| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:25 - May 24 with 3553 views | judd |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:59 - May 24 by Cedar_Room |
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. |
From the Trust EGM poll:
"The Trust’s EGM refers to:
- The allegations of “serious internal issues” made about the running of the club from two of the Club’s leading
Shareholders, and a subsequent lack of dealing with them, which has led to their decision to step back from any
involvement in the Football Club
- The circumstances behind the awarding of a new contract to the First Team Manager and the subsequent
withholding of this information
- The future of the Football Club following Interim Chairman Andrew Kelly’s expected departure from the Club"
You could also add to that the circumstances that have seen John Smallwood resign from the board of Directors. |  |
|  |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:39 - May 24 with 3513 views | fermin |
| 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 had not been following anything for about 5 months till earlier last week. I have also just received the trust ballot email. I thought the explanation regarding the share issue was clear enough as I did not really understand the implications of that.
I agree there was not enough about the wish to remove Bottomley and Rawlinson so that would not be clear to those who do not follow things on here - and to be honest as someone who used to follow things on here before taking a break I was never sure how much of what was said about Bottomley was driven by personal dislike rather than facts. In the end I would take the view that the Trust have more knowledge about goings on than I do and have not tabled the motion about the two of them lightly. On the other hand, why Rawlinson rather than Kelly or Kilpatrick etc? I have no idea what the 'serious internal issues' mentioned either so I presume these are confidential unless they have been discussed on here while I have been away. Are they something to do with Rawlinson? What are the circumstances that led John Smallwood to resign as I have no idea.
Finally, Trust members who are also shareholders also need to make sure they vote in line with their wishes either directly at the AGM/EGM or by giving a proxy vote to someone attending and not just respond to this email ballot. Even if, as is likely, the Trust get a clear mandate from its members as to how to vote at the meeting, the most important ballot is the one at the AGM/EGM. |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:43 - May 24 with 3508 views | Cedar_Room |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:25 - May 24 by judd |
From the Trust EGM poll:
"The Trust’s EGM refers to:
- The allegations of “serious internal issues” made about the running of the club from two of the Club’s leading
Shareholders, and a subsequent lack of dealing with them, which has led to their decision to step back from any
involvement in the Football Club
- The circumstances behind the awarding of a new contract to the First Team Manager and the subsequent
withholding of this information
- The future of the Football Club following Interim Chairman Andrew Kelly’s expected departure from the Club"
You could also add to that the circumstances that have seen John Smallwood resign from the board of Directors. |
I don't think this really explains much. "Serious internal issues" such as what exactly? This is what always infuriates me is that there are people who seem to be in the know but they can't possibly divulge what they know, unless you are also in the know.
Well unless it is properly explained what exactly the beef is with Bottomley, rather than innuendo and vague concerns, the case to why he needs to go simply hasn't been made. If now isn't the time to make it and say what needs to be said then when is? |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:00 - May 24 with 3454 views | James1980 |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:43 - May 24 by Cedar_Room |
I don't think this really explains much. "Serious internal issues" such as what exactly? This is what always infuriates me is that there are people who seem to be in the know but they can't possibly divulge what they know, unless you are also in the know.
Well unless it is properly explained what exactly the beef is with Bottomley, rather than innuendo and vague concerns, the case to why he needs to go simply hasn't been made. If now isn't the time to make it and say what needs to be said then when is? |
My beef is that last interview because considering the scrutiny he surely knew he was going to get, why did he either lie to the fans or not research the subject matter properly, both are unprofessional.
Regarding others for most of them, is it a push back against his plans to make the club more corporate/commercial and a belief he orchestrated Dunphy leaving the club? |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:40 - May 24 with 3324 views | D_Alien |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:39 - May 24 by fermin |
I had not been following anything for about 5 months till earlier last week. I have also just received the trust ballot email. I thought the explanation regarding the share issue was clear enough as I did not really understand the implications of that.
I agree there was not enough about the wish to remove Bottomley and Rawlinson so that would not be clear to those who do not follow things on here - and to be honest as someone who used to follow things on here before taking a break I was never sure how much of what was said about Bottomley was driven by personal dislike rather than facts. In the end I would take the view that the Trust have more knowledge about goings on than I do and have not tabled the motion about the two of them lightly. On the other hand, why Rawlinson rather than Kelly or Kilpatrick etc? I have no idea what the 'serious internal issues' mentioned either so I presume these are confidential unless they have been discussed on here while I have been away. Are they something to do with Rawlinson? What are the circumstances that led John Smallwood to resign as I have no idea.
Finally, Trust members who are also shareholders also need to make sure they vote in line with their wishes either directly at the AGM/EGM or by giving a proxy vote to someone attending and not just respond to this email ballot. Even if, as is likely, the Trust get a clear mandate from its members as to how to vote at the meeting, the most important ballot is the one at the AGM/EGM. |
Re: your last paragraph... absolutely
It's to be hoped the Trust have more in their armoury than just Trust member votes. They've called for shareholders to add their votes to the EGM resolutions by proxy, and the Trust will no doubt be keeping that tally close to their chest
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the club don't throw a 'leftfield' spanner into the works shortly before the AGMs/EGMs too, in which case they'll have to think on their feet as it were - and possibly at the meetings themselves
Not being a Trust member, i can only watch on and wish their efforts well. They've changed their initial stance on asking for the entire Board to go, to concentrate their fire (correctly, imo) on Bottomley & Rawlinson. Whilst events have been endorsed by the whole Board (corporate responsibility), many shareholders may have been put off by potentially creating such a vacuum at the helm and both Kelly & Pockney have shown merit in the interests of the club rather than themselves
[Post edited 24 May 2021 12:42]
|  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:51 - May 24 with 3299 views | SuddenLad |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:43 - May 24 by Cedar_Room |
I don't think this really explains much. "Serious internal issues" such as what exactly? This is what always infuriates me is that there are people who seem to be in the know but they can't possibly divulge what they know, unless you are also in the know.
Well unless it is properly explained what exactly the beef is with Bottomley, rather than innuendo and vague concerns, the case to why he needs to go simply hasn't been made. If now isn't the time to make it and say what needs to be said then when is? |
Whatever the finer points of the 'serious internal issues' are, for that specific quote to be used by potential investors and prospective Board members, is alarming in the extreme.
Dan Altman and Emre Marcelli were the source of that quote and they will have far more knowledge of the internal machinations than anyone on here. For them to use that specific phrase was hugely worrying, for the fan base in general and no doubt for other sponsors, and potential investors.
I don't think the revelations about his involvement in a huge trading scandal resulting in multi-million pound fines was particularly welcomed. Or the manner in which he became CEO when we had already appointed one in a fanfare of publicity.
I think the 'vague concerns' you refer to are much more than that. Major doubts have been raised about the history, competence, conduct and transparency which has associated itself with the CEO.
The suitability of Mr. Rawlinson has also been brought into question after his conduct towards home supporters and his seemingly lack of awareness of club matters at boardroom level - of which he is part. Embarrassing in the extreme.
It's a matter for the shareholders,but the facts are known and the decisions is there to be made. Or not, if people prefer to carry on in the same way. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 13:15 - May 24 with 3259 views | Cedar_Room |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:51 - May 24 by SuddenLad |
Whatever the finer points of the 'serious internal issues' are, for that specific quote to be used by potential investors and prospective Board members, is alarming in the extreme.
Dan Altman and Emre Marcelli were the source of that quote and they will have far more knowledge of the internal machinations than anyone on here. For them to use that specific phrase was hugely worrying, for the fan base in general and no doubt for other sponsors, and potential investors.
I don't think the revelations about his involvement in a huge trading scandal resulting in multi-million pound fines was particularly welcomed. Or the manner in which he became CEO when we had already appointed one in a fanfare of publicity.
I think the 'vague concerns' you refer to are much more than that. Major doubts have been raised about the history, competence, conduct and transparency which has associated itself with the CEO.
The suitability of Mr. Rawlinson has also been brought into question after his conduct towards home supporters and his seemingly lack of awareness of club matters at boardroom level - of which he is part. Embarrassing in the extreme.
It's a matter for the shareholders,but the facts are known and the decisions is there to be made. Or not, if people prefer to carry on in the same way. |
There may well be genuine concerns, my point is they are not being well communicated. That's why they appear vague. Surely if the case against Bottomley was so obvious there would not be people like me unsure of what it is? Doesn't that tell you that the Trust need to be doing a better job of putting this all together and making it clear why they want Bottomley and Rawlinson gone? I have no issue at all with getting rid of them if that will best serve the interests of the club - but for such a dramatic step I would expect the arguments why that needs to happen to be included with the request to vote. Spell it out, try to persuade people, don't just act like people should already know. | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 13:21 - May 24 with 3240 views | SuddenLad |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 13:15 - May 24 by Cedar_Room |
There may well be genuine concerns, my point is they are not being well communicated. That's why they appear vague. Surely if the case against Bottomley was so obvious there would not be people like me unsure of what it is? Doesn't that tell you that the Trust need to be doing a better job of putting this all together and making it clear why they want Bottomley and Rawlinson gone? I have no issue at all with getting rid of them if that will best serve the interests of the club - but for such a dramatic step I would expect the arguments why that needs to happen to be included with the request to vote. Spell it out, try to persuade people, don't just act like people should already know. |
Yes, I take your point. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 13:33 - May 24 with 3209 views | 442Dale |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:40 - May 24 by D_Alien |
Re: your last paragraph... absolutely
It's to be hoped the Trust have more in their armoury than just Trust member votes. They've called for shareholders to add their votes to the EGM resolutions by proxy, and the Trust will no doubt be keeping that tally close to their chest
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the club don't throw a 'leftfield' spanner into the works shortly before the AGMs/EGMs too, in which case they'll have to think on their feet as it were - and possibly at the meetings themselves
Not being a Trust member, i can only watch on and wish their efforts well. They've changed their initial stance on asking for the entire Board to go, to concentrate their fire (correctly, imo) on Bottomley & Rawlinson. Whilst events have been endorsed by the whole Board (corporate responsibility), many shareholders may have been put off by potentially creating such a vacuum at the helm and both Kelly & Pockney have shown merit in the interests of the club rather than themselves
[Post edited 24 May 2021 12:42]
|
I know it’s something I’ve promoted for years on here, even to those who aren’t members and don’t want to join (for valid reasons too), but it’s well worth joining if only to get views across as a member and push for further action/information. Especially now as it’s a chance to have a say, as by being a member you also become part of organisation that is a shareholder of the club; a very valuable route for non-shareholding fans.
I do think that the Trust should have called a members meeting via Zoom or Teams as it would indeed give that chance to answer members questions and give more clarity ahead of the AGM/EGM - it was a request put forward at the end of last week. Whilst appreciating the immense amount of work they’ll have put in recently and knowing this adds more, it would serve to address some concerns seen on here. |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 13:48 - May 24 with 3157 views | D_Alien |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 13:33 - May 24 by 442Dale |
I know it’s something I’ve promoted for years on here, even to those who aren’t members and don’t want to join (for valid reasons too), but it’s well worth joining if only to get views across as a member and push for further action/information. Especially now as it’s a chance to have a say, as by being a member you also become part of organisation that is a shareholder of the club; a very valuable route for non-shareholding fans.
I do think that the Trust should have called a members meeting via Zoom or Teams as it would indeed give that chance to answer members questions and give more clarity ahead of the AGM/EGM - it was a request put forward at the end of last week. Whilst appreciating the immense amount of work they’ll have put in recently and knowing this adds more, it would serve to address some concerns seen on here. |
I don't think it's insignificant that at this time - of all times - Trust membership (as per its website) currently stands at 481 - down 363 from last year
I've been a member, and would certainly consider re-joining; but whilst some members may have sadly passed there's surely wider scepticism and/or apathy which could be addressed. Posts today point towards some of the reasons why. DaleiLama's heartfelt thread from a couple of weeks back on rejoining at this crucial time had some very good points which echo yours. I'm waiting to see what happens at the AGM/EGMs and perhaps just as importantly, in the aftermath and whether the Trust are able to respond to what may become a fluid situation; then beyond that, a refreshed leadership
[Post edited 24 May 2021 14:05]
| |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 15:32 - May 24 with 3023 views | blackdogblue |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 13:48 - May 24 by D_Alien |
I don't think it's insignificant that at this time - of all times - Trust membership (as per its website) currently stands at 481 - down 363 from last year
I've been a member, and would certainly consider re-joining; but whilst some members may have sadly passed there's surely wider scepticism and/or apathy which could be addressed. Posts today point towards some of the reasons why. DaleiLama's heartfelt thread from a couple of weeks back on rejoining at this crucial time had some very good points which echo yours. I'm waiting to see what happens at the AGM/EGMs and perhaps just as importantly, in the aftermath and whether the Trust are able to respond to what may become a fluid situation; then beyond that, a refreshed leadership
[Post edited 24 May 2021 14:05]
|
To be honest I let it lapse for a few years, no real reason why I didn't renew it, just laziness I think.. rejoined last year as it was a £5 & renewed again recently for the same price. They do a lot for the Community & the Club so to me it's a £5 well spent & lets be honest, £5 doesn't buy that much nowadays, not even one share if the ballot is anything to go by.... |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 15:37 - May 24 with 3016 views | 49thseason |
Some people seem to be questioning the way the trust has targeted 2 Directors. For me, even if nothing actually changes and the challenge fails, this whole episode has succeeded in at least waking the fanbase up in terms of how the club is run and how it should be run.
Remember, the Directors have a duty to run the legal entity " The Rochdale Association Football Club Ltd" , to the best of their ability and within the legal statutes that govern all Private Limited Companies and the company's Articles of Association.
There are a number of issues pertaining to their Directorships of the Company, the fact that the Articles of Association say that there should be 7-15 Directors and that 3 of them should put themselves up for re-election at the AGM each year being the most glaring problems.
Having the requisite number of Directors should be the starting point for the transparency that seems to be missing. The annual standing down for re-election of 3 Directors should be the means by which the shareholders can enforce that transparency. The trust should perhaps be seen not so much not so much attacking the Directors personally as simply trying to enforce the Articles which govern the way the club should be run.
The appointment of Mr Bottomley as CEO was, in my understanding, intended to be a temporary situation which has been going on too long, a bigger board of Directors might have challenged his ongoing tenure of that position and at least advertised the vacancy and insisted he undergo the same interview as any other candidate by now. In my view, the temporary appointment of a fellow Director to a salaried position, apparently without interview is a very dubious decision and one which should have been time limited and the salary advertised. By this example, what is to stop them all from becoming employees by giving jobs to each other? Where are the checks and balances?
Unfortunately RAFC has become a Company that has gone from a "proper" CEO and Chairman to one that has a temporary CEO and interim Chairman who is apparently unwell. These two positions are "supported" by two directors one of whom at least has caused the club's supporters and shareholders to wonder if he is as engaged in the club's affairs as you might expect.
The shareholders have every right to challenge the running of their company, Decisions have been made by this tiny cabal that may have undermined the very existence of the club with barely a word of real explanation. Who made the decision to slash the squad last year? Who permitted the CEO to say on National TV that he had spent £50k on PPE (essentially hand sanitiser and stickers), and is that number correct or exaggeration in front of the cameras? Why has the club made some people redundant and yet continued to hire backroom staff? Why are the current Directors all still Directors of the Denehurst Park Company which has apparently been subsumed into RAFC Ltd. What is the purpose of the Denehurst Park Company? Little wonder Chris Dunphy said his first action if he came back would be to order a full financial audit.
Essentially all these questions and more besides boil down to 4 people, an inadequate number to start with.
Going forward, the Trust and other shareholders need to find 5 or 6 new directors as a minimum. if the £25K investment to become a Director is too high then a proposal needs to be put before and AGM to reduce that amount. Meanwhile perhaps a number of fixed-term Non-Executive Directors should be appointed to oversee the recruitment of new Executive Directors.
What explanation has there been regarding the expansion of treasury shares? Is it so that a single entity might be able to buy a majority stake in the club? Shouldn't there be something in the articles about forcing a prospective buyer to buy out the other shareholders if a threshold of share ownership is reached? Say 35% or 40%? It would at least ensure they get their investment money back and would be a deterrent to a speculative take-over attempt by buying 51% of an enlarged shareholding leaving existing shareholders with no control and no value.
I seriously doubt that anyone in 1908 foresaw football becoming the multi-billion pound business it is today and perhaps now there should be a wholesale re-writing of the Articles to reflect the new reality? |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 16:13 - May 24 with 2955 views | Sandyman |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 21:04 - May 23 by D_Alien |
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 |
https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissistic-personality-dis
"Narcissistic personality disorder involves a pattern of self-centered, arrogant thinking and behavior, a lack of empathy and consideration for other people, and an excessive need for admiration. Others often describe people with NPD as cocky, manipulative, selfish, patronizing, and demanding. This way of thinking and behaving surfaces in every area of the narcissist’s life: from work and friendships to family and love relationships.
People with narcissistic personality disorder are extremely resistant to changing their behavior, even when it’s causing them problems. Their tendency is to turn the blame on to others. What’s more, they are extremely sensitive and react badly to even the slightest criticisms, disagreements, or perceived slights, which they view as personal attacks. For the people in the narcissist’s life, it’s often easier just to go along with their demands to avoid the coldness and rages. However, by understanding more about narcissistic personality disorder, you can spot the narcissists in your life, protect yourself from their power plays, and establish healthier boundaries.
Exploits others without guilt or shame
Narcissists never develop the ability to identify with the feelings of others–to put themselves in other people’s shoes. In other words, they lack empathy. In many ways, they view the people in their lives as objects–there to serve their needs. As a consequence, they don’t think twice about taking advantage of others to achieve their own ends. Sometimes this interpersonal exploitation is malicious, but often it is simply oblivious. Narcissists simply don’t think about how their behavior affects others. And if you point it out, they still won’t truly get it. The only thing they understand is their own needs.
Frequently demeans, intimidates, bullies, or belittles others
Narcissists feel threatened whenever they encounter someone who appears to have something they lack–especially those who are confident and popular. **They’re also threatened by people who don’t kowtow to them or who challenge them in any way. Their defense mechanism is contempt. The only way to neutralize the threat and prop up their own sagging ego is to put those people down. They may do it in a patronizing or dismissive way as if to demonstrate how little the other person means to them. Or they may go on the attack with insults, name-calling, bullying, and threats to force the other person back into line.** "
Makes you want to shed fake tears in a manipulative manner doesn't it? |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 16:58 - May 24 with 2886 views | Nafelad |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 16:13 - May 24 by Sandyman |
https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissistic-personality-dis
"Narcissistic personality disorder involves a pattern of self-centered, arrogant thinking and behavior, a lack of empathy and consideration for other people, and an excessive need for admiration. Others often describe people with NPD as cocky, manipulative, selfish, patronizing, and demanding. This way of thinking and behaving surfaces in every area of the narcissist’s life: from work and friendships to family and love relationships.
People with narcissistic personality disorder are extremely resistant to changing their behavior, even when it’s causing them problems. Their tendency is to turn the blame on to others. What’s more, they are extremely sensitive and react badly to even the slightest criticisms, disagreements, or perceived slights, which they view as personal attacks. For the people in the narcissist’s life, it’s often easier just to go along with their demands to avoid the coldness and rages. However, by understanding more about narcissistic personality disorder, you can spot the narcissists in your life, protect yourself from their power plays, and establish healthier boundaries.
Exploits others without guilt or shame
Narcissists never develop the ability to identify with the feelings of others–to put themselves in other people’s shoes. In other words, they lack empathy. In many ways, they view the people in their lives as objects–there to serve their needs. As a consequence, they don’t think twice about taking advantage of others to achieve their own ends. Sometimes this interpersonal exploitation is malicious, but often it is simply oblivious. Narcissists simply don’t think about how their behavior affects others. And if you point it out, they still won’t truly get it. The only thing they understand is their own needs.
Frequently demeans, intimidates, bullies, or belittles others
Narcissists feel threatened whenever they encounter someone who appears to have something they lack–especially those who are confident and popular. **They’re also threatened by people who don’t kowtow to them or who challenge them in any way. Their defense mechanism is contempt. The only way to neutralize the threat and prop up their own sagging ego is to put those people down. They may do it in a patronizing or dismissive way as if to demonstrate how little the other person means to them. Or they may go on the attack with insults, name-calling, bullying, and threats to force the other person back into line.** "
Makes you want to shed fake tears in a manipulative manner doesn't it? |
Perhaps the presence of the Speakman's at the club, for a match recently, indicates that they are working as advisors to DB? |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 19:37 - May 24 with 2714 views | DaleiLama |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 13:48 - May 24 by D_Alien |
I don't think it's insignificant that at this time - of all times - Trust membership (as per its website) currently stands at 481 - down 363 from last year
I've been a member, and would certainly consider re-joining; but whilst some members may have sadly passed there's surely wider scepticism and/or apathy which could be addressed. Posts today point towards some of the reasons why. DaleiLama's heartfelt thread from a couple of weeks back on rejoining at this crucial time had some very good points which echo yours. I'm waiting to see what happens at the AGM/EGMs and perhaps just as importantly, in the aftermath and whether the Trust are able to respond to what may become a fluid situation; then beyond that, a refreshed leadership
[Post edited 24 May 2021 14:05]
|
My guess, and it is just an educated guess based on a bobbins memory, is that a good proportion of the 700+ from last year joined relatively late in the day, but I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if some folk remain less than supportive of the Trust, and even more widely, of the club these days. These are strange times on so many levels.
I still believe that the bigger the Trust membership the better, now of all times, and I also agree with 442s point about it giving one a chance to be a stakeholder if not necessarily a shareholder.
I also think that there may be many twists and turns ahead and the more the fanbase can be united under one banner in the interests of the club the better. We have a 300+ page thread to remind us all of what can happen when analysis paralysis rules and the fanbase is divided and conquered.
Is the Trust fit for purpose and can it fight the fight that undoubtedly awaits? No one really know that until it is collectively put to the sword. That time is getting nearer and to not back a well meaning Trust can only weaken it's leverage and make it less effective. United we stand, divided we fall and all that! |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 19:58 - May 24 with 2689 views | foreverhopefulDale |
| 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]
|
Should have added, if true. I don't trust a word he writes or says. |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:31 - May 25 with 2459 views | James1980 |
If Altman and Marcelli vote against removing 1 or both of Bottomley and Rawlinson what will that mean with regards to their statement stating they won't be joining the board? | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:37 - May 25 with 2446 views | pioneer |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:40 - May 24 by D_Alien |
Re: your last paragraph... absolutely
It's to be hoped the Trust have more in their armoury than just Trust member votes. They've called for shareholders to add their votes to the EGM resolutions by proxy, and the Trust will no doubt be keeping that tally close to their chest
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the club don't throw a 'leftfield' spanner into the works shortly before the AGMs/EGMs too, in which case they'll have to think on their feet as it were - and possibly at the meetings themselves
Not being a Trust member, i can only watch on and wish their efforts well. They've changed their initial stance on asking for the entire Board to go, to concentrate their fire (correctly, imo) on Bottomley & Rawlinson. Whilst events have been endorsed by the whole Board (corporate responsibility), many shareholders may have been put off by potentially creating such a vacuum at the helm and both Kelly & Pockney have shown merit in the interests of the club rather than themselves
[Post edited 24 May 2021 12:42]
|
Ill be appointing the trust as my proxy. I am not a trust member.
Sadly my small number if shares means my action alone is unlikely to swing the vote but if others were so inclined the chances of us getting things changed would increase.
I hope all shareholders are thinking very seriuosly about their options. | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 15:46 - May 25 with 2284 views | A_Newby |
A question for somebody who knows about company law.
EGM resolution 4 removes the right of pre-emption of current shareholders to be offered any new share issues in proportion to their current holding and gives the current board of directors the unhindered right to sell any new shares issued to investors of their choice.
I know that each share in RAFC carries one vote in the EGM.
1. Does this resolution (4) need to have a simple majority i.e. 50% plus one of the current issued shares (251,479 out of 502,957) vote to pass it? OR
2. Does it require that 75% plus one of the current issued shares (377,218 out of 502,957) vote to pass the resolution?
What percentage of shares (votes) are needed to pass the other resolutions? Are they just simple majorities? |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 16:07 - May 25 with 2239 views | tony_roch975 |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 15:46 - May 25 by A_Newby |
A question for somebody who knows about company law.
EGM resolution 4 removes the right of pre-emption of current shareholders to be offered any new share issues in proportion to their current holding and gives the current board of directors the unhindered right to sell any new shares issued to investors of their choice.
I know that each share in RAFC carries one vote in the EGM.
1. Does this resolution (4) need to have a simple majority i.e. 50% plus one of the current issued shares (251,479 out of 502,957) vote to pass it? OR
2. Does it require that 75% plus one of the current issued shares (377,218 out of 502,957) vote to pass the resolution?
What percentage of shares (votes) are needed to pass the other resolutions? Are they just simple majorities? |
I believe 4 is a 'special' resolution - requiring 75%+1, the other 'ordinary' resolutions require 50%+1 | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 16:13 - May 25 with 2224 views | A_Newby |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 16:07 - May 25 by tony_roch975 |
I believe 4 is a 'special' resolution - requiring 75%+1, the other 'ordinary' resolutions require 50%+1 |
Thanks. | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 16:32 - May 25 with 2197 views | judd |
Splitting hairs, but I think a special resolution requires 75% and an ordinary resolution "more than" 50%. | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 18:46 - May 25 with 2046 views | 100notout |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 12:37 - May 25 by pioneer |
Ill be appointing the trust as my proxy. I am not a trust member.
Sadly my small number if shares means my action alone is unlikely to swing the vote but if others were so inclined the chances of us getting things changed would increase.
I hope all shareholders are thinking very seriuosly about their options. |
Bump!
Likewise and I hope the very same and if you're still thinking about it you can always email them at info@daletrust.co.uk to discuss it further. [Post edited 25 May 2021 18:58]
| |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:18 - May 29 with 1627 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 18:46 - May 25 by 100notout |
Bump!
Likewise and I hope the very same and if you're still thinking about it you can always email them at info@daletrust.co.uk to discuss it further. [Post edited 25 May 2021 18:58]
|
Bump.
Today is the last day to vote in the Dale Trust Ballot, with the vote closing at 3pm on Saturday 29th May.
To cast your votes, visit https://www.daletrust.co.uk/trust-egm-poll/ |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 14:54 - May 29 with 1446 views | RAFCBLUE |
A supplemental question:
Will the Dale Trust be making the outcome of the ballot and their voting direction for the EGM public before the meeting on Tuesday 1st June? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
