| We've got our club back 19:15 - Oct 6 with 45811 views | judd |
7 minutes and 1 vote against.
Thank you, Mr Chairman and fellow board members.
|  |
| |  |
| We've got our club back on 12:39 - Oct 7 with 4496 views | D_Alien |
| We've got our club back on 12:07 - Oct 7 by DorkingDale |
Thank you. I hadn't realised that the new issue was quite so substantial.
Not very knowledgable on these matters, but presumably this will reduce the value of existing shares?! I realise that MH bought at a ridiculously inflated price anyway.....
If so, this will leave Andrew Kelly facing a big loss. Might he now re-consider his agreement with MH at £10/share after the new issue depending on the legal situation? Once the issue has taken place I don't think they & Southall would have a majority shareholding even with the AK shares.......... |
Is it at all likely that MH or any other party would wish to buy shares at that price, or any price over and above what the share price is when the club issue the new shares?
Paying over the odds would be the height of idiocy, unless it guaranteed* a majority stakeholding
* since the agreement to buy/sell between MH and other major shareholders is presumably still in place, it'll be interesting to see how that unfolds over the coming weeks/months after the share issue, since it'll guarantee the holders of those shares absolutely fook all
[Post edited 7 Oct 2021 12:39]
|  |
| |
| We've got our club back on 13:10 - Oct 7 with 4359 views | mikehunt |
Offer a penny in the pound for them. Let them have a bit of their own back. |  |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| We've got our club back on 13:12 - Oct 7 with 4341 views | pioneer |
| We've got our club back on 08:24 - Oct 7 by mikehunt |
Absolutely fantastic news.
Now, apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. I am trying to get my head around proceedings:
So, we are creating a block of new shares. As a percentage of existing shares, how many more are we creating (twice as many? Or what...?) This dilutes all existing share holdings. The new ones will be non-pre-emptive (is that the term) which is the bit that means we don't have to sell to existing shareholders if we don't want to - and is the crucial factor in the traitors etc not being able to gain any further leverage in the club. Am I correct up to this point?
So, we can assume all those new shares will be sold to the right people at the board's discretion? If there are any, what happens to the unsold ones? And, when it comes to voting rights, I presume only the sold ones can be counted towards any votes?
Finally, how might shares be bought by any new supporters, bearing in mind the vigilance needed in keeping the crooks out.
This might be obvious to some but, having never involved myself in anything like this before, it is making my head spin. |
Two key parts of your post:
This dilutes ALL existing shares (caps added)
and
We can assume all those new shares will be sold to the RIGHT people (caps added)
We need to remember it was existing shareholders, yes those whose shares are about to be diluted, who supported the board’s motions at the two EGMs effectively saving our club from the potential takeover by the scum. So we need to hope and pray the Board have a good ‘right person’ detector and maybe avoid pi**ing off those who saved the club but may now find their ownership of the club diluted.
Bottomley and Rawlinson got their shares somehow in the past….was there anything at the time they purchased them that would have ruled them out as not the right people?
A careful search through old dale programmes will find instances of DB being named in several forms of sponsorship for example. Yes he ended up taking more out in wages than he ever put in but no one was to know that at the time he bought his shares. No one is born a bad guy.
Its not that long ago that many on here were praising the stance taken by the then chair (now recognised as one of the bad guys) and the CEO (another bad guy) in the way Club stalwart Ian Henderson ended his time at the club. Its not easy determining who are the right people and whether who you identify as the right people now will still be the right people tomorrow. |  | | |
| We've got our club back on 13:25 - Oct 7 with 4293 views | DorkingDale |
Thanks DL, realise that, but unsure as to the current legal situation.....
Is everything on hold until the EFL complete their investigations into MH? | | | |
| We've got our club back on 13:48 - Oct 7 with 4175 views | D_Alien |
| We've got our club back on 13:12 - Oct 7 by pioneer |
Two key parts of your post:
This dilutes ALL existing shares (caps added)
and
We can assume all those new shares will be sold to the RIGHT people (caps added)
We need to remember it was existing shareholders, yes those whose shares are about to be diluted, who supported the board’s motions at the two EGMs effectively saving our club from the potential takeover by the scum. So we need to hope and pray the Board have a good ‘right person’ detector and maybe avoid pi**ing off those who saved the club but may now find their ownership of the club diluted.
Bottomley and Rawlinson got their shares somehow in the past….was there anything at the time they purchased them that would have ruled them out as not the right people?
A careful search through old dale programmes will find instances of DB being named in several forms of sponsorship for example. Yes he ended up taking more out in wages than he ever put in but no one was to know that at the time he bought his shares. No one is born a bad guy.
Its not that long ago that many on here were praising the stance taken by the then chair (now recognised as one of the bad guys) and the CEO (another bad guy) in the way Club stalwart Ian Henderson ended his time at the club. Its not easy determining who are the right people and whether who you identify as the right people now will still be the right people tomorrow. |
Some pertinent points there
My take on the forthcoming issue is that the board view a wider distribution of shares as being of long-term benefit. If no one individual (or group) has anywhere near a majority, then the chances of anyone taking control for whatever their purposes might be diminishes in proportion to the dilution
Our ex-Chair's shareholding (acquired from his father) is a case in point. It's probably too high for one individual, and could in the wrong circumstances help tilt an attempted wresting of control in the wrong 'uns favour
In terms of dilution for existing shareholders - does it matter? They're not going to profit from it, and if they're genuine Daleys they're not going to want to exert undue influence through it either
That leaves the question of who's a right 'un and who's a wrong 'un, and how to distinguish between. It could be amusing to set up a separate thread to put forward ideas about that!
[Post edited 7 Oct 2021 13:48]
| |
| |
| We've got our club back on 13:50 - Oct 7 with 4155 views | boromat |
| We've got our club back on 13:12 - Oct 7 by pioneer |
Two key parts of your post:
This dilutes ALL existing shares (caps added)
and
We can assume all those new shares will be sold to the RIGHT people (caps added)
We need to remember it was existing shareholders, yes those whose shares are about to be diluted, who supported the board’s motions at the two EGMs effectively saving our club from the potential takeover by the scum. So we need to hope and pray the Board have a good ‘right person’ detector and maybe avoid pi**ing off those who saved the club but may now find their ownership of the club diluted.
Bottomley and Rawlinson got their shares somehow in the past….was there anything at the time they purchased them that would have ruled them out as not the right people?
A careful search through old dale programmes will find instances of DB being named in several forms of sponsorship for example. Yes he ended up taking more out in wages than he ever put in but no one was to know that at the time he bought his shares. No one is born a bad guy.
Its not that long ago that many on here were praising the stance taken by the then chair (now recognised as one of the bad guys) and the CEO (another bad guy) in the way Club stalwart Ian Henderson ended his time at the club. Its not easy determining who are the right people and whether who you identify as the right people now will still be the right people tomorrow. |
This is similar to what I've said before about the split of shares. Ideally we wouldn't have anyone apart fro. Maybe the trust with 10-15% or the shares. The bigger the spread of shareholders the safer. Anyone's circumstances can change even those initially with good intentions and they can change to the extent where you'd cash in on your shares.
I think maybe some sort of Club or Trust share buyback scheme would be a great addition. Obviously it wouldn't buy them back at over the odds prices. | |
| |
| We've got our club back on 13:52 - Oct 7 with 4144 views | Zac_B |
| We've got our club back on 13:12 - Oct 7 by pioneer |
Two key parts of your post:
This dilutes ALL existing shares (caps added)
and
We can assume all those new shares will be sold to the RIGHT people (caps added)
We need to remember it was existing shareholders, yes those whose shares are about to be diluted, who supported the board’s motions at the two EGMs effectively saving our club from the potential takeover by the scum. So we need to hope and pray the Board have a good ‘right person’ detector and maybe avoid pi**ing off those who saved the club but may now find their ownership of the club diluted.
Bottomley and Rawlinson got their shares somehow in the past….was there anything at the time they purchased them that would have ruled them out as not the right people?
A careful search through old dale programmes will find instances of DB being named in several forms of sponsorship for example. Yes he ended up taking more out in wages than he ever put in but no one was to know that at the time he bought his shares. No one is born a bad guy.
Its not that long ago that many on here were praising the stance taken by the then chair (now recognised as one of the bad guys) and the CEO (another bad guy) in the way Club stalwart Ian Henderson ended his time at the club. Its not easy determining who are the right people and whether who you identify as the right people now will still be the right people tomorrow. |
A really good point re Rawlinson.
A number of years ago, both he and my father received a number of shares as a thank you for some fantastic work in relation to youth players (Joe Thompson was one of those youth players).
Back then, it wouldn't seem plausible for him to become the foul-mouthed nasty piece of work who assisted in trying to sell the club up the river. Yet here we are! | | | |
| We've got our club back on 14:05 - Oct 7 with 4085 views | DaleiLama |
| We've got our club back on 13:25 - Oct 7 by DorkingDale |
Thanks DL, realise that, but unsure as to the current legal situation.....
Is everything on hold until the EFL complete their investigations into MH? |
Honestly no idea DD - only stuff I've read - there was a legal challenge but not sure what right MH even had to make that. Based on a verbal agreement, a signed agreement or even an 'unrecognised' agreement? Dare say it will come out in the wash but since the wrong uns look like they are in an even weaker position now, perhaps that legal challenge will go away. As ever, we live in hope. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| We've got our club back on 14:24 - Oct 7 with 4025 views | dawlishdale |
| We've got our club back on 13:12 - Oct 7 by pioneer |
Two key parts of your post:
This dilutes ALL existing shares (caps added)
and
We can assume all those new shares will be sold to the RIGHT people (caps added)
We need to remember it was existing shareholders, yes those whose shares are about to be diluted, who supported the board’s motions at the two EGMs effectively saving our club from the potential takeover by the scum. So we need to hope and pray the Board have a good ‘right person’ detector and maybe avoid pi**ing off those who saved the club but may now find their ownership of the club diluted.
Bottomley and Rawlinson got their shares somehow in the past….was there anything at the time they purchased them that would have ruled them out as not the right people?
A careful search through old dale programmes will find instances of DB being named in several forms of sponsorship for example. Yes he ended up taking more out in wages than he ever put in but no one was to know that at the time he bought his shares. No one is born a bad guy.
Its not that long ago that many on here were praising the stance taken by the then chair (now recognised as one of the bad guys) and the CEO (another bad guy) in the way Club stalwart Ian Henderson ended his time at the club. Its not easy determining who are the right people and whether who you identify as the right people now will still be the right people tomorrow. |
Just one point here...
Existing shareholders actually forced the withdrawal of the Boards proposals for issuing shares to potential outside investors at the 2 EGM's. Had they voted in favour of the old Boards proposals; the club would now be in other people's hands and the shares held by long standing supporters would be worthless. It would appear however, that contained within the business plan put forward by these outside investors ; a provision was made to buy certain existing shareholders out for cash ; and the numbers suggest that those who stood to benefit were members of the old Board which looks like a somewhat dubious move by both parties to the potential detriment of other shareholders, the club and its supporters.
Fully agree that going forward, ANY potential new Board member should undergo a more robust due diligence process (one that would almost certainly have prevented our former CEO from ever being invited onto the Board).
The club has, and must learn from the events of the past 6 months, and must move to protect itself from a similar situation ever happening again. | | | |
| We've got our club back on 14:53 - Oct 7 with 3920 views | tony_roch975 |
| We've got our club back on 14:24 - Oct 7 by dawlishdale |
Just one point here...
Existing shareholders actually forced the withdrawal of the Boards proposals for issuing shares to potential outside investors at the 2 EGM's. Had they voted in favour of the old Boards proposals; the club would now be in other people's hands and the shares held by long standing supporters would be worthless. It would appear however, that contained within the business plan put forward by these outside investors ; a provision was made to buy certain existing shareholders out for cash ; and the numbers suggest that those who stood to benefit were members of the old Board which looks like a somewhat dubious move by both parties to the potential detriment of other shareholders, the club and its supporters.
Fully agree that going forward, ANY potential new Board member should undergo a more robust due diligence process (one that would almost certainly have prevented our former CEO from ever being invited onto the Board).
The club has, and must learn from the events of the past 6 months, and must move to protect itself from a similar situation ever happening again. |
Absolutely & previous leaders like Chris Dunphy (before selling off his shares to the Americans) were once seen as unimpeachable.
Tony Benn's Five Essential Questions of Democracy are pertinent
“What power have you got?” ·
“Where did you get it from?” ·
“In whose interests do you use it?” ·
“To whom are you accountable?” ·
“How do we get rid of you? | |
| |
| We've got our club back on 15:47 - Oct 7 with 3728 views | Shun |
| We've got our club back on 13:12 - Oct 7 by pioneer |
Two key parts of your post:
This dilutes ALL existing shares (caps added)
and
We can assume all those new shares will be sold to the RIGHT people (caps added)
We need to remember it was existing shareholders, yes those whose shares are about to be diluted, who supported the board’s motions at the two EGMs effectively saving our club from the potential takeover by the scum. So we need to hope and pray the Board have a good ‘right person’ detector and maybe avoid pi**ing off those who saved the club but may now find their ownership of the club diluted.
Bottomley and Rawlinson got their shares somehow in the past….was there anything at the time they purchased them that would have ruled them out as not the right people?
A careful search through old dale programmes will find instances of DB being named in several forms of sponsorship for example. Yes he ended up taking more out in wages than he ever put in but no one was to know that at the time he bought his shares. No one is born a bad guy.
Its not that long ago that many on here were praising the stance taken by the then chair (now recognised as one of the bad guys) and the CEO (another bad guy) in the way Club stalwart Ian Henderson ended his time at the club. Its not easy determining who are the right people and whether who you identify as the right people now will still be the right people tomorrow. |
Absolutely. When Bottomley was appointed it was a decision widely-lauded, including on here. Despite his links to Oldham that have since surfaced, he was a face a lot of us were familiar with and, as you suggest, there was nothing that would point to the nefarious acts he would go on to orchestrate. |  | | |
| We've got our club back on 17:47 - Oct 7 with 3442 views | judd |
| We've got our club back on 15:47 - Oct 7 by Shun |
Absolutely. When Bottomley was appointed it was a decision widely-lauded, including on here. Despite his links to Oldham that have since surfaced, he was a face a lot of us were familiar with and, as you suggest, there was nothing that would point to the nefarious acts he would go on to orchestrate. |
Erm... | |
| |
| We've got our club back on 17:53 - Oct 7 with 3424 views | Shun |
| We've got our club back on 17:47 - Oct 7 by judd |
Erm... |
Care to disagree, judd? | | | |
| We've got our club back on 20:01 - Oct 7 with 3132 views | nordenblue |
| We've got our club back on 15:47 - Oct 7 by Shun |
Absolutely. When Bottomley was appointed it was a decision widely-lauded, including on here. Despite his links to Oldham that have since surfaced, he was a face a lot of us were familiar with and, as you suggest, there was nothing that would point to the nefarious acts he would go on to orchestrate. |
Not sure about the "widely lauded" bit Shun,and it certainly didn't take much digging to expose his previous "history" either, at the time there were also questions raised as to how he actually got in the job in the first place.
Not sure about the familiar bit too, he was only familiar from being a board member previously and certainly not from the terraces,unlike most/all our current board.
I agree though someone who seems decent today can turn into a massive problem further down the line, and its very hard to put a structure in place to virtually guard against that fully for the future. [Post edited 7 Oct 2021 20:03]
| | | |
| We've got our club back on 20:09 - Oct 7 with 3099 views | James1980 |
| We've got our club back on 20:01 - Oct 7 by nordenblue |
Not sure about the "widely lauded" bit Shun,and it certainly didn't take much digging to expose his previous "history" either, at the time there were also questions raised as to how he actually got in the job in the first place.
Not sure about the familiar bit too, he was only familiar from being a board member previously and certainly not from the terraces,unlike most/all our current board.
I agree though someone who seems decent today can turn into a massive problem further down the line, and its very hard to put a structure in place to virtually guard against that fully for the future. [Post edited 7 Oct 2021 20:03]
|
Wasn't there a recently bumped thread that lauded his return to the area and him becoming a director? [Post edited 7 Oct 2021 20:44]
| |
| |
| We've got our club back on 20:50 - Oct 7 with 2970 views | nordenblue |
| We've got our club back on 20:09 - Oct 7 by James1980 |
Wasn't there a recently bumped thread that lauded his return to the area and him becoming a director? [Post edited 7 Oct 2021 20:44]
|
Not sure James, could well be though.
Think the bigger issue was him becoming CEO and just being gifted the role | | | |
| We've got our club back (n/t) on 20:54 - Oct 7 with 2945 views | joecooke |
Many thanks to all involved who have made this possible.
[Post edited 7 Oct 2021 21:03]
|  |
| |
| We've got our club back on 21:08 - Oct 7 with 2890 views | James1980 |
| We've got our club back on 20:50 - Oct 7 by nordenblue |
Not sure James, could well be though.
Think the bigger issue was him becoming CEO and just being gifted the role |
For the record and to avoid thread deletion. I am referring to the thread about that man joining the board of directors. | |
| |
| We've got our club back on 21:34 - Oct 7 with 2832 views | judd |
| We've got our club back on 17:53 - Oct 7 by Shun |
Care to disagree, judd? |
Yes | |
| |
| We've got our club back on 22:23 - Oct 7 with 2682 views | 49thseason |
| We've got our club back on 21:34 - Oct 7 by judd |
Yes |
If memory serves, it was Judd who called out the BoD for allowing Bottom to become a Director by presenting the Hasbro details which they apparently knew little about because they hadn't done due diligence on him. (or had and didn't care)
The second mistake was allowing him to be both Director and CEO, virtually an abdication of control by the other Directors. What followed led to the situation we were in 2 or 3 months ago. Essentially Bottom was running the whole show and not telling the board much about what he was up to, assuming they ever bothered to ask, the BBM contract was the final straw for the fans and the supine board then seemed to know nothing about it when it all came out at the fans forum.
The lack of oversight from the board at the time was a complete dereliction of duty by Directors who were responsible for the club as a legal entity and who seemed to think it was theirs to do with as they pleased.. To allow Bottom to essentially pimp out the club to a collection of no-marks and downright criminals was collusion in his plans on a grand scale. I presume the then Chairman was cheerleading his efforts in the hope of selling his shares to the highest bidder and screw the club.
For my part I am hugely grateful to Judd for his persistence and diligence in outing Bottom and the rest. He was the canary in the coalmine and well done him and all those who eventually noticed the nasty smell and acted to remove it! |  | | |
| We've got our club back on 00:04 - Oct 8 with 2500 views | _Windydale |
Judd and guys closer to the club from a business aspect sniffed a rat in Bottomley. But I agree with Shun, for many followers who aren't close to the club, and maybe focus mostly on matchdays, Bottomley came across pretty well, in his interviews and rhetoric. He's a bad 'un, a self-centered narcissist, and a good job we have fellas like Judd, these sentinels that keep a watchful eye on the club. | | | |
| We've got our club back on 00:16 - Oct 8 with 2479 views | DorkingDale |
| We've got our club back on 00:04 - Oct 8 by _Windydale |
Judd and guys closer to the club from a business aspect sniffed a rat in Bottomley. But I agree with Shun, for many followers who aren't close to the club, and maybe focus mostly on matchdays, Bottomley came across pretty well, in his interviews and rhetoric. He's a bad 'un, a self-centered narcissist, and a good job we have fellas like Judd, these sentinels that keep a watchful eye on the club. |
This post brings me back to the brief conversation I had with CD after his final match as Chairman....he didn't divulge any details but just said words along of the line of "Good luck to them - they'll need it..." Wonder what actually happened behind the scenes which resulted in CD resigning? | | | |
| We've got our club back on 00:38 - Oct 8 with 2460 views | kel |
Judd took a lot of grief at the start but stuck to his guns and thankfully he was proved correct. I’ve known him for years (unfortunately) and I didn’t really take on board what he was trying to make us aware of but I’m glad he kept plugging away. More recently, he’s done a lot behind the scenes which some may not be aware of and I for one am grateful to him for that.
He’s still a bellend though  |  | | |
| We've got our club back on 00:41 - Oct 8 with 2456 views | Shun |
| We've got our club back on 20:09 - Oct 7 by James1980 |
Wasn't there a recently bumped thread that lauded his return to the area and him becoming a director? [Post edited 7 Oct 2021 20:44]
|
Precisely, James. I think a few on here have very short memories!
And to nordenblue, he was a familiar face on the terraces. I certainly remember seeing him and his son at away matches. | | | |
| We've got our club back on 00:43 - Oct 8 with 2451 views | Sandyman |
Too many of us got conned by a self serving charlatan early doors. Fortunately, the Dale DNA within many supporters took hold and exposed a self serving useless incompetent narcissistic nob. He got outed at an EGM and left within the month to self serve elsewhere.
He'll bleat and the graphic / post will be taken down, but he knows full well this is the contempt Rochdale fans will hold him with until the day he dies. And we NEVER give up. Love THE DALE hate Bottomley
 |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
