| Trust meetings 12:47 - Apr 3 with 33945 views | D_Alien |
The newsletter has dropped, and the plan is for three open meetings in late April / early May, but no date(s) fixed yet | |
| |  |
| Trust meetings on 08:54 - Apr 15 with 2801 views | nordenblue |
A perfectly put post TS, I don't bother as much as I've said previously with most things at the club now for various reasons, I must admit you continually make some superb points, and please never stop asking questions | | | |
| Trust meetings on 12:32 - Apr 15 with 2635 views | Hopwoodblue |
Sadly I think that will be the same for a lot of people who are starting to disconnect with the club.
As much as they have saved the club the damage they are now doing will soon become unrepairable for a lot of the older fans who have spent most of their life’s prepared to give their all in what ever way they could for RAFC. | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 12:24 - Apr 16 with 2462 views | TalkingSutty |
I managed to meet Simon Gauge in the Dale Bar yesterday and had a one on one chat with him which gave me some clarification. He was under the impression that the fans were aware that if the second batch of shares weren't sold they would have to move from a fan owned and fan run club and look for a outside investor. That was why the shareholders and Tust members, supporters, weren't informed prior to him issuing the statement regarding the search for investors. I disagreed with his explanation and suggested there was no clarity around that message at the time, certainly not at the AGM or the Trust AGM. We begged to differ on that matter.
What did become clear was the need to reimburse the Directors for their financial outlay regarding the MH shares and i think that is now their main focus. That's perfectly understandable i think and to be honest if i was in their shoes i would probably feel the same way. None of us know the personal circumstances of anybody in the Boardroom and let's be honest they've parted with a awful lot of money to save the club
So at the end of our chat i was left with a feeling that there is no ambition, energy or drive in the Boardroom to push the club forward, not as a collective anyway and somebody stepping up and taking on the challenge would come as a relief. The club is skint basically. I think the Chairman probably thinks he should have never got involved in the first place 😀
Do I have faith that they will seek out the best manager for the job and have a real good go to improve the product on the pitch next season, no i don't unfortunately. The main aim is to recoup their outlay and because of that i think we need to start looking for a new Chairman and Board of Directors. Either wait for the current incumbents to choose a new Boardroom or the fans to do it themselves. I don't think there is a appetite for the latter though to be honest.
I also think that as supporters we need to take control of the club and see if there is some way of buying back the MH shares from the Chairman and the Directors. I'd like to see Simon Gauge issue a statement putting all the cards on the table so we know what we are all working with. We are all fans together and I include those in the Boardroom in that.
This is my interpretation of our discussion and Simons might differ but I give him credit for being available in the Dale Bar. I urge any other supporters to also take the opportunity when you next see him. It also needs to be remembered that the overwhelming majority of people balloted in the Trust survey were not opposed to outside investors being sought, so I am very much in the minority on this. [Post edited 16 Apr 2023 12:33]
| | | |
| Trust meetings on 14:29 - Apr 16 with 2353 views | Shun |
Yep. The disconnect between club and fan is real and, worse still, it's growing. The inertia fans feel this season has been well documented. There was a good post from Dale_Iain on Twitter this morning about the complete lack of anger at full time yesterday. Almost as if the fans are saying to the club, 'You don't care, why should we?' | | | |
| Trust meetings on 14:33 - Apr 16 with 2347 views | Shun |
Thoroughly depressing but, as you say, it's perfectly understandable for them to want to recoup their money. And I'd probably be looking to do the same. It's a thankless task. They literally saved the club and now they face online accusations on a daily basis that they've destroyed the club. I'm no apologist for the board, as they've made a lot of mistakes in their tenure, but I really couldn't blame them if they wanted to recoup their money and then get out of the club as fast as possible.
Two great posts, TS. | | | |
| Trust meetings on 15:27 - Apr 16 with 2275 views | TalkingSutty |
Well the only way to find out any information is to go and ask it yourself. Everybody is in limbo. | | | |
| Trust meetings on 16:35 - Apr 16 with 2180 views | 49thseason |
TS, well done for asking the difficult question and credit to Simon for giving a straight answer. It seems we are where I suspected we are, with little cash at hand and Directors carrying shareholdings they wish were much smaller. I might debate with Simon the point about not selling the shares required, if I remember correctly there really wasn't much of a sales campaign or explanation as to the options available if the shares were not sold,
In all honesty we would be not much worse off if we had gone into administration when MH decided to take the board to court, but hindsight doesnt really count for much.
Now our football future is virtually certain, maybe news of where we go next onmthe ownership front might be closer, it won' t be a perfect solution, but it doesn' t need to be the ultimate solutiòn either, I think this story still might have some twists and turns. | | | |
| Trust meetings on 16:47 - Apr 16 with 2158 views | James1980 |
Why was the minimum 100 share limit set? Why were ideas like your suggestion of a signed Hendo shirt and share certificate in a frame not taken further 49th? | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 16:54 - Apr 16 with 2150 views | 442Dale |
Worth reading again. | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 16:57 - Apr 16 with 2137 views | James1980 |
Unsurprisingly I'm missing whatever mistake I have made 😳 | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 17:00 - Apr 16 with 2132 views | D_Alien |
Perhaps someone with greater insight into shareholdings than i have could explain this point, which i've raised before:
If the Chairman and Directors were looking to divest themselves of at least some of their own shares, why were new shares (450,000) put up for sale? If any Dale fans were up for buying a chunk of that 450,000, wouldn't that make the sale of currently-held shares less likely?
It's no wonder there was a lack of clarity. The way to provide that clarity would surely have been to put (some of) their own shares up for sale in the first instance, although this wouldn't have brought additional funds into the club. So did the lack of uptake of the 450,000 issuance lead to the decision to divest their own shares? | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 17:04 - Apr 16 with 2106 views | 442Dale |
No mistake on your behalf, James.
Just worth reading again for anyone who wants to follow a timeline of some of the events of the last 12 months. | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 17:18 - Apr 16 with 2082 views | James1980 |
Ah ok yes absolutely. Dare I say the timeline that has led us here goes back further than the last 12 months. | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 17:22 - Apr 16 with 2065 views | 442Dale |
It does but twelve months ago we were told “the club has a stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season.”
We are still in that season. | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 17:27 - Apr 16 with 2058 views | James1980 |
But that was before the court case which it would appear had more of a detrimental effect than had been anticipated. | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 17:48 - Apr 16 with 2029 views | judd |
Sale of new shares raises cash for the club. | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 17:58 - Apr 16 with 1986 views | D_Alien |
Yes
But it raises the further question of did the BoD decide they needed to divest some of their own shareholdings at the point where the new share issuance fell flat? Because if not, it means they didn't need to divest some of their shares beforehand (but subsequent to acquiring the MH shares)
This is in the light of the chat TS had with SG | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 18:15 - Apr 16 with 1941 views | judd |
Ah, I see.
I guess they are parallel issues. We needed to raise immediate cash for cash flow whilst more longer term the board would want to divest their MH acquisitions.
I also think any sort of investment would take quite some time to get over the line.
This board is acting as true custodians and not looking to profiteer. | |
| |
| Trust meetings on 20:13 - Apr 16 with 1828 views | dawlishdale |
Thanks for asking a difficult question TS. I am very far from sure that you were given an entirely accurate answer.
As I have said previously; I was told by two separate Main Board Directors that the clubs legal advice was that the MH shares were illegally transferred and thus, they would be ruled void. The purchases would be cancelled and the money would have to be recovered from those who benefitted.
Why then, a few months later, was there a 100% about turn by the Board resulting in them spending around £1/2m on buying these very shares from MH. I can only think that the clubs legal advisory team changed their advice for which the club should be able to claim financial recourse. Other than that, the only other plausible reason was that new information came to light suggesting that the sales to MH were in fact perfectly legal,
This money used to purchase MH's shares was money that could have been used for team building or payment of bills . Instead it went to a third party with no connection whatsoever to RAFC resulting in us becoming extremely cash poor and not able to compete even at the foot of L2.
Furthermore; regarding the second share issue; I too saw absolutely nothing from the club, the Board or indeed the Chairman telling supporters that if the shares did not sell then the club would be put up for sale. I may have missed this announcement, but it should have been a huge local news headline .
I find it quite offensive as someone who purchased a few thousand £'s of shares not long before, because whilst the Directors would no doubt be able to sell their own shares to an outside investor (at a profit should the asking price be met) the rank & file shareholders would all lose out.
I also find it incredible that the Trust did not raise this matter in public (after all they are the largest single shareholder, and all Trust members are in effect also shareholders)
The timing of the second share issue could hardly have been worse. Issued without fanfare in the run up to Xmas in a poor town where there has recently been a share issue by the football club. It's also accurate to say that this share issue was announced in a time of huge economic uncertainty and a time of fast rising inflation. Honestly; I can't think of a worse time for the Board to try to raise new capital. It is thus no surprise that it failed to be fully taken up . | | | |
| Trust meetings on 20:34 - Apr 16 with 1801 views | judd |
With regards the MH issue, most, if not all, civil disputes are encouraged to go down the arbitration route, if nothing else to save on significant legal fees. You only have to look at how the donations were swallowed up.
MH paid out c. £1.2m and were happy to accept c. £0.5m.
Speaks volumes as to the type of organisation erstwhile employees and directors were prepared to get in bed with. [Post edited 16 Apr 2023 20:36]
| |
| |
| Trust meetings on 20:36 - Apr 16 with 1793 views | TalkingSutty |
I'm not sure that the money used to purchase the MH shares would have become available to help run the club. My understanding was that it more a case of Directors reluctantly digging into their own pockets, maybe taking out loans, in order to rid us of the threat fro MH. I thought that was a fantastic gesture from them at the time. I also think that was the moment when things changed and the fan owned and fan run club suddenly didn't seem such a good idea to those who had forked out over £500K of their own money. How would they ever get that money back?
The disappointment for me isn't the fact that they want to recover their outlay, it's the fact that they have chosen to just put up the shutters and expect the shareholders and fans to like it or lump it. We keep using the word 'communication' but that's what this all boils down to, a distinct lack of it at a crucial time in the clubs history. | | | |
| Trust meetings on 20:38 - Apr 16 with 1780 views | TalkingSutty |
I'm not sure that the money used to purchase the MH shares would have become available to help run the club. My understanding was that it was more a case of Directors reluctantly digging into their own pockets, maybe taking out loans, in order to rid us of the threat from MH. I thought that was a fantastic gesture from them at the time. I also think that was the moment when things changed and the fan owned and fan run club suddenly didn't seem such a good idea to those who had forked out over £500K of their own money. How would they ever get that money back?
The disappointment for me isn't the fact that they want to recover their outlay, it's the fact that they have chosen to just put up the shutters and expect the shareholders and fans to like it or lump it. We keep using the word 'communication' but that's what this all boils down to, a distinct lack of it at a crucial time in the clubs history. [Post edited 16 Apr 2023 20:39]
| | | |
| Trust meetings on 20:58 - Apr 16 with 1689 views | pioneer |
I am probably missing something here but if the consortium of board members purchased the shares out of their own funds then this purchase had no implications for the ‘stable financial platform and cash reserves’.
We certainly need some answers on how that positive financial picture was turned around, and so quickly. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
