| EGM on 22:20 - Jul 25 with 2852 views | D_Alien |
No email as yet
Surely they're not being sent out individually, as in "one by one" ?? | |
|  |
| EGM on 22:26 - Jul 25 with 2807 views | 49thseason |
Until we start generating more money off the oitch we are just kicking the can down the road. The fanbase is seemingly shrinking, only decent home results will fix that, but I maintain a new Gold Bond and similar enterprises will build the sort of revenue the club needs to start climbing out of this desperate situation, 2000 ( maybe less now) fans alone simply cannot support professional football financially. | | | |
| EGM on 22:33 - Jul 25 with 2763 views | EllDale |
Slashing some of that alleged high staffing level wouldn’t be a bad start either. | | | |
| EGM on 22:53 - Jul 25 with 2691 views | James1980 |
As far as some are concerned the chairman is a pariah I can't imagine laying people off would do a great deal to improve his reputation with those who view him in such a way. | |
| |
| EGM on 23:03 - Jul 25 with 2671 views | SuddenLad |
Be that as it may, if the staffing levels need addressing, then the Chairman will have some difficult but crucial decisions to make. He can't shy away from it. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| EGM on 23:08 - Jul 25 with 2649 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
Yes, it's basically a Bridging Loan till one or two things happen, a bit "open ended" but gives them a bit of security/comfort that all their money will not be lost.
Makes a bit of sense? | | | |
| EGM on 23:25 - Jul 25 with 2604 views | SuddenLad |
Having thought about it - hypothetically, we could well now be in a situation where there are prospective investors, but any deal may take (say) 6 months to finalise. As there are probably insufficient funds to last us 6 months, this would cover the relevant period until completion took place and then the two Directors could be reimbursed.
That's my take on it, but there could be other possibilities. In the above scenario, the latest proposal seems to be a reasonable request, but of course there's no guarantee that any negotiations with interested parties will reach fruition. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| EGM on 23:45 - Jul 25 with 2571 views | SalwaDale |
I didn't but have got all the previous ones from the club. Surely they use YAMM, Mailchimp or something similar rather than sending out bulk emails. | |
| |
| EGM on 00:03 - Jul 26 with 2546 views | RespectTheChemistry |
This is a very telling timeline. Thank you for compiling it. | | | |
| EGM on 06:32 - Jul 26 with 2408 views | NigelWatson |
Time is revealing. | | | |
| EGM on 06:33 - Jul 26 with 2408 views | NigelWatson |
Lots of money to be made from property development. | | | |
| EGM on 06:42 - Jul 26 with 2391 views | NigelWatson |
People are defined by their actions; and human action is purposeful behaviour. | | | |
| EGM on 06:42 - Jul 26 with 2393 views | James1980 |
So you knew this was going to happen all along did you? | |
| |
| EGM on 06:43 - Jul 26 with 2389 views | NigelWatson |
Good question | | | |
| EGM on 06:43 - Jul 26 with 2394 views | pioneer |
So shareholders have received the formal notification of the time and place of the EGM together with the formal motion and the proxy form. No attempt has been made to inform shareholders about the issues at hand and the reasons for the proposed arrangements for a loan.
Will the Trust be taking a position on this? It would be helpful to know before deciding on my proxy.
Its a bit of a gun to the head proposal that they appear to be trying to rush through. We havent had a detailed financial update, nor any sense of how season ticket sales are going.
I find the tone of some of the comments a bit arrogant and condescending in places. And Knight switches from fans to shareholders continually. We are a shareholder owned club and fans without shares are not being consulted.
The reason the shares didn't sell is that they were overpriced. Gauge and Knight paid the inflated price to avoid legal action. That premium was no longer relevant once the threat of legal disappeared. Maybe if they reduced the price to the level previously used they might get the sales required to generate the money needed.
I also see this as a potential slippery slope where future owners take this as a precedent and seek to secure their investment in the club through the same means. Lets be clear…..the fans who did invest their money in the club through share purchases, and those who didnt but invest funds in the club. through season cards, merchandise etc have no security on their investment.
The sooner we can get new leadership at the club the better. | | | |
| EGM on 06:46 - Jul 26 with 2386 views | NigelWatson |
But that might involve sacking friends and relatives. | | | |
| EGM on 07:05 - Jul 26 with 2369 views | ThreeLions |
Oh here he is | | | |
| EGM on 07:17 - Jul 26 with 2358 views | HullDale |
@Pioneer (avoiding quoting your reply to stop the page becoming miles long!)
I don't think they can sell the shares at less than £2.35 - I'm almost certain the EGM where the new shared were created had a caveat along the lines of 'won't be sold at a value less than £2.35'.
Reducing the price to a level that matches their current actual value might drive some
more subscriptions - but I'd hazard a guess fans who wanted to chuck a few hundred quid at shares would do whether they were £1.75 / £2 / £2.35... it'd be more goodwill than anything else. It would, though, potentially make it a more attractive proposition to outside investors. | | | |
| EGM on 08:03 - Jul 26 with 2263 views | scarrow |
Unless I'm mistaken Marketing dept was 3 now 1
Media was 3 now 2
Less directors
etc etc | |
| |
| EGM on 08:19 - Jul 26 with 2240 views | James1980 |
What viable alternatives are there to this proposal? | |
| |
| EGM on 08:25 - Jul 26 with 2233 views | 442Dale |
Until we are more aware of the overall picture, it’s impossible to say.
It is staggering that, as we stand, there are so many unanswered questions with no visible route to have them answered before a planned EGM vote.
It is on both the club and the Trust to ensure that situation is addressed as soon as possible. There are two weeks and counting. | |
| |
| EGM on 08:31 - Jul 26 with 2227 views | HullDale |
I don't think its possible to know, James, as we don't know the size of the funding gap and/or loan.
Is it £25K? In which case that could be raised relatively easily without the need for a loan secured against the ground?
Is it £1m? In which case that isn't easily raised and this offer of a loan makes sense in a life or death of the club scenario.
Nobody has been given this information, so at this time any votes / proxy votes are based on best guesses, hear say and assumptions. Its vital that this is heavily questioned, debated and understood at the fans forum so educated votes can be cast the following week.
One other question I think the Trust need to answer, too... has Simon Gauge coming out and saying that funds from this sale of the pitch would be used to pay directors back jeopardised the apparent bit for funds? Is there a set of regulation around successful bids that ringfence / dictate what the money should be used for? [Post edited 26 Jul 2023 8:44]
| | | |
| EGM on 09:11 - Jul 26 with 2142 views | electricblue |
It as to be done.....
Anyway who is responsible for employing that amount of staffing levels over the years... | |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| EGM on 09:48 - Jul 26 with 2939 views | wozzrafc |
There is a fans forum a week before. Questions should be asked there.
I think instead of wild speculation. Reasonable questions should be asked and the BoD should be able to put a case forward.
Then and only then should you make a reasonable and informed decision.
We need proper coverage for those who can’t attend.
The forum now has to focus on this issue imho [Post edited 26 Jul 2023 9:52]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
