| New shares 19:46 - Mar 7 with 32844 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 18:24 - Mar 12 with 2669 views | James1980 |
| New shares on 07:23 - Mar 12 by fitzochris |
We need our own training facility. Every manager and player I’ve ever spoken to who has represented our club has said the same. I’m not going to debate that. We need one.
What I will debate is how we go about getting one. I’ve said on another thread, I’d need some convincing as to why anybody without Rochdale AFC in their blood would invest in us for football reasons. A Dale fan is the only person who wouldn’t expect a return on their investment other than progress on the pitch - and that would be marginal, given the sum we are talking here.
So again, what’s in it for anybody else that a bit of sponsorship wouldn’t provide for?
I’m not knocking anything yet, by the way, but I want to be convinced.
We’ve seen it happen. Clubs let someone in for a quick cash injection. They then begin to borrow from the individual and the debt becomes the club’s. That usually then only goes one way. |
By return I did not necessarily mean financial dividends. But the outleigh would be worth it in terms of league position, player development, prevention of injuries. |  |
| |
| New shares on 13:45 - Mar 13 with 2390 views | JPSDale |
| New shares on 00:24 - Mar 10 by 100notout |
A few observations from me, some of which differ from those above .......
In simple terms, my understanding is ............
Res 1 - abolish the upper limit of shares available to purchase (currently 900,000)
Res 2 - allow the allotment of up to 697,043 shares (taking total share issued to 1.2m)
Res 3 - if res 1 rejected, allow the allotment of up to 397,043 (total shares issued 900k)
Res 4 - remove pre-emption rights for existing shareholders
so a couple of scenarios .......
Res 1 and Res 2 are passed - new investor(s) could have a majority stake in the club of 58% for a minimum cost of c£4.2m (estimated net cash injection of c£4m after fees)
Res 1 rejected and Res 3 passed - new investor(s) could have a stake of 44% for a minimum cost of £2,4m say £2.3m net to the club)
Current shareholders
As previously stated, the board of directors (who are all in favour of Res 1, 2 and 4) own just under 37%
Other significant shareholders include
Dale trust - 12625
Chris Dunphy - 46010
Graham Morris - 32072
David Kilpatrick - 22397
Leods Contracts Ltd - 22500
Bill Goodwin - 12500
These 6 individuals / entities collectively own 29.5% of the current shares and will therefore have a significant say in whether any of the resolutions are passed. Collectively if they so wished they could prevent the passing of the resolutions (which I think require 75% shareholder approval).
I am a shareholder albeit with a tiny % which individually is meaningless but for what its worth, my current view is that Res 1 should be rejected and Res 3 should be approved. This would provide a welcome cash injection whilst no individual would have a majority share.
I would politely suggest the trust call a meeting of members (possibly prior to one of the forthcoming home games?) to discuss these proposals and gauge opinions before casting its vote. |
I am no accountant, and I am confused about the motives and benefits, but the list below and others detailed on this post highlight a number of "inactive shareholders" with significant stakes. The current Board are looking for people to buy shares at a much higher rate than any previous purchase. The shares were issued at £0.50 and have anecdotally risen to £2.00, so I am assuming that CD, GM, DK & BG listed below have paid a maximum of £2 but some of the older shares could have been 50p....
As they are all Dale Fans and want the best for the Club, could the Club not buy these shares back from the individuals at the purchased value each paid ( I am sure ( hope) that none of them want to profit from Dale Shares), then the Club sells those shares to a new owner at a higher price - thus generating a significant windfall for the club, refreshing the shareholding with more active significant player - meanwhile the old custodians retain their Vice Presidents status etc ( CD would need to be given one ! ) as thanks & respect for the service
There are 112,979 shares listed as held by those people - a potential profit of £4+ per share for the Club. Under current structure / shareholding this would provide for approx 30% stake in the club for an active incoming investor ( Fans only please !! )
This keeps the number of shares lower - thus 112k shares in current structure is similar to around 250k in the new one proposed
Gives an incoming Fan (investor) a stake and interest, does not dilute existing shareholders ....
just a thought | | | |
| New shares on 15:00 - Jun 5 with 2106 views | Daley_Lama |
| New shares on 16:36 - Mar 11 by 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]
|
My glass is still half empty. Part 1 of 2 complete
"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. |  |
| |
| New shares on 17:51 - Jun 5 with 1985 views | TalkingSutty |
| New shares on 15:00 - Jun 5 by Daley_Lama |
My glass is still half empty. Part 1 of 2 complete
"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. |
Something isn’t right is it but very few people are asking questions. |  | | |
| New shares on 19:08 - Jun 5 with 1922 views | 49thseason |
| New shares on 15:00 - Jun 5 by Daley_Lama |
My glass is still half empty. Part 1 of 2 complete
"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. |
100,000 shares wouldn't give someone control of the club, they would need 251,479 shares to do that ie. 50% plus 1 share. The whole of the current board only own 36.9% (185,713) and Andrew Kilpatrick owns 110,000 of those. Altman has 74,685 shares making him the second biggest shareholder. Between them (Kilpatrick and Altman) they own 36.7%. |  | | |
| New shares on 19:20 - Jun 5 with 1892 views | judd |
| New shares on 19:08 - Jun 5 by 49thseason |
100,000 shares wouldn't give someone control of the club, they would need 251,479 shares to do that ie. 50% plus 1 share. The whole of the current board only own 36.9% (185,713) and Andrew Kilpatrick owns 110,000 of those. Altman has 74,685 shares making him the second biggest shareholder. Between them (Kilpatrick and Altman) they own 36.7%. |
Hmmmm.
I wonder if other share transfers have taken place from other shareholders who have sadly passed away? |  |
| |
| New shares on 19:50 - Jun 5 with 1843 views | 49thseason |
| New shares on 19:20 - Jun 5 by judd |
Hmmmm.
I wonder if other share transfers have taken place from other shareholders who have sadly passed away? |
Entirely possible if their families knew there were people looking to buy them. I suspect Andrew Kelly and Andrew Kilpatrick are the kingpins here, if they were to side with Altman, Its just about game over and they would only be another 30k shares short of running the club. Would the guy who owns Leods Contracts and has 22500 shares be interested in pocketing £50k or £60k instead, I imagine he might. Could David Kilpatrick be persuded to part with his 22397 if the price was right? | | | |
| New shares on 19:53 - Jun 5 with 1835 views | judd |
| New shares on 19:50 - Jun 5 by 49thseason |
Entirely possible if their families knew there were people looking to buy them. I suspect Andrew Kelly and Andrew Kilpatrick are the kingpins here, if they were to side with Altman, Its just about game over and they would only be another 30k shares short of running the club. Would the guy who owns Leods Contracts and has 22500 shares be interested in pocketing £50k or £60k instead, I imagine he might. Could David Kilpatrick be persuded to part with his 22397 if the price was right? |
Good questions | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
