By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
"A further update will follow no later than Wednesday May 10th 2023"
From the statement entitled Board response to Chris Dunphy.
From the action plan on Trust feedback:
"Q: I hope that the Trust will do everything possible to support Chris Dunphy and his colleagues in his bid to rescue the club.
A: The Trust will always act in the best interests of the Club and will consult with members before any major decision. As shown throughout the Morton House affair, when consulting with members, we will not suggest any direction when asking supporters. Along with a handful of other Dale supporters, the Trust Chair met with Chris Dunphy last weekend before the Sutton game. Whilst Chris has withdrawn his planned approach for the Club, we believe that given his years of experience at the Club can only support the Board of Directors and would urge both parties to get around the table at the earliest opportunity."
What about Roger? He was a Director and probably the highest paid employee at the club.
Just going back to Nigel's point; I wonder if the £2.35 per share that the Directors set a few months ago (when they pulled the rug from under us being a "fan owned club" and put us up for sale ), is now an overvaluation. We were a league club back then. Surely the shares are worth considerably less now?
1
Update due today latest on 10:23 - May 11 with 3935 views
I think, but am happy to be corrected if wrong, the only shares that can be sold for less than £2.35 are the ones already in private ownership (ie by the board, trust or individual shareholders).
At the EGM to create the new shares, one of the approved conditions was to create XX thousand shares to be sold at 'not less than £2.35'.
I don't know if this could be amended by another EGM or not... but the Trust have already said they have no intention to sell their shares, the current main aspiration of the board seems to be to recoup their own investment over all else, and the vast majority of shares in individual ownership will have been bought at a previous maximum of £2.
If an EGM was called to vote on reducing the price at which new shares could be sold, you'd argue it would be an effective vote of confidence in the board's current plans & approach. If there was a 'no' vote to reducing the price, that to me would also feel like a no vote to the current approach to outside investment.
[Post edited 11 May 2023 10:26]
0
Update due today latest on 10:35 - May 11 with 3914 views
He didn't have the backing from Morris/Kelly/major shareholders. Instead, the decision was made to fill the empty seats on the board, with those who make up the current board.
The whole premise of the current board was a rejection of Dunphy coming back to the club. That's not a dig at the current board, but the idea that they will all just get along and play nice is ludicrously farfetched.
But yeah, "where was Dunphy during the takeover?!". Hard to be involved when your proposal is flat out rejected.
His recent attempt was never going to have the funds, and he went about it in a completely tone-deaf way. I'd love to see him involved in some capacity, but I sincerely doubt it will happen.
The price put on the new share issue was, is and always will be an overvaluation. The boards limitations are not confined to football matters. They want new investment but at the same time want to offload their own shares at a price nobody including the trust, is willing to pay..
1
Update due today latest on 11:12 - May 11 with 3781 views
The price of a NEW share was set at a MINIMUM of £2.35 per share and was voted on by all the shareholders in an EGM. The directors cannot legally sell the remaining 375,000 NEW shares at any less than £2.35 per share without holding another EGM and getting a vote to allow them to do so.
Any shares already owned by the board or others can be sold at any price, higher or lower than £2.35, that can be agreed upon by the seller and a purchaser.
0
Update due today latest on 11:54 - May 11 with 3672 views
I doubt it'll happen, but the response of the board to such a proposal might be very insightful
The Trust rep position is due up for renewal, and i think a change would be beneficial all round, not least to Murray who's done a sterling job but would probably welcome a rest?
It should be borne in mind that the new Trust rep (should there be one) might have to deal with a very different board
What about expenses? Are trying to tell us you think Simon Guage is somehow fiddling money out of the club? If so I think you ought to find yourself a good Lawyer. If any Director has run up legitimate costs as a result of his duties, he certainly should reclaim them through the normal channel.
Has he loaned money to the club? Not as far as anyone is aware, he bought yet more shares. You clearly have some sort of nefarious agenda asking these questions on a public forum, I strongly suggest you buy some shares and then ask your questions at the next AGM and see what sort of reception they get.
4
Update due today latest on 12:24 - May 11 with 3566 views
I am asking questions. That's allowed. People are also allowed to claim expenses, but if that was the case, I would expect more information on these sorts of issues to be in the public domain, especially in a so-called 'fan-owned' club.
Time is also revealing. It's just the way of the world, so the answers to my questions will become known in the long-run.
[Post edited 11 May 2023 13:38]
0
Update due today latest on 17:03 - May 11 with 3153 views
No point engaging with him, 49th. Everything is a conspiracy in his world and he simply can’t accept other people’s opinions. He’s proven that in the last few months with his bizarre assumption that he knows more about everything than everybody ever.
[Post edited 11 May 2023 17:04]
“He was deliberately misleading the EFL”
1
Update due today latest on 17:17 - May 11 with 3093 views
Nigel, I believe that your primary objective is the stir the preverbal shite however, if I'm correct in thinking what your referring to then you may have a valid point, had the B of D already made pervious plans to seek outside investment whilst continuing to lead supporters on into believing that Rochdale AFC would remain a "Fan Owned" Club ?
0
Update due today latest on 23:47 - May 12 with 1554 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
