short shrift. This is about them recouping their money and it will eventually end with a investor coming forward, probably a property developer or somebody associated with one. There's a end game in all of this and the long term future of the club isn't the priority. That's my gut feeling. The fans and shareholders, council etc, need to get hold of the club and put a stop to this nonsense. They've proved they aren't capable of running the club so let's all get our heads together, including the Trust, and get people in the boardroom with some expertise, passion and ambition. Why are we allowing ourselves to be dictated too by Simon Gauge and Richard Knight? [Post edited 3 Aug 2023 12:05]
|  | |  |
| EGM on 11:46 - Aug 3 with 3436 views | judd |
| EGM on 11:07 - Aug 3 by pioneer |
I submitted my proxy form asking for confirmation of receipt…just a simple e mail reply saying ‘received’. press reply, press received, press send…thats all it takes. My proxy will be travelling from out of town so he doesnt want any surprises at the door.
48 hours later and no confirmation.
If I dont receive confirmation I will reluctantly tell my proxy not to bother travelling. The club has quickly become something I no longer have pride in. |
The Trust will follow this up for you if you email info@daletrust.co.uk with details of when you sent your email requesting confirmation and to which email address. |  |
| |
| EGM on 11:48 - Aug 3 with 3425 views | pioneer |
| EGM on 09:52 - Aug 3 by EllDale |
From memory didn’t Hornets get a big loan from the Rugby League around 2008 which was secured against their 45% of the stadium? So something must have been allowed.
When they went bust the RFL effectively owned their share of the stadium company.
When the Dale board bought the ground outright in 2016 they negotiated with the RFL for their shares in the stadium company which probably made things a lot easier. |
I think the difference is they became shareholders, taking over Hornets shares. The ground wasnt used as security on a loan per se.
So I think the equivalent today would be if the security they were seeking was more shares….which is directly the opposite of what they want, they would like to offload shares.
Of course this is not a legal opinion, just that of an interested onlooker…it could be completely wrong! |  | | |
| EGM on 12:01 - Aug 3 with 3379 views | samueloneils |
Suggested timeline.
The EGM vote turns down a loan from the 2 Directors.
SG and RK resign as drectors- this will please many on this forum- difficult to see what else they can do as they obviously have no Plan B. The other directors are in the same boat and will undoubtedly resign.
The Club- a limited company- must have directors so will have to find others. Any director is personally liable if the company is unable to pay its creditors and continues to trade ie it is insolvent. Selling the ground takes time and attracts nasty people. What individuals would take on that role?
The Company (the Club) goes into administration to try to find a buyer. The admnistrator`s job is to get as much as he can for the shares- he doesn`t care who he sells to, he just needs to get the best price..
Is this what you would prefer to a loan from 2 people who want the Club to survive?
You think this can`t happen? Look around you. | | | |
| EGM on 12:09 - Aug 3 with 3341 views | kel |
| EGM on 12:01 - Aug 3 by samueloneils |
Suggested timeline.
The EGM vote turns down a loan from the 2 Directors.
SG and RK resign as drectors- this will please many on this forum- difficult to see what else they can do as they obviously have no Plan B. The other directors are in the same boat and will undoubtedly resign.
The Club- a limited company- must have directors so will have to find others. Any director is personally liable if the company is unable to pay its creditors and continues to trade ie it is insolvent. Selling the ground takes time and attracts nasty people. What individuals would take on that role?
The Company (the Club) goes into administration to try to find a buyer. The admnistrator`s job is to get as much as he can for the shares- he doesn`t care who he sells to, he just needs to get the best price..
Is this what you would prefer to a loan from 2 people who want the Club to survive?
You think this can`t happen? Look around you. |
I’d prefer to hear all that from the club thanks, rather than speculation on your part.
Why won’t they reply to people? |  | | |
| EGM on 12:44 - Aug 3 with 3226 views | D_Alien |
| EGM on 10:00 - Aug 3 by Dalenet |
We don't know whether repayments are required or whether it is a zero interest rate loan that only gets repaid when further share capital is raised. We don't know how much either - so is it £100k using £3m of collateral? Or is it more than that? And more importantly this is the second season where shares had to be issued or a loan procured to cover short term operating losses. What happens in 2024 when we lose the parachute payment and income falls. We don't appear to have cut our costs to a sustainable position. And there has been very little effort to increase income but that story has been done to death.
Finally is the EGM legal given that the club has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that all shareholders have been notified? I suspect not |
According to someone who's meant to be financially astute, the amount of the loan doesn't matter...
I could say more, but best not... some will understand what i'm getting at
Edit: and regarding your final point, this will be raised tonight, by myself if someone else hasn't done so ahead of me. Feel free, it doesn't matter who asks [Post edited 3 Aug 2023 12:58]
|  |
| |
| EGM on 13:03 - Aug 3 with 3174 views | James1980 |
| EGM on 12:44 - Aug 3 by D_Alien |
According to someone who's meant to be financially astute, the amount of the loan doesn't matter...
I could say more, but best not... some will understand what i'm getting at
Edit: and regarding your final point, this will be raised tonight, by myself if someone else hasn't done so ahead of me. Feel free, it doesn't matter who asks [Post edited 3 Aug 2023 12:58]
|
I suppose that depends on if one is opposed to a loan being secured on the ground as a matter of principle. Then the amount shouldn't matter to those people.
But the amount and terms and detailed reasons for the loan are important to enough shareholders that the information should be provided so an informed decision can be made. | |
| |
| EGM on 13:27 - Aug 3 with 3093 views | Dalenet |
So they won't mind telling the shareholders how much of a black hole we need to fill, why the plan for the National League has a black hole, and what happens next time when we have used this option. Its like switching credit cards for a new balance transfer deal. Eventually you run out of options.
Transparency is all that is asked. Maybe we get that tonight and we all calm down | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| EGM on 13:28 - Aug 3 with 3084 views | D_Alien |
| EGM on 13:03 - Aug 3 by James1980 |
I suppose that depends on if one is opposed to a loan being secured on the ground as a matter of principle. Then the amount shouldn't matter to those people.
But the amount and terms and detailed reasons for the loan are important to enough shareholders that the information should be provided so an informed decision can be made. |
It doesn't appear to have occurred to those who make similar points, that the reason some may be opposed in principle is due to the lack of detail being put forward | |
| |
| EGM on 13:31 - Aug 3 with 3053 views | dawlishdale |
| EGM on 12:01 - Aug 3 by samueloneils |
Suggested timeline.
The EGM vote turns down a loan from the 2 Directors.
SG and RK resign as drectors- this will please many on this forum- difficult to see what else they can do as they obviously have no Plan B. The other directors are in the same boat and will undoubtedly resign.
The Club- a limited company- must have directors so will have to find others. Any director is personally liable if the company is unable to pay its creditors and continues to trade ie it is insolvent. Selling the ground takes time and attracts nasty people. What individuals would take on that role?
The Company (the Club) goes into administration to try to find a buyer. The admnistrator`s job is to get as much as he can for the shares- he doesn`t care who he sells to, he just needs to get the best price..
Is this what you would prefer to a loan from 2 people who want the Club to survive?
You think this can`t happen? Look around you. |
What you appear to be missing is that most (perhaps not all, but a sizeable majority) would be in favour of this loan, provided the missing detail is made available to shareholders. I realise that this is likely to be a generous offer from SG & RK, who can't afford to lose any more money.
But...
How would you feel if the loan was say £200k and there were monthly management fees of £10000 (payable to the lenders) as a condition. And that is without any interest which may or may not be payable. Wasn't it Bury who took out a loan secured on the stadium at a crippling interest rate (can't recall exactly, but think it might have been 6% per month; not per annum)
All I am asking for is the missing detail so that I can make an informed decision. If said detail isn't forthcoming, I will abstain, and it will be SG &RK's fault that they chose not to reveal the vital missing details.
Bottom line; it is so easy to tell us the full detail. Withholding it makes us suspicious. Never forget Roger and his secret pay rises for himself and BBM. | | | |
| EGM on 13:41 - Aug 3 with 3017 views | judd |
Directors’ primary duties when a company is solvent are to the shareholders of the company as a group | |
| |
| EGM on 13:45 - Aug 3 with 2999 views | 442Dale |
To even throw doubt on whether supporters want to support any decision that is best for the football club would be unfair and wrong. As others are making clear, everyone wants to understand what the situation is and for missing details to be provided so we can see why any future route taken is best for the club and how that will look.
It is most definitely not on the supporters should the best thing for the football club not happen. There is an opportunity to provide what information those supporters want to know and answer any questions as transparently as possible. That is simply a choice.
Hopefully, tonight will provide another opportunity to address the obvious concerns and get things back on track. [Post edited 3 Aug 2023 13:47]
|  |
| |
| EGM on 13:47 - Aug 3 with 2985 views | kel |
| EGM on 13:31 - Aug 3 by dawlishdale |
What you appear to be missing is that most (perhaps not all, but a sizeable majority) would be in favour of this loan, provided the missing detail is made available to shareholders. I realise that this is likely to be a generous offer from SG & RK, who can't afford to lose any more money.
But...
How would you feel if the loan was say £200k and there were monthly management fees of £10000 (payable to the lenders) as a condition. And that is without any interest which may or may not be payable. Wasn't it Bury who took out a loan secured on the stadium at a crippling interest rate (can't recall exactly, but think it might have been 6% per month; not per annum)
All I am asking for is the missing detail so that I can make an informed decision. If said detail isn't forthcoming, I will abstain, and it will be SG &RK's fault that they chose not to reveal the vital missing details.
Bottom line; it is so easy to tell us the full detail. Withholding it makes us suspicious. Never forget Roger and his secret pay rises for himself and BBM. |
I’m glad somebody mentioned bury. They just rolled over and took the word of their directors too and we all know how that ended up.
It’s actually quite worrying that people don’t seem concerned with the finer details, especially those who preached so often about how bury directors operated.
“You think this can’t happen? Look around you” - Quite [Post edited 3 Aug 2023 13:48]
| | | |
| EGM on 15:01 - Aug 3 with 2805 views | DaleiLama |
I've read the comments on here and listened to both sides of the argument.
Several things have now become clear, in the absence of evidence to the contrary:
1/ The board have not only not won the battle of hearts and minds, they have lost it, scoring a spectacular PR and communication own goal
2/ Without an absolutely cast-iron, water-tight argument to support tampering with the Morris resolution, I don't see a snowflake's chance in hell of this not remaining as an inviolable safeguard.
3/ If the board were all-in on this strategy, why have they not removed doubt from the shareholder fanbase?
I really wanted to give the BoD the benefit of the doubt and have done until the 11th hour. Sadly, as things stand, they are in dereliction of their duty in my eyes.
I accept that they probably didn't know what they were taking on, and after the dog's abuse (and excrement) they've had to put up with, they are probably desperate to exit RAFC now, but unless they have a very good explanation of their position and convincing reason more good money should be thrown after bad, all my shares and my Trust vote will be thanks, but no thanks. They saved us from the frying pan, but they mustn't be allowed to toss us into the fire. |  |
| |
| EGM on 16:09 - Aug 3 with 2654 views | DaleFan7 |
It will be interesting to see what happens if this EGM vote doesn't get passed.
1) Do they put it into some form of administration?
2) Do they carry on and we just keep getting worse and fall away?
3) Do they just sell the club to anyone that will entertain them and gets them some money? | | | |
| EGM on 16:21 - Aug 3 with 2620 views | SalwaDale |
| EGM on 15:01 - Aug 3 by DaleiLama |
I've read the comments on here and listened to both sides of the argument.
Several things have now become clear, in the absence of evidence to the contrary:
1/ The board have not only not won the battle of hearts and minds, they have lost it, scoring a spectacular PR and communication own goal
2/ Without an absolutely cast-iron, water-tight argument to support tampering with the Morris resolution, I don't see a snowflake's chance in hell of this not remaining as an inviolable safeguard.
3/ If the board were all-in on this strategy, why have they not removed doubt from the shareholder fanbase?
I really wanted to give the BoD the benefit of the doubt and have done until the 11th hour. Sadly, as things stand, they are in dereliction of their duty in my eyes.
I accept that they probably didn't know what they were taking on, and after the dog's abuse (and excrement) they've had to put up with, they are probably desperate to exit RAFC now, but unless they have a very good explanation of their position and convincing reason more good money should be thrown after bad, all my shares and my Trust vote will be thanks, but no thanks. They saved us from the frying pan, but they mustn't be allowed to toss us into the fire. |
A very interesting thread. Those arguing for a no vote could well have a point. Those arguing for a yes vote could well have a point. With zero information I have absolutely no idea.
Two questions I would like answered tonight are why do we need this money so urgently and what happens once the EGM happens, whether the vot goes yes or no. |  |
| |
| EGM on 22:21 - Aug 3 with 2339 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 16:21 - Aug 3 by SalwaDale |
A very interesting thread. Those arguing for a no vote could well have a point. Those arguing for a yes vote could well have a point. With zero information I have absolutely no idea.
Two questions I would like answered tonight are why do we need this money so urgently and what happens once the EGM happens, whether the vot goes yes or no. |
Full disclosure given at the Fans Forum - £350,000 for an indefinite period (the quote was “as long as the club needs it”). A commercial rate of interest - I didn’t hear the rate.
One director did say this was their limit of financial support which you can’t really argue with.
It’s also not changing the Morris resolution in any way but seeking shareholder approval under that resolution as designed.
Shareholders have a clear choice now. |  |
| |
| EGM on 22:27 - Aug 3 with 2308 views | kel |
| EGM on 22:21 - Aug 3 by RAFCBLUE |
Full disclosure given at the Fans Forum - £350,000 for an indefinite period (the quote was “as long as the club needs it”). A commercial rate of interest - I didn’t hear the rate.
One director did say this was their limit of financial support which you can’t really argue with.
It’s also not changing the Morris resolution in any way but seeking shareholder approval under that resolution as designed.
Shareholders have a clear choice now. |
Why, in your opinion, couldn’t this all have been communicated earlier? It would have saved a hell of a lot of bad feeling. | | | |
| EGM on 22:29 - Aug 3 with 2283 views | Dalenet |
| EGM on 22:21 - Aug 3 by RAFCBLUE |
Full disclosure given at the Fans Forum - £350,000 for an indefinite period (the quote was “as long as the club needs it”). A commercial rate of interest - I didn’t hear the rate.
One director did say this was their limit of financial support which you can’t really argue with.
It’s also not changing the Morris resolution in any way but seeking shareholder approval under that resolution as designed.
Shareholders have a clear choice now. |
Commercial terms to be agreed he said - but about 6% was suggested. Given they are borrowing the money themselves and will thus act as guarantors is more risk than I would want to take - even if I had a football stadium as collateral. Its hardly a liquid asset. | | | |
| EGM on 22:40 - Aug 3 with 2196 views | 442Dale |
| EGM on 22:27 - Aug 3 by kel |
Why, in your opinion, couldn’t this all have been communicated earlier? It would have saved a hell of a lot of bad feeling. |
Although the question is a good one, it might be an idea for some to think carefully about how they share their opinions going forward and respectfully taking into consideration how Dale fans feel. | |
| |
| EGM on 22:42 - Aug 3 with 2185 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 22:27 - Aug 3 by kel |
Why, in your opinion, couldn’t this all have been communicated earlier? It would have saved a hell of a lot of bad feeling. |
IMHO kel, it must be purely on the ground of significant commercial sensitivity given it was clearly stated that there are a number of investors working under NDA.
It was said tonight at the Fans Forum, I think for the first time, that the Board had been full time on an investor since January 2023 and had 200(?) parties that they had worked through or were working through.
It then was mentioned that the club were very close with one party of American investors who had a celebrity who wanted to front a English football investment similar to what has happened at Wrexham. That was described as a "9 out of 10" but did not proceed.
Unfortunately (for us) that consortium have or will purchase a Championship club instead. Coincidentally, something fronted by Tom Brady has just invested in Birmingham City.
There were said to be a number of others now being progressed but issue appears to be not wanting to have to take the wrong offer.
The descriptions of potential purchasers in the 200 ranged from "tyre kickers" to "brokers representing Middle Eastern sheiks" with the former being recent in the memory from 2021.
It must be very difficult to discern is a party who suggests that they want to invest in a football club is credible. The more nefarious parties interested I suspect would just wait for a point of weakness as we saw two years ago.
IMO its a very impressive gesture but up to shareholders to now approve or not. | |
| |
| EGM on 22:48 - Aug 3 with 2127 views | kel |
| EGM on 22:42 - Aug 3 by RAFCBLUE |
IMHO kel, it must be purely on the ground of significant commercial sensitivity given it was clearly stated that there are a number of investors working under NDA.
It was said tonight at the Fans Forum, I think for the first time, that the Board had been full time on an investor since January 2023 and had 200(?) parties that they had worked through or were working through.
It then was mentioned that the club were very close with one party of American investors who had a celebrity who wanted to front a English football investment similar to what has happened at Wrexham. That was described as a "9 out of 10" but did not proceed.
Unfortunately (for us) that consortium have or will purchase a Championship club instead. Coincidentally, something fronted by Tom Brady has just invested in Birmingham City.
There were said to be a number of others now being progressed but issue appears to be not wanting to have to take the wrong offer.
The descriptions of potential purchasers in the 200 ranged from "tyre kickers" to "brokers representing Middle Eastern sheiks" with the former being recent in the memory from 2021.
It must be very difficult to discern is a party who suggests that they want to invest in a football club is credible. The more nefarious parties interested I suspect would just wait for a point of weakness as we saw two years ago.
IMO its a very impressive gesture but up to shareholders to now approve or not. |
So what do you reckon has changed in the last week for it now suddenly being revealed? Are you alluding that they are now in breach of a NDA by telling us tonight? It’s late, granted, so maybe I’ve misconstrued your reply. | | | |
| EGM on 22:57 - Aug 3 with 2056 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 22:48 - Aug 3 by kel |
So what do you reckon has changed in the last week for it now suddenly being revealed? Are you alluding that they are now in breach of a NDA by telling us tonight? It’s late, granted, so maybe I’ve misconstrued your reply. |
Not alluding to anything at all and I'd imagine that a 17 page thread on it was why it was addressed before all the questions were asked in the second half.
If I had a spare £350,000 to offer the club as a loan on friendly terms I probably wouldn't openly publicize it on the basis I'd want to understand the best commercial offers being made on investment.
For every Middle Eastern sheikh there may be, God forbid, the likes of a payroll company like Morton House seeking to buy a club and that I suspect is the difficulty in discerning how to choose the right investor.
The other thing we now know is that we are a on a process to new investment and I suspect probably some new directors / a new Board. | |
| |
| EGM on 23:11 - Aug 3 with 1947 views | D_Alien |
| EGM on 22:57 - Aug 3 by RAFCBLUE |
Not alluding to anything at all and I'd imagine that a 17 page thread on it was why it was addressed before all the questions were asked in the second half.
If I had a spare £350,000 to offer the club as a loan on friendly terms I probably wouldn't openly publicize it on the basis I'd want to understand the best commercial offers being made on investment.
For every Middle Eastern sheikh there may be, God forbid, the likes of a payroll company like Morton House seeking to buy a club and that I suspect is the difficulty in discerning how to choose the right investor.
The other thing we now know is that we are a on a process to new investment and I suspect probably some new directors / a new Board. |
I don't buy your explanations/excuses
Fair play to SG, RK and the other directors for being as up front as they could be tonight. I had a chat with RK at the end and i've no qualms in saying he came across very well. I impressed upon him the need to communicate - as others did
So, the 17 page thread could've been avoided, and you wouldn't need to provide non-explanations that made no difference in the end
[Post edited 3 Aug 2023 23:12]
| |
| |
| EGM on 23:31 - Aug 3 with 1857 views | pioneer |
Problem is they are still not communicating with shareholders. No idea how many folks were there tonight …i was on line for part of the meeting ( and disappointed with Jamie Sarsfelds aggressive manner….that would be more suited to Hornets board).
What was said there tonight could easily be said in an e mail update or FAQ type document to shareholders but no…all they received was the notice of the meeting, wording of the motion and a proxy form. Nothing I heard in the parts I saw suggested any desire to change in the respect. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
