| EGM on 17:50 - Jul 25 with 3225 views | HullDale |
| EGM on 17:42 - Jul 25 by NorthernDale |
I think they are being honest in their response to fans concern and I can understand in the summer, the income to the club may be limited, so a bit of money in the bank may be useful.
The questions, that I would like answered are;
1. How much are they looking to borrow, if the ground is worth £3 million?
2. What guarantee do we have that they will not sell the ground without the fans approval and will the 'Morris' rule will remain place. It is essential that the ground remains a community asset.
3. Have they sought or looked at other options for loans, i.e the council for example. The council could take part or 1/3 rd ownership of the ground as part of a community asset.
4. What is the long-term business plan going forward in terms of finances and ambitions on the field.
Hopefully we can get the trust to gain more information from the board. Yes, I can understand their frustrations that the fans have not purchased more shares, but when there is a cost of living crisis, some fans may wish to buy more shares in the future, but sadly cannot at the moment. How they could have produced the letter before asking for the EGM. |
Q5 - what are the terms of the loan? Is there any interest payable, and if so is it at a rate above current market interest rates for savings? |  | |  |
| EGM on 17:53 - Jul 25 with 3213 views | SalwaDale |
| EGM on 17:37 - Jul 25 by TalkingSutty |
Investment doesn't always have to be in the form of a lump sum. What about paying £25k to join the board and they all work together with Dunphy pulling the strings as Chairman and bringing in his associates to help. I would suggest just appointing Dunphy would have generated a lump sum from season ticket sales and probably sponsorship. It would mean them all working together for the good of the club and Gauge letting the former Chairman make the decisions, something that he clearly didn't want to do. Anyway, nothing was explored and the ship has sailled but Gauge and Knight now complaining about tyre kickers is a bit rich. |
This isn't a dig at your post. The possibility of CD coming back seems currently dead in the water. If you are suggesting a no vote, what is the likely outcome of that when compared to a yes vote. Seems to me that the shareholders currently stuck between a rock and a hard place. [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 17:54]
|  |
| |
| EGM on 17:57 - Jul 25 with 3192 views | Newbury_Dale |
The comments beneath this afternoons Tweet made me laugh. You've got a handful of professional trolls complaining about the tone of Richard Knights statement. Oh the irony. |  | | |
| EGM on 18:01 - Jul 25 with 3176 views | HullDale |
Hopefully the shareholder email (due in the next 30 minutes) provides even more clarity.
From yesterday's announcement:
"Shareholders who have registered their email address with the club will be contacted directly within the next 24 hours with the relevant paperwork. For those shareholders who have not registered their email address with the club, the relevant paperwork will be posted out within the next 24 hours." | | | |
| EGM on 18:04 - Jul 25 with 3154 views | EllGazzell |
"If we followed the same principle, we would be coming to you the fans for the money, or moreover the Shareholders. Can you imagine the uproar if we asked each shareholder for £1 for each of the shares they owned? Now that wouldn’t be for just this year, but next year and the year after, ad infinitum. There has been no appetite from the fan base to buy the remaining shares that were issued, and despite there almost certainly being some wealthier individuals than myself within the fan base, they for their own personal reasons have decided to keep their money in their bank accounts, as is their right."
That there summarises why being a 'fan-owned club', unfortunately, will also mean being a club a few more rungs down the football pyramid. It is just not sustainable in the modern game with the amount of money required.
It is gonna come to a point of 'having a shit or getting off the pot' when it comes to investment. If people bury their heads in the sand, the Lingchi death of professional RAFC we are witnessing will become irreversible.
The comms are absolutely pants and the optics are bobbins but, for all their shortcomings, IMHO, this board is RAFC's last chance saloon in terms of professional or league football. If they can't navigate the club to a sale to an investor or fans/shareholders aren't going to put money in recursively, then the horizon is bleak. |  |
| |
| EGM on 18:06 - Jul 25 with 3144 views | IOMDale |
Without the explanation, it’d have been a solid no from me. That statement - which should have been issued along with the EGM announcement - allays any fears I had. To me, it sounds like the loan would allow the board perhaps another six months to a year’s grace as they search for a suitable investor. It’s certainly something we can’t rush into. |  | | |
| EGM on 18:12 - Jul 25 with 3100 views | TalkingSutty |
| EGM on 17:53 - Jul 25 by SalwaDale |
This isn't a dig at your post. The possibility of CD coming back seems currently dead in the water. If you are suggesting a no vote, what is the likely outcome of that when compared to a yes vote. Seems to me that the shareholders currently stuck between a rock and a hard place. [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 17:54]
|
I didn't suggest a no vote. I suggested that the Dunphy deal will be dead in the water. [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 18:12]
|  | | |
| EGM on 18:14 - Jul 25 with 3087 views | SalwaDale |
| EGM on 18:12 - Jul 25 by TalkingSutty |
I didn't suggest a no vote. I suggested that the Dunphy deal will be dead in the water. [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 18:12]
|
Reading between the lines I guess. Very worrying times and happy to hear any suggestions. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| EGM on 18:25 - Jul 25 with 3047 views | TalkingSutty |
| EGM on 18:14 - Jul 25 by SalwaDale |
Reading between the lines I guess. Very worrying times and happy to hear any suggestions. |
No, i didn't suggest a no vote, if you are reading between the lines you are reading it wrong.
If the motion is passed could it be conditional on greater involvement from the Trust when it comes to meeting ALL investors, maybe two or three members from the Trust committee and not just the Trust Director? Could that be approved at the EGM? The more involvement from the Trust when it comes to choosing their potential partners the better. Would Gauge and Knight agree to that and if not why not? [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 18:27]
| | | |
| EGM on 18:35 - Jul 25 with 3000 views | Will_RAFC |
Vote this down and vote them off. Gauge has failed miserably, literally couldn't have done a worse job. Incompetence is just as dangerous as malicious intent and we cant trust him with the future of the club/ground. | | | |
| EGM on 18:37 - Jul 25 with 2990 views | scooby |
One thing I’m still not clear on… how much per share are they asking for the investors to pay, and is it still part of the terms that they build a training ground?
We’re not what we were, and MH paid over the odds as it was hostile. Have we had a share valuation? Are SG and co being stubborn on the price to recoup what they out in? What lengths are they going to sell at a fair price? Asking over £2 a share for NL club that struggles to get more than 2500 home fans consistently may be a stretch too far.
If we dropped the share price, would investors be more interested?
I’d like to know this before allowing a loan. That response is a reaction to noise as they’ve gone about it the wrong way again. Doesn’t feel right to me - just how stuffed are we and is the board making it worse in the selling approach? | | | |
| EGM on 19:18 - Jul 25 with 2819 views | Shun |
| EGM on 17:06 - Jul 25 by Brierls |
I’m not sure how it can be viewed in any other way than in the best interests of the club. Unless I’m missing something.
Discussions with potential investors are no secret. The Trust were even forced to comment recently on a rumour going around town that the club was about to be sold. If that rumour didn’t originate from the club, where did it originate and with what motive?
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that some of the ‘potential investors’ are being viewed as not in the best interests of the club. Read between the lines of the statements made by SG & RK.
A (secured) directors loan, for the reasons stated, surely means the club aren’t as vulnerable to the threat of being forced to accept investment from an undesirable party out of desperation? |
I'm with you on every word of this. It was my first thought on seeing the EGM news. And, perhaps we're a naturally suspicious bunch while we're still feeling Bottomley's burns, but I do wonder why it wasn't the first thought of every other fan, too.
It's been documented numerous times that although Gauge and co. aren't suited to running a football club, they don't seem the type who would sell off the ground for personal gain. So, accepting that this statement really should've been published before the EGM announcement, and it does look like there's been an active attempt to bury the story behind other announcements, I do again wonder why their financial security wasn't the first assumption made when this story was first announced.
Two men have poured untold amounts of money into the club to save its life. If liquidation did occur I'd feel far worse for those two potentially bankrupt men and their families than I would for myself not being able to watch Dale anymore. |  | | |
| EGM on 19:34 - Jul 25 with 2764 views | D_Alien |
| EGM on 19:18 - Jul 25 by Shun |
I'm with you on every word of this. It was my first thought on seeing the EGM news. And, perhaps we're a naturally suspicious bunch while we're still feeling Bottomley's burns, but I do wonder why it wasn't the first thought of every other fan, too.
It's been documented numerous times that although Gauge and co. aren't suited to running a football club, they don't seem the type who would sell off the ground for personal gain. So, accepting that this statement really should've been published before the EGM announcement, and it does look like there's been an active attempt to bury the story behind other announcements, I do again wonder why their financial security wasn't the first assumption made when this story was first announced.
Two men have poured untold amounts of money into the club to save its life. If liquidation did occur I'd feel far worse for those two potentially bankrupt men and their families than I would for myself not being able to watch Dale anymore. |
In posting, i've referred to their financial circumstances - factored it in
But nah... show us the facts and figures of RAFC
Actually, we're still waiting... |  |
| |
| EGM on 19:40 - Jul 25 with 2735 views | SalwaDale |
| EGM on 18:25 - Jul 25 by TalkingSutty |
No, i didn't suggest a no vote, if you are reading between the lines you are reading it wrong.
If the motion is passed could it be conditional on greater involvement from the Trust when it comes to meeting ALL investors, maybe two or three members from the Trust committee and not just the Trust Director? Could that be approved at the EGM? The more involvement from the Trust when it comes to choosing their potential partners the better. Would Gauge and Knight agree to that and if not why not? [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 18:27]
|
My apologies TS. That does seem a logical suggestion but we already have trust involvement and things haven't yet improved significantly. Would further trust stuff do that? I hope so.
As far as voting intentions goes, I think a no vote would potentially be more risky than a yes. | |
| |
| EGM on 19:46 - Jul 25 with 2713 views | 442Dale |
| EGM on 19:40 - Jul 25 by SalwaDale |
My apologies TS. That does seem a logical suggestion but we already have trust involvement and things haven't yet improved significantly. Would further trust stuff do that? I hope so.
As far as voting intentions goes, I think a no vote would potentially be more risky than a yes. |
One thing we do need clarifying is the mentions of the Trust in today’s statement. The details of the community asset fund bid, the possible timescales involved and how it fits within the club’s plans. |  |
| |
| EGM on 19:54 - Jul 25 with 2661 views | kel |
| EGM on 11:58 - Jul 25 by DaleiLama |
I normally get mails from the club for all things so will post confirmation when I get something. |
Thanks, DL. I’ve since asked a couple of shareholders in the last hour if they’ve received anything as this thread was started over 24 hours ago. They’ve heard nothing either.
In hindsight, it was daft of me to assume the club would actually follow through on something they promised. |  | | |
| EGM on 19:55 - Jul 25 with 2659 views | 49thseason |
| EGM on 18:12 - Jul 25 by TalkingSutty |
I didn't suggest a no vote. I suggested that the Dunphy deal will be dead in the water. [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 18:12]
|
But it never was a "deal" was it? Dunphy and a few mates thought that £25k apiece to become Directors would put them back in charge. Hopelessly naive at best, deliberate muddying of the waters at worst. The whole episode was laughable.
In most respects the current situation is the product of decades of being run by butchers, bakers and candlestick makers,. Now, almost too late in the day, the club has brought in some professional help to find the players we need, but financially the place has been seriously lacking in investment for decades too. The marketing has been, and is, mainly shite. I would bet a pound to a penny they are trying to sell the club without a prospectus, video or even a decent sales letter. Has anyone seen an advert in any of the financial papers? Any international PR? US sports investors? Like these... https://certuscap.com/sport-entertainment/
Or these?
https://www.strivefootballgroup.com/capital/ |  | | |
| EGM on 21:00 - Jul 25 with 2439 views | ThreeLions |
I see the statement released today as a shot across the bows readying us for what will be the worst situation the club has found itself in since the days of the overcoaters. It could even be worse.
I think as a fanbase we should get ready for bad news and react positively as a unit and not split. I don't have the answers to the situation but the club as it currently is might not survive past this season no matter how much is borrowed against its assets. The Football world has changed and we haven't been proactive enough when we were riding high in League One to survive this new world of the sport. Even clubs like Liverpool are going to get left behind so what chance have we got. I know it's a bit defeatist from me but I think more reality than anything. Very worrying times as a Dale supporter. |  | | |
| EGM on 21:04 - Jul 25 with 2400 views | dawlishdale |
Just had notice of EGM by email.
On reflection, a yes vote is probably better than a no vote, but oh my goodness...the Board seems incapable of doing things correctly at the moment. Surely there is someone at the club who sees the stupidity of how this has been handled? | | | |
| EGM on 21:04 - Jul 25 with 2400 views | Sandyman |
Just got the shareholders EGM e mail. No further info for shareholders in it, just notification of meeting and proxy vote form. For something so important, I expected more detail to help inform us of what's what. The numbers matter. [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 21:05]
|  | | |
| EGM on 21:09 - Jul 25 with 2367 views | Dale69er |
| EGM on 09:43 - Jul 25 by kel |
Can someone post on here when they receive the email from the club please as I want to see if my issue with getting nothing is resolved?
Thanks. |
Club email just landed in my inbox |  | | |
| EGM on 21:24 - Jul 25 with 2301 views | kel |
| EGM on 21:09 - Jul 25 by Dale69er |
Club email just landed in my inbox |
Thanks, I got it too. | | | |
| EGM on 21:36 - Jul 25 with 2244 views | Crede_Sign0 |
| EGM on 19:46 - Jul 25 by 442Dale |
One thing we do need clarifying is the mentions of the Trust in today’s statement. The details of the community asset fund bid, the possible timescales involved and how it fits within the club’s plans. |
Is there any info at all about this - anywhere? | | | |
| EGM on 21:39 - Jul 25 with 2225 views | Crede_Sign0 |
| EGM on 17:53 - Jul 25 by SalwaDale |
This isn't a dig at your post. The possibility of CD coming back seems currently dead in the water. If you are suggesting a no vote, what is the likely outcome of that when compared to a yes vote. Seems to me that the shareholders currently stuck between a rock and a hard place. [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 17:54]
|
More like a rock and a 10 point deduction | | | |
| EGM on 22:08 - Jul 25 with 2846 views | James1980 |
How about preference shares as an alternative. Or a combination of preference shares and bonds/loans? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
