| New shares 19:46 - Mar 7 with 32707 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 23:26 - Mar 10 with 2845 views | RAFCBLUE |
I don't think judd that changes of existing shareholding are an issue here.
There isn't a market for Dale shares currently and the holdings are small; so the only changes come via the sad passing of a Dale fan.
Even if one individual was dealing with the shares of Dale fans passed, it would show up and the club would know about it.
There are only 502,957 share in issue.
The issue here is more about the increasing of the share capital to an arbitrary level with no known buyer.
The proposed share increases are very specific numbers so specific that you have to think about why are they that specific where there is no known buyer.
Add that to an unfettered 5 year window and that is where I think the issue comes.
As someone else said, it is becoming an issue of trust.
There is no requirement for the board to share those they have signed NDA agreements with about the future of the club.
At the same time they are now asking for 5 years at a set price to get a deal done, without coming back to shareholders again.
That IMO isn't right in the ethos of how Dale has been run in my lifetime. | |
| |
| New shares on 08:47 - Mar 11 with 2690 views | judd |
Not disputing the bigger picture, I suppose I was intrigued why the following post:
"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"
quoted the following post specifically:
"Other significant shareholdings are Elizabeth Hazelhurst 16075 Geoffrey Brierly 14387 plus 15 others 2000 to 6360"
Perhaps the post was not addressing those named in the post it was responding to, but I wonder if a 5 figure shareholding has changed, which I think is of some significance,. For one, I would hope that the Trust are aware of the availability of shares outside of the club's control. | |
| |
| New shares on 15:09 - Mar 11 with 2499 views | SuddenLad |
Interesting to note that there are 'no IMMEDIATE plans to sell the club'.
Not entirely off the agenda then ? | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| New shares on 15:23 - Mar 11 with 2453 views | 442Dale |
Not sure why they are apologising for a matter that is of interest to all Rochdale fans being discussed and debated in public by Rochdale fans. But they should also be praised for providing information and further clarity to all Rochdale fans in this way.
Also, has anyone got any links to what constitutes a “proper debate”? | |
| |
| New shares on 15:29 - Mar 11 with 2437 views | JumeirahDale |
If it is purely related to the ability to generate cash, then why the application for waiver of pre-emption rights? Appreciate offering to existing shareholders may take a little more time and be cumbersome from an admin perspective, but provided a time limit was placed on responses I don't see why they still shouldn't be offered, even at 6 quid. Removing the pre-emption takes away opportunity for fans to increase their shareholdings unless they can hire a lawyer and mount a purchase themselves, which for a smallholding could be prohibitive no? | | | |
| New shares on 15:31 - Mar 11 with 2427 views | DaleiLama |
If "proper debate" refers to this forum, I offer this link …………..
 | |
| |
| New shares on 15:31 - Mar 11 with 2426 views | rochdaleriddler |
I don’t understand these things, but it sounds like a prospective buyer is lurking in the wings surely? | |
| |
| New shares on 15:34 - Mar 11 with 2418 views | VivaDonaldo |
I would guess because the intention behind this whole exercise is to create room for a new investor of the size required to make big changes, not just to offer the spare cap to existing shareholders.
Once passed this would give the clubs board greater autonomy in negotiations with these third parties. Rather than have to wait to see what shareholding is taken by existing shareholders first and then seeing what room is left for the new investor? [Post edited 11 Mar 2020 15:37]
| | | |
| New shares on 15:42 - Mar 11 with 2388 views | 442Dale |
And then we are back to the “why?”
Attracting investment to sustain our business does not need to take this route exclusively.
Had enough of this excuse around this is the way the game is going. Yes we should adapt, but we need to stick to what makes Rochdale unique: spend what we can afford. We saw what happened in the last year of accounts what happens when outgoings are too much, we were told at the forum of ways this can be managed.
Why this way? Why? | |
| |
| New shares on 15:48 - Mar 11 with 2377 views | Daley_Lama |
Option 1: release 697,043 shares increasing total number of shares to 1,200,000.
Existing shares circa 42% of total shares
New shares circa 58% of total shares
To gain a 2/3 majority a single purchaser would need an additional 96K existing shares
Option 2: if option one rejected, release 397,043 shares from total 900,000
Existing shares circa 56% of total shares
New shares circa 44% of total shares
To gain a 2/3 majority a single purchaser would need an additional 198K existing shares.
Please note: If either resolution is passed, existing shareholders lose the right of first refusal or approval of whom the shares are sold to. Equally the price of £6 is nominal.
Glass half full: These will be made available for everybody to invest in a family club
Glass half empty: These will be sold to a single buyer with the intention of total ownership at a markedly different price to £6
“ This does not set a price for the sale of shares by existing Shareholders who can transfer shares to another person at a price they agree between themselves, as long as the proper transfer procedures are followed”
Glass half full: Cash in chaps - £6 a share
Glass half empty: I doubt the above is for the benefit of Sid and Doris Bonkers and their 50 shares [Post edited 11 Mar 2020 16:01]
| |
| |
| New shares on 15:53 - Mar 11 with 2343 views | D_Alien |
One reason why, is that by establishing a relationship with an external party with the ability to invest at the level required, would also offer an outlet for the future sale of blocks of shares held by existing major shareholders should they decide enough is enough
I'm not saying that's anything like the primary motivation, but it does offer that prospect, and there's nothing in the statement released today which contradicts it | |
| |
| New shares on 15:54 - Mar 11 with 2339 views | VivaDonaldo |
I would think this is less about getting money just to keep the day to day running of the club going and more about "big" projects. Things like a training ground, redevelopment of the stadium, stuff that requires large amount of capital.
More of a boost to give us the infrastructure needed to truly stay at this level. | | | |
| New shares on 16:05 - Mar 11 with 2293 views | Daley_Lama |
Man U
Newcastle
Luke
Smallest squad in years
No pitch relay in Jan
If Dale are not in the best capital position for a long time this season then one would question why.* | |
| |
| New shares on 16:10 - Mar 11 with 2266 views | DaleiLama |
New proper pitch relay in May though, costing £xxx,xxx? | |
| |
| New shares on 16:13 - Mar 11 with 2254 views | Daley_Lama |
Probably less than £4,182,258. | |
| |
| New shares on 16:19 - Mar 11 with 2238 views | VivaDonaldo |
Understand what you're saying re:good capital position.
No pitch relay in Jan but already we're committed to a significant capital spend on the new pitch and drainage etc in the summer (as well as potentially having to cover the outlay for Hornets playing elsewhere for that period too).
To get the kind of facilities we're talking about it'd need a big chunk of cash, most likely beyond what we've earned this year.
I can see the benefits though, improved training facilities would allow us to potentially attract better players, both senior and youth. Would upgrade the academy grading and by the same virtue up the grant we'd get for it from the FA. You'd hope we'd also improve the quality or quantity of players coming through and by extension create better saleable assets for the club too?
The main stand could also afford to be developed to allow for creating good conferencing and hosting facilities, giving crucial non-football income for the club.
All just guesswork and conjecture from me as I have no idea, but would make sense to me. | | | |
| New shares on 16:20 - Mar 11 with 2231 views | VivaDonaldo |
What's this number supposed to represent? | | | |
| New shares on 16:36 - Mar 11 with 2197 views | Daley_Lama |
You are a glass half full type Viva, no complaints from me for that.
I’m a glass half empty type and most things you mention happened down the road before the increased operating costs (better players/expensive training facilities etc came crashing down.
To paint a picture of what could pass if either of these resolutions are passed.
Circa 700k unsold(300K made up) shares are proposed to be sold at whatever price the board choose to whoever they want at whatever price they want with no power to stop by existing shareholders once passed. They could for example be sold at £0.01p
Existing shareholders (e.g) board members can negotiate privately whatever individual price they want for their shares. They could for example sell £100K shares at £20 each. No other shareholder would have this option or be party to it.
This would allow a single buyer to gain total control of the club for £2.000070M with those selling their shares walking away with £2M and nobody could do a thing about it and only £7K invested in the club.
The resolution categorically states existing shareholders would have no rights once passed. This is very similar to share moves by Stewart Day at Bury. [Post edited 11 Mar 2020 16:41]
| |
| |
| New shares on 16:37 - Mar 11 with 2195 views | Daley_Lama |
697043 shares at £6 | |
| |
| New shares on 17:01 - Mar 11 with 2149 views | 100notout |
"Circa 700k unsold(300K made up) shares are proposed to be sold at whatever price the board choose to whoever they want at whatever price they want with no power to stop by existing shareholders once passed. They could for example be sold at £0.01p"
As I understand it the resolution includes a minimum price of £6 so don't think this could happen | |
| |
| New shares on 17:05 - Mar 11 with 2136 views | VivaDonaldo |
I can appreciate some people showing caution, particularly with recent examples down the road.
But I believe we're a very different prospect and project to what they were when SD1 took over.
Time will tell, but the board would have to collectively agree that the new investor, investment, price being paid and amount of shares being sold all fitted with their vision for the club.
Suppose it comes down to a question of trust in their decision making and I understand that elements of the fanbase have trouble giving that to them.
I'm generally quite a positive person and from what I've seen from the board, in their capacity of their positions at the club, I'm happy to follow their lead. | | | |
| New shares on 17:09 - Mar 11 with 2122 views | Daley_Lama |
“If authorisation is granted at the EGM, the Club will look to set the share price at a minimum of £6.”
“Will look to” is not a legal guarantee and reads as after the EGM i.e. not a condition of the resolution. [Post edited 11 Mar 2020 17:10]
| |
| |
| New shares on 17:38 - Mar 11 with 2061 views | 100notout |
The resolution is worded differently | |
| |
| New shares on 17:41 - Mar 11 with 2052 views | Daley_Lama |
Fairy nufski | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
