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.
Throughout the whole of this sorry sagaover the last few months although thanks to plenty of dedicated people have contributed to potentially saving our club,I fear we are far from safe regarding the future of our club. While these so called investors seem to have been stalled or even beaten with regards our club,I fear these sort of reprobates will always be circling around clubs and really while collectively they have been beaten off this time doesn't mean they wont be back.They are professional in what they do and as been see before just start again in another guise. For us it's different.In succeeding getting us relegated (of which I'm sure was managed),we now find ourselves mid table league 2,falling attendances,willing to sell our better players,and really not going anywhere. Good people are in charge,but in the long run what's in it for us. Ths.In one sense the hitmen have won in destabilising the club creating long term problems which could end up in a relegation scrap which was their ultimate aim. I hope I'm proved wrong but I feel this season is far from over both on the field and off.
0
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 19:57 - Jan 1 with 8076 views
What a load of nonsense. We won't get anywhere with attitudes like that and you sound like Bottomley desperately telling us we're not good enough with outside investment.
I see it totally differently and feel that the dedicated people who have fought off the 'investors' have also provided us with a safety net that will stop us falling further. As a supporter for well over 40 years I know that being a true Dale involves loads of patience and if it takes us a little while to climb back up to League One then so be it. What I do know is that the club will do it their way and we will be assured that we have a club that is sustainable. I feel more positive now than at any point in 2021.
3
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 21:12 - Jan 1 with 7848 views
I see it totally differently and feel that the dedicated people who have fought off the 'investors' have also provided us with a safety net that will stop us falling further. As a supporter for well over 40 years I know that being a true Dale involves loads of patience and if it takes us a little while to climb back up to League One then so be it. What I do know is that the club will do it their way and we will be assured that we have a club that is sustainable. I feel more positive now than at any point in 2021.
Well said, I feel similarly positive. The thing in particular which gives me medium term hope about Dale is the likely change in football regulation and governance, typified by the Fan Led Review and some of the community club campaigns. This will only make it harder for the parasites and predators to try to destabilise clubs that are clearly well run and acting in the interest of their community. We at Dale under current leadership absolutely epitomise what a community club is, and clearly we all hope more will be done in 2022 and beyond. If funding of lower league football starts to become weighted to reflect good governance, we potentially stand to benefit in financial terms. We can and should push the powers that be for that to happen.
In addition, to be blunt, everyone now knows that lower league clubs can be run into the ground and effectively disappear through poor ownership because it has happened to our former neighbours in high profile fashion. That means it's no longer a case of people 'crying wolf'. Sure, Dale may struggle to match the wage budgets of teams in League 2 and probably half of the National League too. But I'd rather a few years of midtable striving over being documentary fodder for millionaires any day (to pick a topical example).
3
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 23:30 - Jan 1 with 7579 views
It's worth reposting our Chairman's status report. From my point of view, I can see no reason why the OP is tinged with such pessimism when the people running the club and making decisions on our behalf can see nothing but opportunities for us going forward.
Full text below:
As the Christmas and New Year programme brings an end to an eventful and action-packed 2021 for the club, both on and off the field, and in which we celebrated 100 years since our debut of our club in the Football League, I want to provide an end of year Chairman’s update on behalf of the Board of Directors.
Like every club across the UK this is a very busy time of year and we have a full Christmas programme starting with a Boxing Day game at Carlisle United followed by two important home games — Port Vale (29thDecember 2021: 19.45 kick-off) and Mansfield Town (1st January 2022: 15.00 kick-off). We hope you will be joining us to support Robbie and our team.
Firstly, a huge thank you to all of you!
When I was appointed in June 2021, I said that I very much see my role as being the figurehead for the Board of Directors and to get everybody pulling in the same direction for Rochdale AFC. Â
The events of 1 June 2021 and Boardroom changes that led to my appointment as Chairman have been heavily documented by both mainstream media including most national newspapers. However, we end 2021 positively achieving a shift in our strategy to become a true fan owned Community Football Club, with over 500 different fan shareholders including both the Rochdale AFC Community Trust and Dale Supporters Trust who are our largest recognised shareholder. The Dale Trust represents over 1,000 fans and if you are not already a member, I would encourage you to join. Â
I have known from the first day that the football club was a diverse business that required a wide range of skills to make it successful. I did not believe this was possible with a small Board so we have spent the initial period of my tenure assembling a talented and committed Board of Directors that will represent the wide shareholder and stakeholder groups and offer the skills required to take the club forward and back to League One. We have promised that we will be focussed on our supporters, staff, sponsors and stakeholders, and we are very proud to be a sustainably run club set at the heart of the local community and our motivation is to serve that community as best as we can.
The Board of Directors has been blessed in that we have inherited a very talented, hard-working and motivated staff that is full of characters and ideas on how to take this club forward. I would like to thank them personally for the hard work and dedication that they give to the club and it is our job now to harness all of the ideas to drive the club forward.
I would like to place on record, my thanks to absolutely everyone involved in supporting the club during 2021 but particularly:
Our loyal and dedicated supporters, without whom there would be no club;Local Rochdale Community Trust and community groups who we are proud to represent and provide profile for;The playing and non-playing staff, past and present, who have represented the Club admirably during 2021, particularly in the first part of 2021 when the Club operated during the Covid-19 lockdown;Our stars of the future in the Academy and Elite Development Squads;Sponsors of the Club who support not just financially, but with their time, skills and expertise.
Our Board of Directors support the Tracy Crouch reforms to English Football
It is somewhat serendipitous timing that whilst defending against a blind and hostile takeover from a complete unknown to the football club, proposals have been formed by the UK Government which will protect English football clubs from the negative financial behaviours and consequences that have too often been seen in recent years.
Rochdale AFC is fully supportive of these proposals and all 47 recommendations made to safeguard the future of the game.We are, we believe, ahead of the curve given our fan-owned model and give full support to independent regulation, underpinned by a licensing system, which ensures that regular ‘fit and proper’ checks on owners are regularly undertaken. The club cannot comment on the ongoing EFL investigation into the events of the Summer which include such checks but are providing the EFL with their full cooperation. We would like the independent regulator to go further than the report recommends and ensure monies distributed to clubs are based on a sustainability index.
All English football clubs are key heritage assets too big and too important to their stakeholders and communities to not to have good governance and financial integrity at their core. It does not matter how rich a club is, their value to their communities are all equal and I am delighted this now seems to be recognised.
Financial update
Rochdale AFC has always been proud of its fiscal prudence and its financial integrity. Â
In the ten-year period from 2010/2011 to 2019/2020 the Club has made an average profit of £0.2m per season and has added £2.1m to its net worth of the club, bringing with it a positive economic impact to both the local community and the wider town. The financial results for the year ended 31 May 2021 are being thoroughly audited by both our external auditor and the Board of Directors and will be filed within statutory timescales, which is by the end of February 2022, and distributed to shareholders for review at the next AGM.
We are very proud to be regarded by others as a friendly, community focussed and financially well-run club. We have proved to be an economic model which delivered League One football in eight of those ten seasons between 2010/2011 and 2019/2020, and we expect that we can and will do so again.
Our financial performance for the current season is ahead of plan. Inflows have been buoyed by our FA Cup and Carabao Cup successes and a television appearance on ITV which have also seen extra commercial revenues. Cost management under the new Board of Directors has been strong and our Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) report is operating well within the expected thresholds.
The upcoming January transfer window
We are all behind manager Robbie Stockdale, Jimmy Shan and the team on and off the field. The January 2022 transfer window represents an opportunity for us to further build our playing squad and challenge for the League Two playoffs. The season has been one of consolidation and only having had three weeks from his appointment in mid-July 2021 to form a squad, Robbie and his staff have done incredibly well.
We have already extended the contract of one of our exciting young players, Abraham Odoh to Summer 2023. We continue to work on others so we attain a level of consistency at the Club and are not having wholesale changes every summer.
Naturally, we expect bids from other clubs for some of our players during January. The recent Plymouth FA Cup game saw the Club host scouts from 18 different clubs, including two English Premier League and Four Scottish Premier League clubs and, as you would expect, there is strong interest in our excellent players who we all know have significant long-term potential and value. Rochdale AFC has, for many years, developed some excellent players who have gone on to play in the Premier League.
The commitments that we have made are straightforward:
The Club has no need to sell any player in January 2022. No player will be sold by this Board of Directors until the valuation of that player is met by the buying club. That valuation includes the provision of relevant long-term performance-based payments and future sell on clauses.All transfer receipts will be reinvested directly back into the playing squad into targets identified by the manager as soon as practical following their receipt.
Finally, I wish you and those closest to you a very Happy Christmas and best wishes for a Happy, Healthy and prosperous 2022. Â
It’s going to be an exciting year with several projects under way and I hope that you will join us as frequently as you can and spread the word around the people of Rochdale and the wider area that this club is owned by the fans, for the fans.Â
There are no answers to the points you raise todfest. The club is no different to any other. The Glazers borrowed on the very assets they'd seize to be able to buy Man Utd for example. They'll never be any security in that sense. All that any fan base can do we've done in 21. It's a huge achievement, huge.
2
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 00:02 - Jan 2 with 7501 views
We've done every blessed single thing we can to widen the ownership of our club to ward off the vultures. It's off the scale success. Okay, back in League 2, no biggie and indeed so what? We've had two promotions recently and we can do it again.
2
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 02:09 - Jan 2 with 7371 views
Especially when you take into account (as Lama mentioned) our Boards new year statement. Seems to me; despite being in L2, we're in good health financially, and with the recent share issue, we're now a majority fan owned club.
The difference is the vast majority of shares are now spread over 500 shareholders. These sharks almost got 50% of the shares and hence full control by buying from just 6 shareholders that can’t happen now unless all shareholders agree.
As for the rest of your post how is this different to the time when Kilpatrick, Morris and Dunphy run the club. We sold great players and replaced them with others:
This was at a time when we had arguably the best time in our history.
The club got derailed by Andrew Kilpatrick who couldn’t be arsed and by bottemley who peddled doom and gloom while feathering his own nest.
Ive never been so positive for the future. We should be proud of the fact we have never been in administration and are now a truely community club. As fans you get out of it what you put in.
If you want to take the easy route where you sell to a ‘investor’ who will pump millions into the playing budget just for the goodness of their own heart go and watch bury!! ……. Oh hang on
[Post edited 2 Jan 2022 8:32]
5
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 09:33 - Jan 2 with 7115 views
This is indeed a gloomy outlook. You see what you look for? I see custodians of the club looking to monetise something that was always meant to be a tokenisitic heirloom. Never before have RAFC shares been seen as something of such worth in a monetary sense.
I see people changing that view and doing so without any due diligence as to where those heirlooms went.
I see things panning out very differently if it weren’t for the actions of certain individuals.
Maybe we were lucky to avoid this kind of situation up until now - but the situation occurred and was repelled.
The current incumbents allow supporters to sleep at night, safe in the knowledge they will have a club when that wake up.
Perhaps they are inexperienced and in the long term problems will arise that are beyond them, but they are trying to futureproof that right now by recruiting directors with the right skill sets.
Listen, I trusted the status quo previously. I trusted that certain individuals had the club’s best interests at heart and were doing their utmost to guide the club through an unprecedented pandemic.
I was wrong. My eyes are open now.
I know certain outsiders don’t share this view, but RAFC shares are not to be monetised. They’re a privilege, not an asset.
Why do you feel cheated? Only you can answer that question. You should, in fact, feel privileged that several Daleys have taken the time and trouble to try to help you out
I doubt it'll make any difference, since all of the above was already well-documented. But as i've posted elsewhere, we're all different
It's a good question to allow a bit of compare and contrast of the 31st May vs 31st December at Companies House. For me that might only be a 7 month period but is an actual lifetime.
FIRST TEST: QUALITY OF BOARD COMPOSITION
31st May Board: Kelly - Chairman Bottomley - CEO Grindrod Rawlinson Pockney
31st December Board: Gauge - Chairman Knight Knight Courtney Sarsfield Wormald Pockney Kelly
Just on the first pass you now have eight men of business running the club now vs five, two of them being constant. The 31st December 2021 Board has a representative of the Supporters Trust elected. More people, better ideas and better networks.
"As a Football Club operating at an elite level of professional football, we cannot compete and thrive without the injection of significant amounts of money that are not available to us in the traditional way that we have been funded throughout our history."
Our financial performance for the current season is ahead of plan. Inflows have been buoyed by our FA Cup and Carabao Cup successes and a television appearance on ITV which have also seen extra commercial revenues. Cost management under the new Board of Directors has been strong and our Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) report is operating well within the expected thresholds.
You can reasonably conclude that the new board must have, very quickly, found access to the financial capital and thinking that the old board couldn't and where they felt that the five of them "cannot compete and thrive without the injection of significant amounts of money that are not available to us."
THIRD TEST: GENERAL RECEPTION BY FANS
You only have to spend 20 minutes reading this messageboard to see that the events of 1 June 2021 and the subsequent Morton House involvement has united a fan base who are in many corners of the world.
The BBC gave us a worldwide platform with their article which is some of the best free publicity that could be achieved - and that is from a BBC the local radio station is Radio Bolton!
Remember too that not every fan posts on her but the club has become stronger from everyone pulling in the same direction. Opinions always differ but the purpose of RAFC has never been stronger.
I'm enthused by 2022.
The EFL will report and tell us what went on, who did what and then we might find out the truth.
Stockdale is tons better than BBM ever will be and we are attacking and trying to win games rather than starting every move with a backward pass.
The Community is engaging and being engaged and that is what Rochdale is really here to support.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
I’m always suspicious of occasional posters who like to drop grenades and then disappear without ever replying to the replies. Suggests an ulterior motive to me.
7
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 12:05 - Jan 2 with 6701 views
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 08:31 - Jan 2 by wozzrafc
The difference is the vast majority of shares are now spread over 500 shareholders. These sharks almost got 50% of the shares and hence full control by buying from just 6 shareholders that can’t happen now unless all shareholders agree.
As for the rest of your post how is this different to the time when Kilpatrick, Morris and Dunphy run the club. We sold great players and replaced them with others:
This was at a time when we had arguably the best time in our history.
The club got derailed by Andrew Kilpatrick who couldn’t be arsed and by bottemley who peddled doom and gloom while feathering his own nest.
Ive never been so positive for the future. We should be proud of the fact we have never been in administration and are now a truely community club. As fans you get out of it what you put in.
If you want to take the easy route where you sell to a ‘investor’ who will pump millions into the playing budget just for the goodness of their own heart go and watch bury!! ……. Oh hang on
[Post edited 2 Jan 2022 8:32]
All shareholders would not have to agree, it remains >50% of shares, or in the case of less than all shareholders voting, then 50% of shares of those voting.
It was the Trust-led efforts to get existing shareholders to vote or nominate the trust as proxy that led to the crime of the century being prevented. The same sterling effort would be required in the future, and with more shareholders the challenge would potentially be greater.
0
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 12:41 - Jan 2 with 6599 views
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 12:05 - Jan 2 by pioneer
All shareholders would not have to agree, it remains >50% of shares, or in the case of less than all shareholders voting, then 50% of shares of those voting.
It was the Trust-led efforts to get existing shareholders to vote or nominate the trust as proxy that led to the crime of the century being prevented. The same sterling effort would be required in the future, and with more shareholders the challenge would potentially be greater.
I'm not too sure about that
From what's been gathered, half the battle during the summer was tracing and then contacting shareholders, many of whom had been at least partially lost track of. Recent communications indicate the shareholder register is (and will continue to be) kept uptodate, hence half the battle is already won. Persuading at least 50% of shareholders to take on board concerns raised by the Trust regarding any potential new threats isn't a given but it's a very long way from being potentially more difficult
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 12:41 - Jan 2 by D_Alien
I'm not too sure about that
From what's been gathered, half the battle during the summer was tracing and then contacting shareholders, many of whom had been at least partially lost track of. Recent communications indicate the shareholder register is (and will continue to be) kept uptodate, hence half the battle is already won. Persuading at least 50% of shareholders to take on board concerns raised by the Trust regarding any potential new threats isn't a given but it's a very long way from being potentially more difficult
Your first point shows another trick of time and the mind DA with the rubbish that was spouted.
There was an attempt to cheat shareholders in May by permitting only the largest 50 shareholders. There is nothing in Company Law that permits this.
To take account of social distancing requirements necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, this will be held as a hybrid meeting. This means that there will be the opportunity for the physical attendance of the first 50 largest shareholders as confirmed separately.
"The government will also allow some larger performances and sporting events in indoor venues with a capacity of 1,000 people or half-full (whichever is a lower number)"
To mandate just 50 shareholders could attend in person assumed that either (a) the venue planning was poor or (b) there is a believe that the club can only hold 100 in the Ratcliffe Arms and 50 was half of that 100. The event wasn't held in the Ratcliffe in the end, it was held in the exec lounges upstairs - a smaller venue.
A bigger venue could have been procured for the meeting to allow everyone in person attendance if they wished.
Your second point is spot on.
The Trust and the fans now have a way of reaching every single shareholder mainly via the personal networks of those who worked so hard ahead of the 1 June meetings.
If you look at vote outcomes - the best predictor of future votes - it shows that:
60% voted to remove David Bottomley 53% voted to remove Graham Rawlinson
I'd imagine an even higher turnout next time as those votes were before the events of Morton House, which seemingly have polarised everyone to support the club and its long term interests and there is only the ability to form a majority by coalition.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
There was an attempt to cheat shareholders in May by permitting only the largest 50 shareholders. There is nothing in Company Law that permits this.
To take account of social distancing requirements necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, this will be held as a hybrid meeting. This means that there will be the opportunity for the physical attendance of the first 50 largest shareholders as confirmed separately.
"The government will also allow some larger performances and sporting events in indoor venues with a capacity of 1,000 people or half-full (whichever is a lower number)"
To mandate just 50 shareholders could attend in person assumed that either (a) the venue planning was poor or (b) there is a believe that the club can only hold 100 in the Ratcliffe Arms and 50 was half of that 100. The event wasn't held in the Ratcliffe in the end, it was held in the exec lounges upstairs - a smaller venue.
A bigger venue could have been procured for the meeting to allow everyone in person attendance if they wished.
Your second point is spot on.
The Trust and the fans now have a way of reaching every single shareholder mainly via the personal networks of those who worked so hard ahead of the 1 June meetings.
If you look at vote outcomes - the best predictor of future votes - it shows that:
60% voted to remove David Bottomley 53% voted to remove Graham Rawlinson
I'd imagine an even higher turnout next time as those votes were before the events of Morton House, which seemingly have polarised everyone to support the club and its long term interests and there is only the ability to form a majority by coalition.
It wasn't a "trick of time and mind" with regard to the accounts of the difficulties of tracing and contacting shareholders i received from those who (thank goodness) tasked themselves with doing so, for all our benefits
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 14:56 - Jan 2 by D_Alien
It wasn't a "trick of time and mind" with regard to the accounts of the difficulties of tracing and contacting shareholders i received from those who (thank goodness) tasked themselves with doing so, for all our benefits
Were they "spouting rubbish" ?
It was six months ago, not several decades
[Post edited 2 Jan 2022 15:00]
The "trick of time and the mind" comment wasn't aimed at you DA.
My reference is that many seem to have forgotten that the AGM was limited to 50 in person.
To your exact point - if all the shareholders who had been eligible to attend in person had wanted to, the were being precluded from doing so by the venue choice.
50 attendees (plus the Board) would have seen circa 280 shareholders not present.
We didn't question it at the time but who made the decision on the limit of 50? And why?
50 shareholders deciding on the EGM motions would have been perhaps, more "convenient".
Given the current shareholder interests the next AGM might need the Town Hall!
[Post edited 2 Jan 2022 15:08]
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 15:06 - Jan 2 by RAFCBLUE
The "trick of time and the mind" comment wasn't aimed at you DA.
My reference is that many seem to have forgotten that the AGM was limited to 50 in person.
To your exact point - if all the shareholders who had been eligible to attend in person had wanted to, the were being precluded from doing so by the venue choice.
50 attendees (plus the Board) would have seen circa 280 shareholders not present.
We didn't question it at the time but who made the decision on the limit of 50? And why?
50 shareholders deciding on the EGM motions would have been perhaps, more "convenient".
Given the current shareholder interests the next AGM might need the Town Hall!
[Post edited 2 Jan 2022 15:08]
Thanks for the clarification, your wording very much suggested it was a trick of memory on my part
I do sometimes conflate events on the pitch from years gone by!
The split AGM would have had no legal standing had it gone ahead. The temporary ability to hold virtual AGMs made under initial Covid restrictions was withdrawn a few weeks before the date of the Rochdale AGM. In the event that they had attempted to run a part- virtual AGM, I and others were prepared to go legal to get any resulting decision annulled on the basis of being A) no longer a legal form of meeting for an AGM and B) it discriminated against shareholders with smaller holdings from being able to voice their opinions in the same forum as those with larger shareholdings. Remembering that each shareholder has 1 vote ( show of hands) unless a board member requests that a count of shareholdings be made. When first announced, the format was a naked attempt to fix the AGM by the CEO and a compliant board. Fortunately, come the day, the idea had been dropped but it points to the duplicitous nature of what they attempted to do.
0
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 19:48 - Jan 2 with 5822 views
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 19:01 - Jan 2 by 49thseason
The split AGM would have had no legal standing had it gone ahead. The temporary ability to hold virtual AGMs made under initial Covid restrictions was withdrawn a few weeks before the date of the Rochdale AGM. In the event that they had attempted to run a part- virtual AGM, I and others were prepared to go legal to get any resulting decision annulled on the basis of being A) no longer a legal form of meeting for an AGM and B) it discriminated against shareholders with smaller holdings from being able to voice their opinions in the same forum as those with larger shareholdings. Remembering that each shareholder has 1 vote ( show of hands) unless a board member requests that a count of shareholdings be made. When first announced, the format was a naked attempt to fix the AGM by the CEO and a compliant board. Fortunately, come the day, the idea had been dropped but it points to the duplicitous nature of what they attempted to do.
I think the way the poll vote was.decided upon was, in itself, incorrect.
From memory a vote is taken on a showing hands unless a poll vote is requested AT THE MEETING and has the support of 5 members at the meeting.
The poll vote decisions taken at an earlier board meeting and we have no independent witness to who voted for it and were they actually shareholders.
This decision was challenged at the meeting and from memory the solicitor appeared to dodge the request to refer to a copy of the articles.
There was also an accusation made by a serving director, I believe, that the Trust was visiting shareholders "with menaces".
0
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 20:10 - Jan 2 with 5752 views
Why do I feel cheated ?. on 19:48 - Jan 2 by Ed_Ingley
I think the way the poll vote was.decided upon was, in itself, incorrect.
From memory a vote is taken on a showing hands unless a poll vote is requested AT THE MEETING and has the support of 5 members at the meeting.
The poll vote decisions taken at an earlier board meeting and we have no independent witness to who voted for it and were they actually shareholders.
This decision was challenged at the meeting and from memory the solicitor appeared to dodge the request to refer to a copy of the articles.
There was also an accusation made by a serving director, I believe, that the Trust was visiting shareholders "with menaces".
I agree with you that the whole set-up appeared wrong. I remember one poster on her noting that one of the ballot papers was worded in such a way that both options gave the same result!
But in the end, I don't think it really mattered in the end.
The standard AGM resolutions were passed without issue or fuss.
The EGM resolutions on the possibility of investment were withdrawn in a climbdown on the night by the then Board, as they would have been voted down by shareholders.
The EGM resolutions on removing Bottomley and Rawlinson removed them. On a show of hands basis it might have been a bigger margin.
The big surprise was that Bottomley did not command the majority of the larger shareholders some or all of whom must have voted for removing him or abstained.
A few weeks later some of those large shareholders allegedly did deals with Morton House that broke all of the EFL rules and in an environment where there was to be no blind takeover of the club.
Next Summer's AGM will be well attended IMO by a mass of supporter shareholders who all have the club's best interests at heart.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
