| vs Gateshead - match thread 20:07 - Oct 24 with 33965 views | RAFCBLUE |
Pitch looks ok.
1-0 up
And we still have idiots with smoke bombs. | |
| |  |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 10:57 - Oct 25 with 1951 views | EllGazzell |
"Most of those 500 investors have invested all their life's into this club, something that the Chairman will never be able to understand which is a shame."
are you for real?
Let's be clear: The Chairman is doing a piss poor job currently - running a football club is clearly not his skill set; but to suggest he's not a 'true fan', after initially investing £££ to save the club from MH and then recently offering up to borrow in his name, is way off the mark and tells me that you're grinding your axe, and downright insulting.
Back in the day, I dressed up as Desmond the Dragon and went down into the town centre, giving tickets away and trying to drum up new fans - I suppose that makes me a 'better' supporter than you does it? I'd say not, but your logic says yes.
YES the club is desperate for better leadership, YES we are sliding into deeper shit, but jumping up and down shouting "fan-owned, fan-owned" and slagging the current leadership is not going to retard or reverse that slide.
Unless lots of fans are gonna pony up a fair chunk of wedge, then fan-owned is either a pipe dream, or RAFC playing several levels lower down the pyramid than currently. [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 11:04]
| |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:00 - Oct 25 with 1934 views | AtThePeake |
But we weren't privvy to the financial situation of the club at the time and clearly from a fan perspective thought there was more money available for transfer business than was the case. We didn't realise what a risk it was.
How have we gone out and spent transfer fees on three players, given Stockdale an increased budget in the following transfer window after that and then within a few more months ended up in such dire straits financially? That money should never have been spent if there was a chance it was going to lead us into this situation. We didn't know that was a possibility but surely it's up the board to know and understand the risks they're taking with transfer fees? | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:02 - Oct 25 with 1921 views | AtThePeake |
Why several? How were Chester able to compete for promotion in the league below us last season as a fan-owned club with a smaller average attendance than ours? | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:07 - Oct 25 with 1892 views | EllGazzell |
Because they came at it from a clean slate - they were wound up on 10 March 2010, from which the fans took over. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:09 - Oct 25 with 1873 views | 442Dale |
And let’s not forget what we were all told at the end of the season after signing Ball/Campbell/Charman and ahead of Stockdale signing players for the following campaign:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2022/april/chairmanmessageseasoncards_22-23/
“ the club has a stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season. We have returned during 2021/22 to being a properly and prudently run football club…”
“…we seek to achieve break even or better financial result in each operating season.”
“The Board is planning for a significantly increased playing budget for next season.” | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:11 - Oct 25 with 1860 views | James1980 |
I suppose at this/that level any signing has an element of risk. I guess the board thought the signings would maintain our league two status and then with additional signings lead to the return to league one which was worth the gamble. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:12 - Oct 25 with 1857 views | 442Dale |
Did we not have a ‘clean slate’ after being told the club had a “stable financial platform”? [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 11:15]
| |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:12 - Oct 25 with 1858 views | fitzochris |
Not sure why you’re using me as an exemplar of general opinion at the time, James. That was my own personal opinion and, given the positions we needed, the players brought in fit the bill on paper. Ball was described as a box-to-box midfielder, which we found out through experience he wasn’t.
That aside, the board backed the manager that window but none of us knew the precise financial state of the club. A communication around that time led us to believe finances were okay.
The fact it turned out to be square pegs for round holes ultimately, is down to the management of the time rather than the board. The question is, should the board have backed the manager if the finances were so parlous? Who knows? I do wonder how much better McNulty would fare with that same level of backing, though. He has spoken openly about his structured approach to recruitment, hinting that previous managements were a little more haphazard in this regard. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:17 - Oct 25 with 1836 views | AtThePeake |
So what's the alternative? At the Fan's Forum, Simon Gauge and Richard Knight said that the loan they're willing to put into the club would max out their investment and be the last money they're willing to put in anyway, so to get on an even keel we're going to be playing several divisions below anyway whether its' the Trust in charge or this current board, surely? | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:17 - Oct 25 with 1830 views | surb_dale |
Its certainly true that the small squad has probably impacted some of our results although to counter that Southend are now only just below us having had a 10 point deduction and have only been able to name 3 subs in most games.
Also a lot of our games are played at a pedestrian pace and watching from the sidelines it doesn't look especially tiring for the players.
I dont understand why Oscar Kelly and/or Ehimamiegho werent on the bench last night. Cant see any harm if they were thrown on in last 10mins at the top end of the pitch to inject some energy. | | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:19 - Oct 25 with 1820 views | AtThePeake |
Gambling on signings in an attempt to win promotion at the expense of the financial stability of the club is the exact thing we have all consistently criticised other club's owners for. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:19 - Oct 25 with 1815 views | EllGazzell |
Not in terms of the shareholding no.
The current 'fans group' who own Dale have a 13.5% percentage control according to this:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/april/notification-of-available-shares--
That needs to be addressed 1st and foremost if 'fan-owned' is to have legs.
Please don't get me wrong: I'm all for it - Rochdale's Cooperative history, Rochdale principles (pioneers) etc., but unfortunately, it's gonna either take many fans buying up shares/giving money to the Trust to buy or current major investors relinquishing their shares and taking a financial hit/writing off a substantial amount of money. [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 11:22]
| |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:21 - Oct 25 with 1807 views | AtThePeake |
Fair points - but worth noting that Southend have actually used 21 players this season! | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:22 - Oct 25 with 1804 views | Plattyswrinklynuts |
Let’s try to blag something at Hartlepool (I’d snap your hand off for a point right now) then give the lads a few days off … a re set & some fresher legs before the Wealdstone game & let’s see how we go… | | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:24 - Oct 25 with 1791 views | TalkingSutty |
Spot on that, something that we all as fans need to remember. It's the reason why a mid table finish would represent a really good effort by everybody involved. We actually have the nucleus of a good team when everybody is fit, with a few more quality additions i think BJ could have possibly attained a play off position. Its a shame. [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 11:49]
| | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:26 - Oct 25 with 1783 views | AtThePeake |
People are aware of this though and are suggesting that it's time for the Trust to start making those moves to try buying some of those shares, asking for share donations/money donations from fans and devising and communicating a clear plan to try and increase the shareholding to take over. That needs to happen first and foremost - nobody is expecting somebody to click their fingers and the Trust to suddenly have control. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:32 - Oct 25 with 1764 views | James1980 |
Because I respect your knowledge and wisdom on footballing matters but iirc there was an air of excitement about capturing the signatures' of Ball, Charman and Campbell, with them even being seen as investments for the future.
I think I've misunderstood the criticism of the signings. It isn't the players themselves people have an issue with, the club weren't to know they wouldn't live up to expectations, it is the money was spent in the first place. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:33 - Oct 25 with 1754 views | 442Dale |
We were also shouting from the roof tops about being ‘fan owned’ because there was a presumption that shareholders and supporters would be engaged with more, have visible routes to see where we stand as a club at any one time and have clear processes in place which they could utilise so they felt they had a say.
Nothing much has changed and supporters obviously have similar issues now as they have had in the past. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:42 - Oct 25 with 1717 views | TalkingSutty |
I don't think the Chairman does consider the amount of money that life long fans contribute towards the club over a life time. Investment doesn't just come in the form of putting a lump sum down to buy shares and even then its all relative to how much money you have in the first place, a thousand pounds is a fortune to many but a drop in the ocean to some. If the Chairman was invested emotionally in the club then he would be on the same page as the supporters and the Trust, shareholders etc. He would be bending over backwards to include the Trust in everything and we wouldn't be constantly having to take questions to him as though he's the bloody Prime Minister. It's like he's doing everybody a favour just by allowing them a audience to speak to him, so yes I do question if he's as emotionally invested as we are. To glibly mention the word liquidation and then fail to put any meat on the bones regarding finances etc isn't good enough, he represents the shareholders and is answerable to them whether he likes it or not.
I remember that particular dragon, it was carrying some timber. [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 11:57]
| | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:44 - Oct 25 with 1705 views | EllGazzell |
I think the current board were all in for 'fan-owned' up until the really low take-up of shares ?last year?. I think reality kicked in for them and they recognised no amount of patience or jumping is gonna solve it and decided to seek "outside investment" | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:46 - Oct 25 with 1694 views | EllGazzell |
I agree with everything you say about the running of the club etc. I just think you're being totally unfair claiming he has no "emotional investment" in Dale | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:47 - Oct 25 with 1692 views | James1980 |
Yes that is true, very true. What was the alternative though the board saying we can't afford to buy players the transfers will be free signings and loan players only. Imagine the pile on from some factions of the fan base had that been the case. Yes I'm aware I've gone to an extreme. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:52 - Oct 25 with 1675 views | fitzochris |
I appreciate that James, but I am as fallible as the next fan when it comes to getting caught up in the excitement of signings.
For what it's worth, on paper, that window was a success solely on the basis that every position that needed to be strengthened had been filed with a player that looked ready to hit the ground running. The fact we paid money for a few of them also hinted at their potential ability. I can't remember a previous window where we achieved every target.
Thereafter, two separate issues are raised. The board cannot be blamed for the fact these players didn't cut the mustard. They were advised by the management at the time and they backed that management, as your average football fan would expect a board to do. It's on the management that these players didn't fulfil their potential or didn't fit in with the club culture.
The other issue is, and the one that seems to be the point of the discussion on this thread, should the board have committed those finances at the time, if it is money the club couldn't afford? Again, only they will know. At the time, we were informed finances were okay. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 11:53 - Oct 25 with 1669 views | AtThePeake |
You'd have to imagine that any pile-on (which in reality would've been a small faction of fans on Facebook and Twitter) would be a lot easier to handle than the current financial situation is proving to be. We've always had to rely heavily on free signings and loans in order to not put the future of the club at risk - what was different about that January? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
