| Supporters panel on 14:02 - Mar 13 with 2542 views | Nafelad |
| Supporters panel on 13:41 - Mar 13 by dawlishdale |
It all seems like the last throw of the dice for the CEO. His decisions are flawed; often completely wrong; and have been so for years...since before he joined our Board.
He seems to have few if any contacts within football, and very little idea of how to run a stage managed forum; never mind an "elite" (his words; not mine) club. Thus; he has to spend additional money to employ people to carry out his own job for him; money desperately needed to strengthen the squad.
Many of his ideas have failed spectacularly; we all know what they are.
To cap it all off, over the last week we have seen more evidence of awful communication, not only to rank and file fans, but also to fellow Board members and , it would seem to the one group of supporters who have an established dialogue with him through the Trust. Never has this been so bad as it is now. If I were on the Trust Board; I'd be absolutely furious.
He has a small band of club employees backing him, because it's alleged that those who don't fall into line are sacked. However; surely he can't count on support from any of the other remaining Directors, or they will become part of the problem.
He has to go, before he threatens further the very fabric of our club. There are probably many hundreds of disillusioned supporters who will not put any more money into the club on his watch. |
Please, Mr. Bottomley, can we have our club back? |  |
|  |
| Supporters panel on 14:16 - Mar 13 with 2487 views | BigKindo |
| Supporters panel on 14:01 - Mar 13 by Brierls |
It’s a shit idea and completely undermines the Dale Trust. A completely re-active initiative to saying they’ll communicate better. I say ‘initiative’, I very much doubt any thought has gone into this.
Regarding criticism of the club being directed almost entirely at the CEO, it’s a bit daft. Our beef is or should be with the club. Things constantly directed at the CEO comes across as attacks on an individual and can be easily dismissed as being personal. Criticise the club, challenge the club. The CEO is employed by the club; if the club are receiving criticism, and they deem the CEO to be at fault, then they will be collectively forced to act to save face. As I said, at the moment the board of directors could quite easily brush off criticism as a witch hunt or vendetta against an individual.
The club, from top to bottom, is a shambles at the moment. |
But the extension of BBM's contract clearly illustrates that perhaps the CEO is making decisions off his own bat without recourse to the Board of Directors. Or is that a ploy to get the other Directors to resign leaving Bottomley with total control of the club? I wouldn't put it past him. Maybe a 're re revised Charter should incoporate a clause for impeachment. |  | | |
| Supporters panel on 14:25 - Mar 13 with 2445 views | RooleyMoorBlue |
| Supporters panel on 12:52 - Mar 13 by D_Alien |
No-one at the club has an hold on anyone, other than that which you allow them to have
I mentioned divide & rule earlier in this thread, and imo that's the primary objective - to be able to say "we consulted" and try to manipulate those who agree with that stance against those who don't (or at least the methodology)
Seeing through it is the easy bit
I'd add though, that comments such as "seen fans as a bottomless moneypit" don't always sit right with me, since the vast majority of board members put their hands into their pockets with the knowledge they'll never get anything back. There's one exception on the current board, who's drawing a salary and making a living from the club
[Post edited 13 Mar 2021 12:53]
|
I'd love to know when a director has put his hand in his pocket, since Chris Dunphy was ousted. If there was anyone I doubt it is anywhere near the amount my family (or many others) has parted with over the years. As for the hold they have, they use the love we have for our club, which at the very least is emotional blackmail. |  | | |
| Supporters panel on 14:26 - Mar 13 with 2442 views | Brierls |
| Supporters panel on 14:16 - Mar 13 by BigKindo |
But the extension of BBM's contract clearly illustrates that perhaps the CEO is making decisions off his own bat without recourse to the Board of Directors. Or is that a ploy to get the other Directors to resign leaving Bottomley with total control of the club? I wouldn't put it past him. Maybe a 're re revised Charter should incoporate a clause for impeachment. |
“Perhaps” being the key word there.
“Bottomley has handed a contract extension to BBM, what the hell is he thinking?”
“The board have handed a contract extension to BBM, what the hell are they thinking?”
As a member of the board, which one of those statements holds you accountable? Of course neither reflect well on the board, but I know which one I’d prefer. |  | | |
| Supporters panel on 14:37 - Mar 13 with 2384 views | BigKindo |
| Supporters panel on 14:26 - Mar 13 by Brierls |
“Perhaps” being the key word there.
“Bottomley has handed a contract extension to BBM, what the hell is he thinking?”
“The board have handed a contract extension to BBM, what the hell are they thinking?”
As a member of the board, which one of those statements holds you accountable? Of course neither reflect well on the board, but I know which one I’d prefer. |
Which? | | | |
| Supporters panel on 14:41 - Mar 13 with 2365 views | ncfc_chalky |
Have they said that they are going to restart doorstep collections then? That's admitting that they've scored a massive own goal if they are,tbh the damage may be already done and it's unlikely that they would get that amount of people to sign up again nevermind getting the canvassers that you pissed off to start over again |  |
| |
| Supporters panel on 14:44 - Mar 13 with 2355 views | D_Alien |
| Supporters panel on 14:25 - Mar 13 by RooleyMoorBlue |
I'd love to know when a director has put his hand in his pocket, since Chris Dunphy was ousted. If there was anyone I doubt it is anywhere near the amount my family (or many others) has parted with over the years. As for the hold they have, they use the love we have for our club, which at the very least is emotional blackmail. |
It's not compulsory, but are there are any current directors who haven't acquired shares in order to join the board? And in addition, it certainly used to be the case that an initial input of c.£100k plus a further £25k per annum were requirements*
Has this changed?
*This was the position as stated at a fans forum when CD was in charge
The more interesting question is how are the current directors reacting to the shambolic performances of both DB and imo GR last Wednesday; or are they reacting at all? |  |
| |
| Supporters panel on 14:53 - Mar 13 with 2327 views | dawlishdale |
| Supporters panel on 14:44 - Mar 13 by D_Alien |
It's not compulsory, but are there are any current directors who haven't acquired shares in order to join the board? And in addition, it certainly used to be the case that an initial input of c.£100k plus a further £25k per annum were requirements*
Has this changed?
*This was the position as stated at a fans forum when CD was in charge
The more interesting question is how are the current directors reacting to the shambolic performances of both DB and imo GR last Wednesday; or are they reacting at all? |
I was of the opinion that wannabee Directors had to hold a minimum of 12500 shares (in recent times; they have traded at £2 a share...so hence the £25000 sum you refer to.)
I'm wondering if our American investors didn't want to invest additional cash into the club because they hold more than the necessary number of shares, albeit having bought them privately (because the club decided to price them at £6 a share instead of the normal £2 a share) Could this be the stumbling block and the reason for them changing their minds?
I don't think Directors have to put in anything on an ongoing basis other than purchasing a Main Stand season ticket, although some Directors have sponsored the club in various ways. eg Andrew Kelly Lettings. In addition, the Directors are sometimes asked to bridge short term cash shortfalls by use of their own money in the form of Directors loans.
I am happy to be corrected, but this is my understanding. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Supporters panel on 00:49 - Mar 14 with 2115 views | Shun |
| Supporters panel on 13:41 - Mar 13 by dawlishdale |
It all seems like the last throw of the dice for the CEO. His decisions are flawed; often completely wrong; and have been so for years...since before he joined our Board.
He seems to have few if any contacts within football, and very little idea of how to run a stage managed forum; never mind an "elite" (his words; not mine) club. Thus; he has to spend additional money to employ people to carry out his own job for him; money desperately needed to strengthen the squad.
Many of his ideas have failed spectacularly; we all know what they are.
To cap it all off, over the last week we have seen more evidence of awful communication, not only to rank and file fans, but also to fellow Board members and , it would seem to the one group of supporters who have an established dialogue with him through the Trust. Never has this been so bad as it is now. If I were on the Trust Board; I'd be absolutely furious.
He has a small band of club employees backing him, because it's alleged that those who don't fall into line are sacked. However; surely he can't count on support from any of the other remaining Directors, or they will become part of the problem.
He has to go, before he threatens further the very fabric of our club. There are probably many hundreds of disillusioned supporters who will not put any more money into the club on his watch. |
Regarding ‘elite’ - he didn’t call us an elite club per se, he said the level we’re playing at is elite. Which is simply what the government have called this level of football in order for it to be allowed to continue through the pandemic. |  | | |
| Supporters panel on 00:57 - Mar 14 with 2108 views | Shun |
| Supporters panel on 14:25 - Mar 13 by RooleyMoorBlue |
I'd love to know when a director has put his hand in his pocket, since Chris Dunphy was ousted. If there was anyone I doubt it is anywhere near the amount my family (or many others) has parted with over the years. As for the hold they have, they use the love we have for our club, which at the very least is emotional blackmail. |
I’m sure on Tuesday one of the directors referenced putting his own money into the club quite recently, didn’t he? I may have that wrong, but it was something that stuck out for me. We can criticise the board for a great number of things, but I don’t think that anyone can hand on heart question their dedication to the club. | | | |
| Supporters panel on 02:20 - Mar 14 with 2083 views | James1980 |
| Supporters panel on 00:57 - Mar 14 by Shun |
I’m sure on Tuesday one of the directors referenced putting his own money into the club quite recently, didn’t he? I may have that wrong, but it was something that stuck out for me. We can criticise the board for a great number of things, but I don’t think that anyone can hand on heart question their dedication to the club. |
Andrew Kelly has been putting money in. | |
| |
| Supporters panel on 08:30 - Mar 14 with 2016 views | Dalenet |
| Supporters panel on 00:57 - Mar 14 by Shun |
I’m sure on Tuesday one of the directors referenced putting his own money into the club quite recently, didn’t he? I may have that wrong, but it was something that stuck out for me. We can criticise the board for a great number of things, but I don’t think that anyone can hand on heart question their dedication to the club. |
It was Mr Pockney and I think he said "directors" and my take it was from more than one - maybe all of them. We don't expect that do we and no wonder it hurts when some fans accuse them from drinking from the trough | | | |
| Supporters panel on 10:24 - Mar 14 with 1910 views | judd |
| Supporters panel on 08:30 - Mar 14 by Dalenet |
It was Mr Pockney and I think he said "directors" and my take it was from more than one - maybe all of them. We don't expect that do we and no wonder it hurts when some fans accuse them from drinking from the trough |
Agreed.
It was, I think, a repeat from last years forum when it was said HMRC refused an extension for a payment deadline.
I wonder if the goldbond funds couldn’t help out? |  |
| |
| Supporters panel on 13:05 - Mar 14 with 1810 views | EllDale |
I’m not quite sure what the board members do for a living, apart from Andrew Kelly, but I’m sure that they haven’t got bottomless pockets.
Quite the opposite, they may have wives at home saying that you can’t afford this or that but you’ll subsidise that football club!
So fair play to them if they’ve been chipping in. | | | |
| Supporters panel on 13:40 - Mar 14 with 1747 views | 49thseason |
| Supporters panel on 14:53 - Mar 13 by dawlishdale |
I was of the opinion that wannabee Directors had to hold a minimum of 12500 shares (in recent times; they have traded at £2 a share...so hence the £25000 sum you refer to.)
I'm wondering if our American investors didn't want to invest additional cash into the club because they hold more than the necessary number of shares, albeit having bought them privately (because the club decided to price them at £6 a share instead of the normal £2 a share) Could this be the stumbling block and the reason for them changing their minds?
I don't think Directors have to put in anything on an ongoing basis other than purchasing a Main Stand season ticket, although some Directors have sponsored the club in various ways. eg Andrew Kelly Lettings. In addition, the Directors are sometimes asked to bridge short term cash shortfalls by use of their own money in the form of Directors loans.
I am happy to be corrected, but this is my understanding. |
The Board is desperate for new blood. There isnt really a chairman if Andrew Kelly is ill, which leaves just 3 other directors one of whom is also CEO. Only Pockney gives the impression of being fully up to speed so ideally they could do with at least 4 or 5 more.
Selling the treasury shares for a half million or so (£2.00 each ) would clearly help the finances and which is what the Americans wanted to buy them for. But the Board at the time didnt want to give control to them. We are now in uncharted territory, we need a cash influx and some directors with the skill sets to drive the club forwards.
Maybe our US investors are now looking for an extremely rich US Football fan to become Chairman? |  | | |
| Supporters panel on 20:55 - Mar 14 with 1527 views | wozzrafc |
Forgive if I’m wrong but didn’t the club sign a MOU with the trust to undertake activities like this ? | | | |
| Supporters panel on 21:00 - Mar 14 with 1513 views | judd |
| Supporters panel on 20:55 - Mar 14 by wozzrafc |
Forgive if I’m wrong but didn’t the club sign a MOU with the trust to undertake activities like this ? |
Yes.
Probably just seen as another photo opportunity.
On another matter, during the forum, the Chairman was described as a figurehead with the casting vote.
I was always under the impression that the Chairman was head honcho. | |
| |
| Supporters panel on 21:24 - Mar 14 with 1475 views | D_Alien |
| Supporters panel on 21:00 - Mar 14 by judd |
Yes.
Probably just seen as another photo opportunity.
On another matter, during the forum, the Chairman was described as a figurehead with the casting vote.
I was always under the impression that the Chairman was head honcho. |
Was that a description of the role of the recently departed* Chairman - which might make sense in the context of his 'hands off' approach - or a more permanent part of how the Dale board works?
As you say, i hardly think that'd apply to how CD operated, or how many Chairmen would operate
Has there been a change to the constitution? Not a question directly to your good self judd, but in general
* as in 'resigned' | |
| |
| Supporters panel on 21:35 - Mar 14 with 1447 views | judd |
| Supporters panel on 21:24 - Mar 14 by D_Alien |
Was that a description of the role of the recently departed* Chairman - which might make sense in the context of his 'hands off' approach - or a more permanent part of how the Dale board works?
As you say, i hardly think that'd apply to how CD operated, or how many Chairmen would operate
Has there been a change to the constitution? Not a question directly to your good self judd, but in general
* as in 'resigned' |
I did think it applied to whoever is chairman now. | |
| |
| Supporters panel on 22:11 - Mar 14 with 1400 views | D_Alien |
| Supporters panel on 21:35 - Mar 14 by judd |
I did think it applied to whoever is chairman now. |
Surely the number of shares held by individuals is a greater factor than the number of hands raised for or against a particular motion/proposal? | |
| |
| Supporters panel on 22:14 - Mar 14 with 1392 views | judd |
| Supporters panel on 22:11 - Mar 14 by D_Alien |
Surely the number of shares held by individuals is a greater factor than the number of hands raised for or against a particular motion/proposal? |
Indeed. | |
| |
| Supporters panel on 22:18 - Mar 14 with 1380 views | D_Alien |
| Supporters panel on 22:14 - Mar 14 by judd |
Indeed. |
I may be reading too much into this, but might that not discourage potential investors, on the basis that their investment would prevent them from gaining control of the club if its constitution were to be formulated to prevent this?
There would be both positives but also negatives if that were the case | |
| |
| Supporters panel on 22:24 - Mar 14 with 1350 views | judd |
| Supporters panel on 22:18 - Mar 14 by D_Alien |
I may be reading too much into this, but might that not discourage potential investors, on the basis that their investment would prevent them from gaining control of the club if its constitution were to be formulated to prevent this?
There would be both positives but also negatives if that were the case |
I'm sure that can be sorted.
My question is to whom is the CE answerable, being as he appears to be one of 3 active directors his role reports to? | |
| |
| Supporters panel on 22:31 - Mar 14 with 1341 views | D_Alien |
| Supporters panel on 22:24 - Mar 14 by judd |
I'm sure that can be sorted.
My question is to whom is the CE answerable, being as he appears to be one of 3 active directors his role reports to? |
It would appear that if a change has occurred in the constitution since CD's time, there are beneficiaries
I'd assume all shareholders are entitled to access to information pertaining to how the board is set up, and would be informed of changes as they are planned / implemented | |
| |
| Supporters panel on 22:37 - Mar 14 with 1320 views | judd |
| Supporters panel on 22:31 - Mar 14 by D_Alien |
It would appear that if a change has occurred in the constitution since CD's time, there are beneficiaries
I'd assume all shareholders are entitled to access to information pertaining to how the board is set up, and would be informed of changes as they are planned / implemented |
You would think so. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
