| Trust meeting with the board report on 22:25 - Jan 30 with 3951 views | Dalenet |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 18:43 - Jan 30 by 442Dale |
On tonight’s edition of ‘Analysis of the Laughable’:
<<“ In relation to a half season ticket, we do have this ready to go, but due to the Wealdstone promotion, we were waiting to get that game out of the way first as to not have two campaigns running simultaneously. This will launch prior to the Dagenham & Redbridge home game…”>>
Prior to the Wealdstone game that was postponed, we had played 14 home games. If that game had been played we would have had 8 home games left. As it is, we have 9 home games left.
“half season ticket”.
Presumably, as they’re launching the ‘half season ticket’ that’s actually a ‘9 games out of 23 games but it’s sort of half if you don’t look closely enough ticket’ will be advertised on the OS this week, the Observer and in Saturday’s programme? |
Pleased they acknowledge it was something useful to try. If they simply targeted the 2000 people that came on boxing day with an e-shot with what will in fact be a 9 game offer then it will have a chance of creating some interest. But if we don't advertise it before the end of the week, and it is isn't targeted, then we end up with an 8 game offer that few will hear about. There is a suggestion in the response that half season tickets don't work at other clubs - but we have just had 2000 new fans through the door - so for goodness sake give it a go. £99 for the rest of the season - create a match day habit and half will buy a full one next year. 100 sold would be a success. |  | |  |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 22:37 - Jan 30 with 3927 views | 49thseason |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 22:25 - Jan 30 by Dalenet |
Pleased they acknowledge it was something useful to try. If they simply targeted the 2000 people that came on boxing day with an e-shot with what will in fact be a 9 game offer then it will have a chance of creating some interest. But if we don't advertise it before the end of the week, and it is isn't targeted, then we end up with an 8 game offer that few will hear about. There is a suggestion in the response that half season tickets don't work at other clubs - but we have just had 2000 new fans through the door - so for goodness sake give it a go. £99 for the rest of the season - create a match day habit and half will buy a full one next year. 100 sold would be a success. |
Send the all an E voucher so that only the new people can get a discount,,
Make it 1 adult plus 1 child for £99 for 9 games 2nd child £10... its not as if we are short of seats..... |  | | |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 10:32 - Jan 31 with 3614 views | ChaffRAFC |
➢ If there are any immediate concerns, where would the club say supporters need to concentrate their fundraising?
Unsure as to what this question means? Could additional context be provided please?
I can't get over this. HOW DO THEY NOT GET IT?! There are two things supporters are putting money into, as was voted at the Trust meeting, which had a Board member there, those being the Squad Builder and the Fighting Fund.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2024/january/squadbuilderfund_jan24/
It's here in black and white! Granted, out of 185 words, only 9 (one line) are relating to the Fighting Fund which begs the question, do the club need it? They don't seem to know or care what that is.
If you're not arsed about a fighting fund then funds can't be as bad as made out can they?
➢ Will the club confirm they are aware of and can commit to ensuring previously agreed fan engagement meetings take place as scheduled?
All have taken place so far as scheduled, other than a kit and merchandise focus group that was originally scheduled for 30/11/23. It was deemed necessary to postpone, given events at that time. We would hope that there is sufficient support from the fanbase, as last year this event attracted a low number, for reasons we have never established
NO THEY HAVEN'T! Now you're just telling lies. Everything's been put back, including the forum that was supposed to be last week.
The whole article is excuse after excuse with all hopes pinned on finding someone rich to invest. Rather than changing the model of the club, which I'd argue would be more realistic.
And yes, the fanbase are grateful that the two directors are putting their money in but the constant digs at supporters is out of order, I'm sorry I'm not rich too guys.
This was described as a cash-flow problem, well if it's every month and every month is precarious, then it's not a cash flow problem.
In the 80's/90's, we had similar, if not less supporters than we do now and coped financially in the EFL without David Kilpatrick having to put in the huge numbers rumoured to to put in by Gauge and Knight. You can blame modern football but we've had funding that's soon going to stop. It's not the fault of modern football that we charge less for season tickets than we did 20 years ago. It's not the fault of modern football that there's nothing new to buy in the club shop or that we just didn't bother with a third kit. It's not the fault of modern football that we're waiting on a supplier to give us the green light for a memorial wall.
I don't particularly like Andy Holt at Accrington but his recent tweets about how prices are going to have to go up and the detail and transparency shown there makes a mockery out what we're being drip fed.
I've put in an expression of interest for shares knowing it's effectively a donation, but I want voting rights outside of the Trust and I want to see the accounts to see where exactly the money is going but it just doesn't add up. |  |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 11:23 - Jan 31 with 3540 views | scooby |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 10:32 - Jan 31 by ChaffRAFC |
➢ If there are any immediate concerns, where would the club say supporters need to concentrate their fundraising?
Unsure as to what this question means? Could additional context be provided please?
I can't get over this. HOW DO THEY NOT GET IT?! There are two things supporters are putting money into, as was voted at the Trust meeting, which had a Board member there, those being the Squad Builder and the Fighting Fund.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2024/january/squadbuilderfund_jan24/
It's here in black and white! Granted, out of 185 words, only 9 (one line) are relating to the Fighting Fund which begs the question, do the club need it? They don't seem to know or care what that is.
If you're not arsed about a fighting fund then funds can't be as bad as made out can they?
➢ Will the club confirm they are aware of and can commit to ensuring previously agreed fan engagement meetings take place as scheduled?
All have taken place so far as scheduled, other than a kit and merchandise focus group that was originally scheduled for 30/11/23. It was deemed necessary to postpone, given events at that time. We would hope that there is sufficient support from the fanbase, as last year this event attracted a low number, for reasons we have never established
NO THEY HAVEN'T! Now you're just telling lies. Everything's been put back, including the forum that was supposed to be last week.
The whole article is excuse after excuse with all hopes pinned on finding someone rich to invest. Rather than changing the model of the club, which I'd argue would be more realistic.
And yes, the fanbase are grateful that the two directors are putting their money in but the constant digs at supporters is out of order, I'm sorry I'm not rich too guys.
This was described as a cash-flow problem, well if it's every month and every month is precarious, then it's not a cash flow problem.
In the 80's/90's, we had similar, if not less supporters than we do now and coped financially in the EFL without David Kilpatrick having to put in the huge numbers rumoured to to put in by Gauge and Knight. You can blame modern football but we've had funding that's soon going to stop. It's not the fault of modern football that we charge less for season tickets than we did 20 years ago. It's not the fault of modern football that there's nothing new to buy in the club shop or that we just didn't bother with a third kit. It's not the fault of modern football that we're waiting on a supplier to give us the green light for a memorial wall.
I don't particularly like Andy Holt at Accrington but his recent tweets about how prices are going to have to go up and the detail and transparency shown there makes a mockery out what we're being drip fed.
I've put in an expression of interest for shares knowing it's effectively a donation, but I want voting rights outside of the Trust and I want to see the accounts to see where exactly the money is going but it just doesn't add up. |
good points Chaff. Did the trust challenge or plan to challenge any of the clearly BS statements?? | | | |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 12:34 - Jan 31 with 3386 views | judd |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 11:23 - Jan 31 by scooby |
good points Chaff. Did the trust challenge or plan to challenge any of the clearly BS statements?? |
If you email info@daletrust.co.uk then you will receive a reply in answer to any queries raised, or visit the Trust desk pre-game on Saturday. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 13:30 - Jan 31 with 3270 views | D_Alien |
I'm still struggling to get my head around the rejected Community Ownership Fund bid to acquire the pitch
Let me be clear: i attach no blame to the Trust over this. What i can't understand is that, given the resources which have been indicated in this thread were available in putting forward the business case, and given how vital a successful bid would have been to not only our immediate finances but the longer term future of the club, that the BoD didn't take any initiative in looking through the bid before it was submitted to try to ensure it was as sound as possible. Was this not allowed? Suggesting the Trust take professional advice AFTER the bid has been rejected just comes across as far too little, too late
Edit: if i'm mistaken in any of this, apologies - i'm reading between lines but the point is, i shouldn't have to be!
[Post edited 31 Jan 13:33]
|  |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 14:19 - Jan 31 with 3159 views | judd |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 13:30 - Jan 31 by D_Alien |
I'm still struggling to get my head around the rejected Community Ownership Fund bid to acquire the pitch
Let me be clear: i attach no blame to the Trust over this. What i can't understand is that, given the resources which have been indicated in this thread were available in putting forward the business case, and given how vital a successful bid would have been to not only our immediate finances but the longer term future of the club, that the BoD didn't take any initiative in looking through the bid before it was submitted to try to ensure it was as sound as possible. Was this not allowed? Suggesting the Trust take professional advice AFTER the bid has been rejected just comes across as far too little, too late
Edit: if i'm mistaken in any of this, apologies - i'm reading between lines but the point is, i shouldn't have to be!
[Post edited 31 Jan 13:33]
|
In reviewing the requirements of the process, it is the Trust that is advising what is required.
The latest window for applications closes today and it was necessary to explain why ours would not be going in at this time. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 14:24 - Jan 31 with 3121 views | 442Dale |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 14:19 - Jan 31 by judd |
In reviewing the requirements of the process, it is the Trust that is advising what is required.
The latest window for applications closes today and it was necessary to explain why ours would not be going in at this time. |
Which made it even more pertinent that the club actually answered the question they were asked about looking at other options for the Trust to take ownership of the pitch which would help safeguard the ground. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust meeting with the board report on 16:43 - Jan 31 with 2912 views | blackdogblue |
Talking of money… 🤷♂️
|  |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 22:00 - Jan 31 with 2609 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 14:19 - Jan 31 by judd |
In reviewing the requirements of the process, it is the Trust that is advising what is required.
The latest window for applications closes today and it was necessary to explain why ours would not be going in at this time. |
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-ownership-fund-prospectus/c
Reading the detailed prospectus clearly, it obviously prevents the club from being involved. An applicant must be:
* an incorporated voluntary and community organisation or a parish, town and community council
* is able to buy the asset freehold, or the long-term leasehold of at least 15 years with reasonable break clauses
* is the same organisation that will receive the funding and run the project
The purpose is openly stated as "Apply for funding to take ownership of assets at risk of loss in your community"
Notwithstanding actually making a successful application, it looks like:
1) The Trust has to make the application to the Community Ownership Fund as the voluntary organisation, not the club.
2) The Trust has to demonstrate that it is legally and operationally separate from the club, which is not a qualifying party.
3) The Trust must prove it is able to buy the asset from the club freehold or long leasehold for 15+ years.
4) The Trust must prove it is capable of running the project - i.e. day to day management of the asset.
5) The Trust has to raise 20% of the value of the funding.
6) The club would need to have an EGM to seek 75% shareholder approval
to sell the freehold or long leasehold under the Morris Resolution to legally be able to transfer assets to the Trust.
7) The political situation of central government needs to remain stable as the current scheme runs to March 2025 is for a maximum of £150m. The upcoming General Election will prevent the scheme from operating until completed, particularly in the pre-election period(s) and there is no guarantee that it will continue to operate in the same current form if there was to be a change of government.
Finally, it is made clear that "Applications for over £250,000 should demonstrate a strong strategic case for funding, including being able to demonstrate that the additional funding will generate further benefits proportionate to the size of the request. You should specifically outline the added value that the additional funding over £250,000 will bring to the community.
For all of those reasons, not belittling either the ambition or efforts of the club, Trust or individuals, I can't see this ever getting off the ground and funding coming from central government into Rochdale.
Even if it did, £250,000 appears to be the amount on offer unless an exceptional case can be made and that will involve the Trust raising a minimum of £50,000. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 22:30 - Jan 31 with 2558 views | 442Dale |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 22:00 - Jan 31 by RAFCBLUE |
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-ownership-fund-prospectus/c
Reading the detailed prospectus clearly, it obviously prevents the club from being involved. An applicant must be:
* an incorporated voluntary and community organisation or a parish, town and community council
* is able to buy the asset freehold, or the long-term leasehold of at least 15 years with reasonable break clauses
* is the same organisation that will receive the funding and run the project
The purpose is openly stated as "Apply for funding to take ownership of assets at risk of loss in your community"
Notwithstanding actually making a successful application, it looks like:
1) The Trust has to make the application to the Community Ownership Fund as the voluntary organisation, not the club.
2) The Trust has to demonstrate that it is legally and operationally separate from the club, which is not a qualifying party.
3) The Trust must prove it is able to buy the asset from the club freehold or long leasehold for 15+ years.
4) The Trust must prove it is capable of running the project - i.e. day to day management of the asset.
5) The Trust has to raise 20% of the value of the funding.
6) The club would need to have an EGM to seek 75% shareholder approval
to sell the freehold or long leasehold under the Morris Resolution to legally be able to transfer assets to the Trust.
7) The political situation of central government needs to remain stable as the current scheme runs to March 2025 is for a maximum of £150m. The upcoming General Election will prevent the scheme from operating until completed, particularly in the pre-election period(s) and there is no guarantee that it will continue to operate in the same current form if there was to be a change of government.
Finally, it is made clear that "Applications for over £250,000 should demonstrate a strong strategic case for funding, including being able to demonstrate that the additional funding will generate further benefits proportionate to the size of the request. You should specifically outline the added value that the additional funding over £250,000 will bring to the community.
For all of those reasons, not belittling either the ambition or efforts of the club, Trust or individuals, I can't see this ever getting off the ground and funding coming from central government into Rochdale.
Even if it did, £250,000 appears to be the amount on offer unless an exceptional case can be made and that will involve the Trust raising a minimum of £50,000. |
More reasons why the club should have concentrated on answering the actual question put to them.
It was simple enough.
Like actually keeping to a schedule. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 22:48 - Jan 31 with 2508 views | D_Alien |
Just to add to my post from this morning: it doesn't bother me in the slightest if i misinterpret the circumstances of this bid (or anything else) where there's a lack of clarity
What emerges from raising issues / asking questions is a fuller picture. This shouldn't have to happen. Except for matters where confidentiality is necessary, the full picture of what's happening at our club should be made available to all interested parties, i.e. fans, and especially shareholders | |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 22:57 - Feb 1 with 1894 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 22:30 - Jan 31 by 442Dale |
More reasons why the club should have concentrated on answering the actual question put to them.
It was simple enough.
Like actually keeping to a schedule. |
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2024/february/updatedsupportersfocusgroupdate
You’ll get your wish/opportunity to ask in person on the 29th and it’s being broadcast on YouTube. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 13:05 - Feb 2 with 1640 views | 442Dale |
Yes, we were already aware of the forum after it was moved back from when it was originally scheduled. It now takes place two days after a Tuesday home game and two days before a long trip to Ebbsfleet and then to Barnet three days after that.
Full credit to Jim McNulty for giving his time during that period when there are a lot of games and travelling on the, er, schedule. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 18:36 - Feb 2 with 1376 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 13:05 - Feb 2 by 442Dale |
Yes, we were already aware of the forum after it was moved back from when it was originally scheduled. It now takes place two days after a Tuesday home game and two days before a long trip to Ebbsfleet and then to Barnet three days after that.
Full credit to Jim McNulty for giving his time during that period when there are a lot of games and travelling on the, er, schedule. |
Sounds like it might need to be postponed then if it proves a diversion of Jim's full concentration on current playing matters in that period.
Thursday 7th March 2024 or Thursday 21st March 2024 look good alernatives if that proves to be the case. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 18:54 - Feb 2 with 1342 views | 442Dale |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 18:36 - Feb 2 by RAFCBLUE |
Sounds like it might need to be postponed then if it proves a diversion of Jim's full concentration on current playing matters in that period.
Thursday 7th March 2024 or Thursday 21st March 2024 look good alernatives if that proves to be the case. |
No that has already been addressed by supporters who contacted the Trust by identifying the potential issues with the fixture list once games were rearranged.
Alternative dates BEFORE the 29th were suggested, including the 8th and the 15th of Feb. The date of the forum remains on the 29th, as seen in the link you’ve posted. Any organisation who plans effectively looking at upcoming events such as football fixtures will obviously take these into consideration before confirming such things as a fans forum.
The football fixtures for January were in place last year when the original forum date was arranged. The rearranged games are in place ahead of the club confirming the forum on the 29th.
Some people might want to think that some fans are aware of the FACTS. And what keeping to a schedule actually means. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 18:59 - Feb 2 with 1326 views | TVOS1907 |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 18:54 - Feb 2 by 442Dale |
No that has already been addressed by supporters who contacted the Trust by identifying the potential issues with the fixture list once games were rearranged.
Alternative dates BEFORE the 29th were suggested, including the 8th and the 15th of Feb. The date of the forum remains on the 29th, as seen in the link you’ve posted. Any organisation who plans effectively looking at upcoming events such as football fixtures will obviously take these into consideration before confirming such things as a fans forum.
The football fixtures for January were in place last year when the original forum date was arranged. The rearranged games are in place ahead of the club confirming the forum on the 29th.
Some people might want to think that some fans are aware of the FACTS. And what keeping to a schedule actually means. |
And some people might want to check all the rearranged fixtures before making suggestions which contradict the reasons given for moving the forum in the first place.
* apologies to any aliases or acolytes upset by this. [Post edited 2 Feb 19:10]
|  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 19:02 - Feb 2 with 1307 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 18:59 - Feb 2 by TVOS1907 |
And some people might want to check all the rearranged fixtures before making suggestions which contradict the reasons given for moving the forum in the first place.
* apologies to any aliases or acolytes upset by this. [Post edited 2 Feb 19:10]
|
You make a good point. Lack of attention to detail can have unfortunate consequences, when it really matters | |
| |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 19:24 - Feb 2 with 1257 views | 442Dale |
| Trust meeting with the board report on 19:02 - Feb 2 by D_Alien |
You make a good point. Lack of attention to detail can have unfortunate consequences, when it really matters |
It’s amazing how attention to detail matters in some cases, but not others.
They know. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
