| McNulty's comments on 14:14 - Jul 30 with 2643 views | turnthescrew |
The Trust MUST become more vocal. They represent US and are appointed to speak for and represent us.
There can be no repeat of the matey, matey stuff that happened previously. Rolling over into a cuddly ball is not an option.
We may well have an existential crisis on our hands here. If this situation starts to split the fan base into vehemently opposed groups, the fight may well be lost.
As the major shareholder, the voice of the Trust needs to be much louder. |  | |  |
| McNulty's comments on 14:23 - Jul 30 with 2592 views | kel |
| McNulty's comments on 14:14 - Jul 30 by turnthescrew |
The Trust MUST become more vocal. They represent US and are appointed to speak for and represent us.
There can be no repeat of the matey, matey stuff that happened previously. Rolling over into a cuddly ball is not an option.
We may well have an existential crisis on our hands here. If this situation starts to split the fan base into vehemently opposed groups, the fight may well be lost.
As the major shareholder, the voice of the Trust needs to be much louder. |
Agree 100% as do I to D’Aliens reply. I’ve always defended the trust as they’re volunteers giving up endless amounts of their personal time but I’m afraid that they need to realise their remit is to represent the fans who sign up to them. If that upsets those at the top then so be it.
Shitty, arrogant statements from directors simply won’t wash now. |  | | |
| McNulty's comments on 14:32 - Jul 30 with 2530 views | Rodingdale |
| McNulty's comments on 14:14 - Jul 30 by turnthescrew |
The Trust MUST become more vocal. They represent US and are appointed to speak for and represent us.
There can be no repeat of the matey, matey stuff that happened previously. Rolling over into a cuddly ball is not an option.
We may well have an existential crisis on our hands here. If this situation starts to split the fan base into vehemently opposed groups, the fight may well be lost.
As the major shareholder, the voice of the Trust needs to be much louder. |
Apologies if I’ve missed something. The trust is a major shareholder - are they going to ballot on which way to vote? Can’t see how they can vote at all without doing so. In itself not voting is a decision… | | | |
| McNulty's comments on 14:34 - Jul 30 with 2514 views | D_Alien |
| McNulty's comments on 13:53 - Jul 30 by pioneer |
No, your first paragraph goes beyond what the shareholders have been told. The communication with shareholders (or at least with those who have received the e mail with the attached notice of EGM) is the precise wording of the special resolution. It is presented in (the required) legal wording that makes no mention of it requiring 75% approval for example.
I would have expected an additional statement to shareholders explaining what has led to this situation and what the boards position is on the special resolution. We are not been told who has proposed the special resolution. |
We're now 10 days away from the date of the EGM
If some shareholders still haven't received notification (via email or via post), the BoD are in breach of their statutory requirements
One option would be to postpone the meeting until all such notifications have been received. This might be a matter of a few days, but it'd also allow for some much-needed breathing space |  |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 14:45 - Jul 30 with 2433 views | judd |
| McNulty's comments on 14:32 - Jul 30 by Rodingdale |
Apologies if I’ve missed something. The trust is a major shareholder - are they going to ballot on which way to vote? Can’t see how they can vote at all without doing so. In itself not voting is a decision… |
Yes, the Trust announced they will commence the process next Friday, after the forum. |  |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 14:48 - Jul 30 with 2422 views | Rodingdale |
| McNulty's comments on 14:45 - Jul 30 by judd |
Yes, the Trust announced they will commence the process next Friday, after the forum. |
Thanks. That will be interesting. Be good if the Forum could be streamed so all members get the chance to hear what’s said. | | | |
| McNulty's comments on 14:50 - Jul 30 with 2410 views | judd |
| McNulty's comments on 14:48 - Jul 30 by Rodingdale |
Thanks. That will be interesting. Be good if the Forum could be streamed so all members get the chance to hear what’s said. |
The Trust has requested that it is and I expect we'll hear something tomorrow. | |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 14:52 - Jul 30 with 2404 views | 49thseason |
companies Act 2006
308Manner in which notice to be given
Notice of a general meeting of a company must be given—
(a)in hard copy form,
(b)in electronic form, or
(c)by means of a website (see section 309),or partly by one such means and partly by another.
309Publication of notice of meeting on website
(1)Notice of a meeting is not validly given by a company by means of a website unless it is given in accordance with this section.
(2)When the company notifies a member of the presence of the notice on the website the notification must—
(a)state that it concerns a notice of a company meeting,
(b)specify the place, date and time of the meeting, and
(c)in the case of a public company, state whether the meeting will be an annual general meeting.
(3)The notice must be available on the website throughout the period beginning with the date of that notification and ending with the conclusion of the meeting.
310Persons entitled to receive notice of meetings
(1)Notice of a general meeting of a company must be sent to—
(a)every member of the company, and
(b)every director.
(2)In subsection (1), the reference to members includes any person who is entitled to a share in consequence of the death or bankruptcy of a member, if the company has been notified of their entitlement.
(3)In subsection (2), the reference to the bankruptcy of a member includes—
(a)the sequestration of the estate of a member;
(b)a member’s estate being the subject of a protected trust deed (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66)).
(4)This section has effect subject to—
(a)any enactment, and
(b)any provision of the company’s articles.
311Contents of notices of meetings
(1)Notice of a general meeting of a company must state—
(a)the time and date of the meeting, and
(b)the place of the meeting.
(2)Notice of a general meeting of a company must state the general nature of the business to be dealt with at the meeting.This subsection has effect subject to any provision of the company’s articles. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| McNulty's comments on 14:54 - Jul 30 with 2403 views | 442Dale |
The request was made for a Trust members meeting ahead of the club EGM, they responded as mentioned earlier in the thread:
<<“ We have had a request from a member to hold a Trust meeting ahead of the Ebbsfleet game on Saturday 5th August. We do not believe this would serve much purpose at this moment in time given it is just two days after the forum, where any questions related to the EGM can be submitted”>>
Putting aside what may or may not happen at the forum, it’s hard to establish why this opportunity won’t be taken to assist those who will be giving their vote one way or another to the club’s largest shareholder.
It is worth noting, that prior to Covid impacting everything, the Trust called an EGM before the club’s own scheduled EGM in March 2020:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2020/03/trust-egm-21st-march-1130/ |  |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 15:07 - Jul 30 with 2353 views | kel |
| McNulty's comments on 14:54 - Jul 30 by 442Dale |
The request was made for a Trust members meeting ahead of the club EGM, they responded as mentioned earlier in the thread:
<<“ We have had a request from a member to hold a Trust meeting ahead of the Ebbsfleet game on Saturday 5th August. We do not believe this would serve much purpose at this moment in time given it is just two days after the forum, where any questions related to the EGM can be submitted”>>
Putting aside what may or may not happen at the forum, it’s hard to establish why this opportunity won’t be taken to assist those who will be giving their vote one way or another to the club’s largest shareholder.
It is worth noting, that prior to Covid impacting everything, the Trust called an EGM before the club’s own scheduled EGM in March 2020:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2020/03/trust-egm-21st-march-1130/ |
If Trust members feel that their views are not being taken into consideration, email info@daletrust.co.uk to air your views and ask for the proposed meeting before the Ebbsfleet game to go ahead. There is a Trust board meeting tomorrow evening.
Shareholders without their pack and/or shareholders requiring detailed financial information in order to help them make an informed decision on this critical issue should email George.delves@rochdaleafc.co.uk | | | |
| McNulty's comments on 15:33 - Jul 30 with 2267 views | 442Dale |
| McNulty's comments on 15:07 - Jul 30 by kel |
If Trust members feel that their views are not being taken into consideration, email info@daletrust.co.uk to air your views and ask for the proposed meeting before the Ebbsfleet game to go ahead. There is a Trust board meeting tomorrow evening.
Shareholders without their pack and/or shareholders requiring detailed financial information in order to help them make an informed decision on this critical issue should email George.delves@rochdaleafc.co.uk |
Good idea, have done so. Any other Trust members who wish to use the below, feel free!
———
Hi,
In light of recent events and the proposed club EGM, as the largest shareholder please could the Trust look to hold a meeting for its members prior to the Ebbsfleet game on Saturday 5th August?
This meeting would be beneficial for any Trust member who wants to discuss their thoughts and issues ahead of any taking part in a vote which may impact the football club. As well as using the usual channels, this would also give the Trust the opportunity to relay any updated information and answer questions from members if required.
Thanks, | |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 16:47 - Jul 30 with 2040 views | D_Alien |
| McNulty's comments on 14:52 - Jul 30 by 49thseason |
companies Act 2006
308Manner in which notice to be given
Notice of a general meeting of a company must be given—
(a)in hard copy form,
(b)in electronic form, or
(c)by means of a website (see section 309),or partly by one such means and partly by another.
309Publication of notice of meeting on website
(1)Notice of a meeting is not validly given by a company by means of a website unless it is given in accordance with this section.
(2)When the company notifies a member of the presence of the notice on the website the notification must—
(a)state that it concerns a notice of a company meeting,
(b)specify the place, date and time of the meeting, and
(c)in the case of a public company, state whether the meeting will be an annual general meeting.
(3)The notice must be available on the website throughout the period beginning with the date of that notification and ending with the conclusion of the meeting.
310Persons entitled to receive notice of meetings
(1)Notice of a general meeting of a company must be sent to—
(a)every member of the company, and
(b)every director.
(2)In subsection (1), the reference to members includes any person who is entitled to a share in consequence of the death or bankruptcy of a member, if the company has been notified of their entitlement.
(3)In subsection (2), the reference to the bankruptcy of a member includes—
(a)the sequestration of the estate of a member;
(b)a member’s estate being the subject of a protected trust deed (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66)).
(4)This section has effect subject to—
(a)any enactment, and
(b)any provision of the company’s articles.
311Contents of notices of meetings
(1)Notice of a general meeting of a company must state—
(a)the time and date of the meeting, and
(b)the place of the meeting.
(2)Notice of a general meeting of a company must state the general nature of the business to be dealt with at the meeting.This subsection has effect subject to any provision of the company’s articles. |
So, if there are shareholders who, within the required timeframe, haven't been:
- in receipt of notice of the meeting via electronic form or hard copy, or
- in receipt of a notice directing them to the website where the notice of the meeting is set out
then there has been a breach of the Companies Act 2006
Wouldn't this invalidate any vote taken at the meeting?
Edit: just seen the other posts following on from 49th's. My question still applies
[Post edited 30 Jul 2023 16:48]
| |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 16:53 - Jul 30 with 2011 views | judd |
| McNulty's comments on 16:47 - Jul 30 by D_Alien |
So, if there are shareholders who, within the required timeframe, haven't been:
- in receipt of notice of the meeting via electronic form or hard copy, or
- in receipt of a notice directing them to the website where the notice of the meeting is set out
then there has been a breach of the Companies Act 2006
Wouldn't this invalidate any vote taken at the meeting?
Edit: just seen the other posts following on from 49th's. My question still applies
[Post edited 30 Jul 2023 16:48]
|
(1)Where a company gives notice of—
(a)a general meeting, or
(b)a resolution intended to be moved at a general meeting,any accidental failure to give notice to one or more persons shall be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether notice of the meeting or resolution (as the case may be) is duly given.
(2)Except in relation to notice given under—
(a)section 304 (notice of meetings required by members),
(b)section 305 (notice of meetings called by members), or
(c)section 339 (notice of resolutions at AGMs proposed by members),subsection (1) has effect subject to any provision of the company's articles | |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 17:01 - Jul 30 with 1957 views | D_Alien |
| McNulty's comments on 16:53 - Jul 30 by judd |
(1)Where a company gives notice of—
(a)a general meeting, or
(b)a resolution intended to be moved at a general meeting,any accidental failure to give notice to one or more persons shall be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether notice of the meeting or resolution (as the case may be) is duly given.
(2)Except in relation to notice given under—
(a)section 304 (notice of meetings required by members),
(b)section 305 (notice of meetings called by members), or
(c)section 339 (notice of resolutions at AGMs proposed by members),subsection (1) has effect subject to any provision of the company's articles |
Cheers
That's the second clarification you've supplied to information previously put forward by another poster | |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 17:02 - Jul 30 with 1957 views | TalkingSutty |
| McNulty's comments on 14:14 - Jul 30 by turnthescrew |
The Trust MUST become more vocal. They represent US and are appointed to speak for and represent us.
There can be no repeat of the matey, matey stuff that happened previously. Rolling over into a cuddly ball is not an option.
We may well have an existential crisis on our hands here. If this situation starts to split the fan base into vehemently opposed groups, the fight may well be lost.
As the major shareholder, the voice of the Trust needs to be much louder. |
The biggest disappointment is how some fans seem to just accept everything that comes out of the Boardroom and appear to put Simon Gauge before the welfare of the club. There was a lot of admittance in Gauge and Knights statement the other day. They admitted that they want to inject money with assurances ,as a last chance to find a investor. If there is no investor we are looking at liquidation, their exact words. That's their forecast and this is their plan..there is nothing else, no other plan. They've proved they are incapable of lifting the club and anybody who suggests that they can is lying to themselves. We've seen the downward spiral since they took over the club.
We have recently fought a monumental battle to save the club, a battle that started long before the current boardroom was parachuted in. A battle that the fan base was front and centre of. Why now are we willing to just accept what Simon says and sit on our hands and watch the club that we fought tooth and nail to save slowly die? On the say so of a Chairman and Board who stand to recoup money should it go down the pan. Why did we all battle to save the club if we are now just willing to let it disappear?
I'm disappointed with the Trust, do they represent those in the Boardroom or their members and the fans? They should be shouting from the rooftops about this and the very mention of liquidation but we've heard nothing, not a muff. The major sareholder who hold shares all purchased by the fans themselves..not forgetting the £62k raised by fans to fight off Morton House.
There needs to be planning now to get hold of the club from a Trust, shareholders and fans perspective. Replace the current Chairman and Directors and form a new emergency board. Contact the FA, RMBC, Councillors etc and let's send out a SOS to the footballing world and appeal for help, nobody wants to see another bury scenario. The other alternative is to listen to Simon, keep quiet, allow yourself to be patronised and lose the football club. I'd like the Trust to call a EGM and voice their concerns, call on all shareholders and fans to attend and let's mobilise ourselves. There will be plenty of help out there and loads of fans will rally around the Trust.
Just surrendering to what the Chairman is suggesting isn't going to save the club. I'm calling for the Trust to find it's voice and show leadership, this is the exact reason Supporters Trusts are so vital. We are running out of time here, the time to start making changes is now. [Post edited 30 Jul 2023 17:09]
|  | | |
| McNulty's comments on 17:27 - Jul 30 with 1863 views | seasidedale |
| McNulty's comments on 09:56 - Jul 30 by TalkingSutty |
We also receive a 100% solidarity/broadcasting parachute payment this summer following relegation from L2. I think that's about £450k but maybe even more now. That drops to 50% next season. [Post edited 30 Jul 2023 10:07]
|
Don’t forget we have lost about 500k from the premier league for academy’s, | | | |
| McNulty's comments on 17:36 - Jul 30 with 1828 views | HullDale |
There was a perfect opportunity for the board to be out and about yesterday - in the Ratcliffe, in the stands, before the game answering fan questions about this proposal.
The fact they weren't means they either think there isn't an issue and it'll sail through, that it wouldn't have been a good use of their time, or that they view fans with such disdain now that they just chose not to. |  | | |
| McNulty's comments on 17:40 - Jul 30 with 1800 views | judd |
| McNulty's comments on 17:36 - Jul 30 by HullDale |
There was a perfect opportunity for the board to be out and about yesterday - in the Ratcliffe, in the stands, before the game answering fan questions about this proposal.
The fact they weren't means they either think there isn't an issue and it'll sail through, that it wouldn't have been a good use of their time, or that they view fans with such disdain now that they just chose not to. |
..or some are on holiday? | |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 18:26 - Jul 30 with 1621 views | TomRAFC |
The supporter's trust is just that, it doesn't have it's own personal view.
There's plenty of individuals who want the trust to publicly and fiercely express the same views that they hold. It only takes a quick glance at the EGM thread to see that the fanbase doesn't have one unified view.
The suggestions that Murray is too close to the board really bother me. I've given him 2 very challenging things to address with the board. He didn't shy away from the heart of the matter and his responses couldn't have been more commited. It's worth adding that I don't know Murray personally. I've met him in person a sum total of once, and to be honest I was rather drunk!
Don't expect the trust to deliver the representation you want, if you don't let them know what it is. Make the most of what we have. | |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 18:41 - Jul 30 with 1561 views | D_Alien |
| McNulty's comments on 18:26 - Jul 30 by TomRAFC |
The supporter's trust is just that, it doesn't have it's own personal view.
There's plenty of individuals who want the trust to publicly and fiercely express the same views that they hold. It only takes a quick glance at the EGM thread to see that the fanbase doesn't have one unified view.
The suggestions that Murray is too close to the board really bother me. I've given him 2 very challenging things to address with the board. He didn't shy away from the heart of the matter and his responses couldn't have been more commited. It's worth adding that I don't know Murray personally. I've met him in person a sum total of once, and to be honest I was rather drunk!
Don't expect the trust to deliver the representation you want, if you don't let them know what it is. Make the most of what we have. |
I'm not sure anyone's suggesting the Trust member on the BoD is "too close" to them. It's not as straightforward as that (as if that were straightforward anyway!)
I see it as compromising the ability of the Trust to put forward a view that might be seen as critical of the BoD, to "speak truth to power" as it were, openly and without making it awkward for Murray | |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 18:49 - Jul 30 with 1511 views | TomRAFC |
| McNulty's comments on 18:41 - Jul 30 by D_Alien |
I'm not sure anyone's suggesting the Trust member on the BoD is "too close" to them. It's not as straightforward as that (as if that were straightforward anyway!)
I see it as compromising the ability of the Trust to put forward a view that might be seen as critical of the BoD, to "speak truth to power" as it were, openly and without making it awkward for Murray |
I had a similar concern at first, so I can see why people might assume that.
I can't see why they wouldn't then engage with Murray and give themselves the chance to find out whether he will speak truth to power, from his position on the board. When I've gotten in touch with Murray, I've found him to be both able and passionate about doing just that. [Post edited 30 Jul 2023 18:59]
| |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 19:03 - Jul 30 with 1456 views | James1980 |
Probably missed mention of one, but couldn't The Trust hold an emergency meeting with the board prior to the forum. even if it is held via conference call? | |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 19:12 - Jul 30 with 1426 views | D_Alien |
| McNulty's comments on 18:49 - Jul 30 by TomRAFC |
I had a similar concern at first, so I can see why people might assume that.
I can't see why they wouldn't then engage with Murray and give themselves the chance to find out whether he will speak truth to power, from his position on the board. When I've gotten in touch with Murray, I've found him to be both able and passionate about doing just that. [Post edited 30 Jul 2023 18:59]
|
It's good that you've had a positive experience of that, and i don't doubt it for one minute
Again, though, Murray isn't the Trust and this really isn't about individuals as such, which is what you may have been assuming
It's simply my view that the Trust can't be both part of, and completely independent of the BoD. I fully understand others may see that differently. As i said earlier - most of the time it probably doesn't matter - until it does
That time is now
[Post edited 30 Jul 2023 19:14]
| |
| |
| McNulty's comments on 19:16 - Jul 30 with 1409 views | kel |
| McNulty's comments on 19:12 - Jul 30 by D_Alien |
It's good that you've had a positive experience of that, and i don't doubt it for one minute
Again, though, Murray isn't the Trust and this really isn't about individuals as such, which is what you may have been assuming
It's simply my view that the Trust can't be both part of, and completely independent of the BoD. I fully understand others may see that differently. As i said earlier - most of the time it probably doesn't matter - until it does
That time is now
[Post edited 30 Jul 2023 19:14]
|
I’ve always thought trust representation on the board was a good thing but I agree with you now. Again, it has parallels to when they did it at bury and we all know how that went. If we could have the vote again from a few weeks back then I’d be changing my decision. | | | |
| McNulty's comments on 19:51 - Jul 30 with 1308 views | dawlishdale |
| McNulty's comments on 19:12 - Jul 30 by D_Alien |
It's good that you've had a positive experience of that, and i don't doubt it for one minute
Again, though, Murray isn't the Trust and this really isn't about individuals as such, which is what you may have been assuming
It's simply my view that the Trust can't be both part of, and completely independent of the BoD. I fully understand others may see that differently. As i said earlier - most of the time it probably doesn't matter - until it does
That time is now
[Post edited 30 Jul 2023 19:14]
|
Expertly put, and echoes my personal views. Under older Boards, with CD and DK as Chair, there was little need to have fans representation because generally, with one or two exceptions, things ran relatively smoothly. Sadly, when Bottomley arrived, there was almost instant turmoil on the Board, and eventually CD stepped down, leaving Andrew Kilpatrick at the helm, which sadly played straight into Roger's hands.
The trouble is that if a Trust representative questions too closely the decisions or actions of the Board; they will just side step him and carry on regardless. This is why Murray is in a very difficult position.
Getting back to the EGM vote, I have given the matter much thought and have decided to abstain. I cannot vote for or against a motion without having sufficient information about it. I would suggest every other shareholder does the same. It may force the Board into making the statement that we all need, and that they should have released on day one. If the Board don't issue full disclosure to shareholders, and the motion isn't carried, it will be entirely their fault. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
