| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:35 - May 23 with 2598 views | 100notout |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:23 - May 23 by RAFCBLUE |
"Regrettably" is IMO the way this has been done by the current Board and in a way that has not been explained. Before anyone tells me that the meeting hasn't happened yet, the Board have had 15 months to explain this from when they launched it last year, including a public fans forum where it wasn't even mentioned.
In the past, under previous Chairman I will add, the motions around raising additional capital have been accompanied by a clear, transparent explanation as to the reason WHY. The building of the WMG stand on Pearl Street was one such example.
There is not a support of RAFC who does not want to see it succeed and we all can debate and have a view of how that is possible.
This, IMO, is simply a way that the current Board can sell off the club - in the next 5 years - to someone of their choosing.
Without checks, without governance, without further review. Its the sort of thing I used to sneer at when I saw what was happening at buryfc and I cannot standby and see it happen here.
That's why its "regrettable"; we were a well run League 1 club just 36 months ago and we have fallen from League 1 and from being well run.
The most scandalous thing about it in my mind is the way that is isn't be talked about. All the Board have to do is explain WHY they want these resolutions passed.
If they have an investor already lined up they should introduce them, just in the same way that previous new blood has been introduced. They knew nothing about Altman and Marcelli until it had happened so that would indicate that they are acting in self-interest rather than best interest. |
I also regrettably am voting against all proposals. Why?
Well there is no doubt that the club needs new investors so under normal circumstances I would have voted in favour of option 3 but against option 4 - there is absolutely no reason why existing shareholders should face dilution and should always have the option (but not obligation) to maintain its pro rata shareholding.
Of course these are not normal circumstances - ask yourselves this - whilst there is a risk of DB still running the show, are you happy to trust him to make the right decisions for the benefit of RAFC? I'm not so regrettably its a no from me to all of the clubs EGM resolutions. |  |
|  |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:47 - May 23 with 2555 views | 100notout |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:28 - May 23 by Dalenet |
I have no problem with the vote. But I have a few observations.
Taking Bottomley and Rawlinson out is driven by a perception that the club is being badly run. As fans we don't like the poor communication and the underhand ways. But the club has had to steer a course through a pandemic with reduced income. Will the AGMs and accounts show they did a bad job? I don't know but I would like our shareholder representatives to be clear on that - they have the AGM papers and accounts
The issuing of shares has always been a bone of contention. If the Board present some new ideas to shareholders at the EGM, that may involve new investment, will the Trust be guided by a members NO vote, or will they use their discretion if the investment doesn't translate into a change of control outcome? Or does everybody expect such a move to be blocked regardless - and then additional consultation will be required? |
The majority of the period the accounts represent is prior to the pandemic and include some significant transfer fees and gate receipts, so you cannot judge the performance of DB on these.
We judge DB on a number of things
decision to end Goldbond
inexplicable decision to extend the contract of the manager
lack of communication
alienation of the fans
there are many other examples of incompetence / deceitfulfess / bad decision making - I'm sure someone can provide a more exhaustive list.
There is also a severe lack of corporate governance - GR is accountable for this as he has "been asleep at the wheel". All this happened on his watch - what did he do about it?
Whether or not we need new investment is not the issue - of course we do - but who do we trust to see that process through? Not DB as far as I am concerned. | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:54 - May 23 with 2541 views | kel |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:07 - May 23 by ncfc_chalky |
Even though I'm a member I wouldn't normally vote because Dale isn't my first club and I would feel like I was interfering on matters that don't concern me,BUT I know that there's strong feelings about this by posters on here so I've put my twopeneth in for you lads |
Nice one, chalks.
Now fook off. |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:19 - May 23 with 2470 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:28 - May 23 by Dalenet |
I have no problem with the vote. But I have a few observations.
Taking Bottomley and Rawlinson out is driven by a perception that the club is being badly run. As fans we don't like the poor communication and the underhand ways. But the club has had to steer a course through a pandemic with reduced income. Will the AGMs and accounts show they did a bad job? I don't know but I would like our shareholder representatives to be clear on that - they have the AGM papers and accounts
The issuing of shares has always been a bone of contention. If the Board present some new ideas to shareholders at the EGM, that may involve new investment, will the Trust be guided by a members NO vote, or will they use their discretion if the investment doesn't translate into a change of control outcome? Or does everybody expect such a move to be blocked regardless - and then additional consultation will be required? |
I'm no involved in the Trust but on the practical points:
1. Accounts.
The accounts being presented here are for the year ending 31 May 2020 (i.e. last season).
Those show the club was worth £2,720,401 on 31st May 2020 with £768,669 in cash.
We know that between 31st May 2020 and now things have been very tight for the club with no fans in attendance and many revenue streams slashed.
The Directors have not, as yet, provided a current update to shareholders on the current financial position of the club. This would normally be done during the AGM.
2. Additional facts that come out during EGM
Should additional information come to light either now, or during the AGM, there is nothing to stop the Directors withdrawing the EGM motions completely or simply voting them down using their votes too.
Any future, updated resolution could then be put to shareholders.
For example, if a new investor was presentable they could be appointed as a Director with the support of an AGM or EGM as needed.
There is no likelihood of a new investor to be present at the AGM/EGM as this is a 'shareholders only' event. |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:26 - May 23 with 2448 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:35 - May 23 by 100notout |
I also regrettably am voting against all proposals. Why?
Well there is no doubt that the club needs new investors so under normal circumstances I would have voted in favour of option 3 but against option 4 - there is absolutely no reason why existing shareholders should face dilution and should always have the option (but not obligation) to maintain its pro rata shareholding.
Of course these are not normal circumstances - ask yourselves this - whilst there is a risk of DB still running the show, are you happy to trust him to make the right decisions for the benefit of RAFC? I'm not so regrettably its a no from me to all of the clubs EGM resolutions. |
Motion 4 is the one that is the most sinister.
Stating to the existing shareholders that you are asking them in advance to waive their pre-emption right is a pretty big thing.
The paper is crafted in a way that gives the Directors two cracks at raising new capital - so you would have to assume that is needed urgently and at some scale.
Without motion 4 all you would do is come to the existing shareholders and ask for more funds and it would be for that shareholder to decide if they desired or could afford the new shares; there is no obligation on them to subscribe.
The fact Motion 4 is even on there tells you it is a considered choice that the Directors do not plan to ask current shareholders (including the Trust) to participate if there was a new capital raising. | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:58 - May 23 with 2399 views | jonahwhereru |
I have real issues with the motion enabling a 58% shareholding. Could not countenance that.
In reality I don’t think investors would be queuing around the block at £6 a pop. | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 13:16 - May 23 with 2364 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:58 - May 23 by jonahwhereru |
I have real issues with the motion enabling a 58% shareholding. Could not countenance that.
In reality I don’t think investors would be queuing around the block at £6 a pop. |
I agree with that point.
If Motion 2 or 3 was passed then the lowest the shares could be issued for is 50p - which would generate £348,521 (Motion 2) or £198,521 (Motion 3).
There is no guarantee of anything above that.
What it does bring into play if passed is the ability for a new shareholder to buy the new shares AND do a deal with the incumbent directors to then buy their shares privately and gain control.
You could pass Motion 2 or Motion 3 and then come back in the next 5 years and say "We can't get £6 so here is a motion to reduce that number to £1 per share". | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 14:12 - May 23 with 2294 views | Dale69er |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:53 - May 23 by dawlishdale |
Mine arrived today. it's really important for Trust members to vote on this.
I don't like what the club wants to do with future shares being restricted to only people that they choose to sell to, so I voted against the 4 club proposals.
As for voting for Bottomley out, that is the easiest decision I've taken in some time. |
My reading of the resolution is that, if passed, Bottomley would only be removed as a director. He would still be CEO. is this correct? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 15:25 - May 23 with 2185 views | ChaffRAFC |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 14:12 - May 23 by Dale69er |
My reading of the resolution is that, if passed, Bottomley would only be removed as a director. He would still be CEO. is this correct? |
Yes |  |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 15:37 - May 23 with 2164 views | Dalenet |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 15:25 - May 23 by ChaffRAFC |
Yes |
Unless the Board decided his position as CEO was no longer tenable and offered him a package to go. | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 16:11 - May 23 with 2119 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 15:37 - May 23 by Dalenet |
Unless the Board decided his position as CEO was no longer tenable and offered him a package to go. |
Or unless Mr Bottomley did not wish to work for the Board on a full time basis and the scrutiny that would bring and choose to go somewhere else himself.
Employment contracts work both ways. | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 20:43 - May 23 with 1927 views | EllDale |
Being harsh, looking at his age and his CV, there wouldn’t be to many places for him to go.
There’s always consultancy of course though. | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 21:04 - May 23 with 1895 views | D_Alien |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 20:43 - May 23 by EllDale |
Being harsh, looking at his age and his CV, there wouldn’t be to many places for him to go.
There’s always consultancy of course though. |
Not harsh at all
There's a case to be made which says he was pretty much washed-up when he came on board at Dale with an eye on the CEO salary. The boardroom and subsequent ousting of CD was just part of his plan
He'll fight tooth and nail to maintain his position. I've made my views known, and don't think the Trust will know what's hit them at the AGM/EGM unless they're prepared for what could become a metaphorical bloodbath one way or t' other |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 08:55 - May 24 with 1644 views | James1980 |
Just had a look at Bottomley's linkedin. On his CV he claims he secured the Crown Oil sponsorship and many other sponsorships. I suppose that is something positive the bloke has done for the club. If it was mainly down to him of course. | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:00 - May 24 with 1632 views | foreverhopefulDale |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 08:55 - May 24 by James1980 |
Just had a look at Bottomley's linkedin. On his CV he claims he secured the Crown Oil sponsorship and many other sponsorships. I suppose that is something positive the bloke has done for the club. If it was mainly down to him of course. |
You mean doing part of his job? Even the most useless of employees can usually do something right. [Post edited 24 May 2021 9:01]
|  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:13 - May 24 with 1611 views | kel |
I could put on Twitter that I’ve shagged Miley Cyrus.
Wouldn’t make it true. | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:19 - May 24 with 1601 views | James1980 |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:00 - May 24 by foreverhopefulDale |
You mean doing part of his job? Even the most useless of employees can usually do something right. [Post edited 24 May 2021 9:01]
|
Quite a big thing to get right though. Anyway I will either vote for him to go.
I just feel a little uncomfortable with the some of what seems like vitriol directed towards the bloke and what seems a bit like personal vendettas. (No I'm not going to provide evidence, no one else is asked to do this).
The comment he made regarding what other clubs are doing with season tickets is what has made me join the rebel alliance. The reason being is that any fool should have realised that interview would come under a great deal of scrutiny and need to be as accurate as possible, or include the caveat. That obviously between recording and viewing some clubs situations regarding season tickets might have changed. So either the chap actively lied, he didn't do his research properly or someone on his team didn't respect him enough to carry out proper research and then let their boss make an arse of himself on camera. | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:33 - May 24 with 1579 views | judd |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:19 - May 24 by James1980 |
Quite a big thing to get right though. Anyway I will either vote for him to go.
I just feel a little uncomfortable with the some of what seems like vitriol directed towards the bloke and what seems a bit like personal vendettas. (No I'm not going to provide evidence, no one else is asked to do this).
The comment he made regarding what other clubs are doing with season tickets is what has made me join the rebel alliance. The reason being is that any fool should have realised that interview would come under a great deal of scrutiny and need to be as accurate as possible, or include the caveat. That obviously between recording and viewing some clubs situations regarding season tickets might have changed. So either the chap actively lied, he didn't do his research properly or someone on his team didn't respect him enough to carry out proper research and then let their boss make an arse of himself on camera. |
I do believe that Crown Oil have been club sponsors in some shape since 2012, which pre-dates his elevation to the board.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2016/august/crown-oil-sign-record-breaking-fi
Who is that in the photo? |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:36 - May 24 with 1573 views | DaleiLama |
Nicely framed shot that ......... can't even see the hilt of the dagger (in his back) [Post edited 24 May 2021 10:38]
|  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:37 - May 24 with 1571 views | IOMDale |
It's Adrian Greenhalgh, silly.
Oh, you mean t'other bloke? |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:45 - May 24 with 1557 views | James1980 |
And there's me trying to find a positive of his time at the club so far and it turns out to be less than accurate.  | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:05 - May 24 with 1522 views | Cedar_Room |
As a new Trust member I received the email but was slightly bemused as to which way I should vote and it would have helped for the Trust to have included what their position was as to their preferred outcome. Any organisation that is campaigning on an issue and trying to force change needs to properly explain themselves and keep their members informed as to what they believe should happen. I read this message board avidly but am still unsure exactly why everyone hates Bottomley so much and I certainly have no idea what all the questions regarding shares was all about. This thread has given me a better idea but I think the Trust should be putting these arguments forward - the case against Bottomley if you like, the implications of changing around the shares - or else don’t be surprised if you don’t get the votes you expect. [Post edited 24 May 2021 10:16]
|  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:18 - May 24 with 1485 views | Salegraham |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:13 - May 24 by kel |
I could put on Twitter that I’ve shagged Miley Cyrus.
Wouldn’t make it true. |
Not you as well, two timing bitch | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:46 - May 24 with 1428 views | ChaffRAFC |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:05 - May 24 by Cedar_Room |
As a new Trust member I received the email but was slightly bemused as to which way I should vote and it would have helped for the Trust to have included what their position was as to their preferred outcome. Any organisation that is campaigning on an issue and trying to force change needs to properly explain themselves and keep their members informed as to what they believe should happen. I read this message board avidly but am still unsure exactly why everyone hates Bottomley so much and I certainly have no idea what all the questions regarding shares was all about. This thread has given me a better idea but I think the Trust should be putting these arguments forward - the case against Bottomley if you like, the implications of changing around the shares - or else don’t be surprised if you don’t get the votes you expect. [Post edited 24 May 2021 10:16]
|
I don't disagree that it's complicated, a few people have said that to me and I was grateful for RAFCBLUE's explanation on here.
I would think, the Trust have to use the wording used by the club or they could be seen to be misleading people or at least risk being seen as favouring one side over the other?
The shares issue has been put forward by the club, not the Trust.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:59 - May 24 with 1404 views | Cedar_Room |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:46 - May 24 by ChaffRAFC |
I don't disagree that it's complicated, a few people have said that to me and I was grateful for RAFCBLUE's explanation on here.
I would think, the Trust have to use the wording used by the club or they could be seen to be misleading people or at least risk being seen as favouring one side over the other?
The shares issue has been put forward by the club, not the Trust.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
but isn't the point of the Trust to explain what's going on at the club to its members? According to the website the Trust was set up "to help give supporters the chance to have a better say in the running of the club". So shouldn't we expect them to clarify what these votes are all about given that they have been described as the most important thing Trust members have ever been balloted on?
Is it really the case that the Trust can't be seen to hold an opinion on issues? I mean aren't they the ones who called this EGM in the first place to vote on removing Bottomley and Rawlinson?? Surely its obvious they are only doing that because they want them to be removed? Its not like the Trust would have called for this just to have both of them confirmed in their posts. In which case - why exactly? What is the point of calling for this vote if you aren't going to explain why you have called for it??
At the very least if the Trust is going to claim it has to stay neutral (which seems bizarre to me) surely it can write an explainer of what the issues are without drawing any conclusions and leaving it up to the fans to decide based on the facts. As things stand I don't think the facts have been communicated at all. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
