By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The Daily Mirror is claiming today that they owe £882k to HMRC, £300k to the EFL, £100k to energy companies and another million pounds to other sundry creditors. Simply unsustainable. Oh, and another £400k to former owner Simon Blitz who may have to whistle for his money even though he still owns the North Stand at Boundary Park…..
Absolutely, the board have done a fabulous job over the past 11 months. Each member, from the chairman through to the non-execs, are in place with a remit to follow a model which the fans are "on board" with - literally!
The board has been creative with its execution of its duties, rather than with the truth
[Post edited 26 Jun 2022 14:48]
But isn't that what the board of our football club is/was/are supposed to do DA?
The turning point for me in 2021 was that "law of the land" nonsense that Roger quoted at the Trust on 30th April 2021.
The result of that arrogance was simply a mass awakening of a fan base. The fans of this club are its best asset and cover every trade going; butcher, baker and I think somewhere we have a candlestickmaker.
The original directors when the club was formed were all local people and from all trades coming together for the club; symbolic of the co-operative movement at the time. Fast forward to 2021 and those skills and the logic that goes with it all still exist.
Fanbase awake; Trust EGM despatched unrequired directors, all democratically deposed. followed then the trump card from Graham Morris was unearthed a few weeks ago as the club become mortgage free.
The "law of the land" says the ground can't be sold or mortgaged without 75% of shareholders and then the council agreeing - its law from the 1980's - and set out at Companies House in black and white. Practically it makes the club worthless unless you want to actually support the football team that owns it.
I wonder if Roger remembered to tell any of the investors he disclosed in that YouTube video that he was meeting that restriction existed?
He'd forgotten it when he was spouting b*llocks in his AGM/EGM presentation comparing us to Reading and Fleetwood and talking about blindly letting him get on with wrecking the club, but the masses let him have his last five minutes before voting him off.
I'm more reassured than ever that having voted off two directors in 2021, shareholders know they could do it again if needed.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
But isn't that what the board of our football club is/was/are supposed to do DA?
The turning point for me in 2021 was that "law of the land" nonsense that Roger quoted at the Trust on 30th April 2021.
The result of that arrogance was simply a mass awakening of a fan base. The fans of this club are its best asset and cover every trade going; butcher, baker and I think somewhere we have a candlestickmaker.
The original directors when the club was formed were all local people and from all trades coming together for the club; symbolic of the co-operative movement at the time. Fast forward to 2021 and those skills and the logic that goes with it all still exist.
Fanbase awake; Trust EGM despatched unrequired directors, all democratically deposed. followed then the trump card from Graham Morris was unearthed a few weeks ago as the club become mortgage free.
The "law of the land" says the ground can't be sold or mortgaged without 75% of shareholders and then the council agreeing - its law from the 1980's - and set out at Companies House in black and white. Practically it makes the club worthless unless you want to actually support the football team that owns it.
I wonder if Roger remembered to tell any of the investors he disclosed in that YouTube video that he was meeting that restriction existed?
He'd forgotten it when he was spouting b*llocks in his AGM/EGM presentation comparing us to Reading and Fleetwood and talking about blindly letting him get on with wrecking the club, but the masses let him have his last five minutes before voting him off.
I'm more reassured than ever that having voted off two directors in 2021, shareholders know they could do it again if needed.
I think I was the first to remark on here, probably on June 2nd 2021 that his pitch was the most incoherent set of ramblings I'd ever heard.
He rambled on about Reading, Fleetwood and Doncaster using slides, and then exclaimed to the room "ambition".
The rest of it I've forgotten as I'd already switched off. It remains the worst presentation/speech from anyone connected to Dale that I've heard. And that even includes Rawlinson's rambles, where he was clearly showing early signs of dementia.
Getting back to sampler records back then, reminded me of one of my favourites - Son of Gutbucket. Anyone else have that one? Some really great tracks from largely unheard of artists at the time, some of which had their fifteen minutes: Credence Clearwater Revival,Canned Heat, Groundhogs, Johnny Winter, Spirit (their Fresh Garbage track was recently sampled by erm, someone) etc That album , along with You Can All Join In and Contemporary Guitar Sampler Vol 2 really shaped my musical tastes during my early teen years.
Ps Yes, sorry for Oldham too. Much as I like a bit of schadenfreude where our rivals are concerned, I looked through this season’s fixture list and not one game leapt out at me, like an Oldham or bury game would have.
Yes, got Son Of Gutbucket. High Tide and (got the album at great expense) Andy Fernbach as well. This was another good one of the same ilk
Feel sorry for Oldham fans. Credit to them they didn't fall for the B S like bury fans did and did protest vociferously, and beyond. Sadly, they do seem a bit naïve in thinking a "new owner" is the answer to their many problems. Many "new owners" are awful. Only fan ownership can guarantee security and safety for a lower league club. That has to be their aim. Feel sure OAFC fans would make a far better job of it than any other owners.
I think I was the first to remark on here, probably on June 2nd 2021 that his pitch was the most incoherent set of ramblings I'd ever heard.
He rambled on about Reading, Fleetwood and Doncaster using slides, and then exclaimed to the room "ambition".
The rest of it I've forgotten as I'd already switched off. It remains the worst presentation/speech from anyone connected to Dale that I've heard. And that even includes Rawlinson's rambles, where he was clearly showing early signs of dementia.
If you remember, we looked at the Reading and Fleetwood accounts at the time he was bullshitting on and saw the huge losses made at Reading in the preceding 2 seasons and the millions of debt Fleetwood owed to their owner, who subsequently was summoned to be up before the beak.
If you remember, we looked at the Reading and Fleetwood accounts at the time he was bullshitting on and saw the huge losses made at Reading in the preceding 2 seasons and the millions of debt Fleetwood owed to their owner, who subsequently was summoned to be up before the beak.
Due diligence of incomprehensible ineptitude.
Was it a lack of due diligence or a insult to the intelligence of the assembled shareholders, many of them successful businessman/woman in their own right. His presentation at that EGM was amateurish and embarrassing,it summed him up really.
Due diligence was a phrase that Bottomley often banded around and he loved to mention the articles of association, so it seems inconceivable that he wouldn’t have known about the 75% threshold required, that after all is the most important piece of information you would need to complete a hostile takeover.
Kilpatrick as the ex Chairman and Rawlinson as a long standing Director must have also been aware when they sold their shares to Morton House. If a copy of Shareholders personal details could be so easily obtained then i’m certain a copy of the articles of association could have been provided to those plotting to take over the club and buy the shares. So Bottomley etc have either failed to read the clubs articles of association or they have deliberately decided to sell and conveniently not mention the 75% threshold required.
It looks like MH have been taken for a ride, they should demand their money back. Anyway it’s a private transaction between themselves,i’m assuming Solicitors on behalf of MH facilitated the sale of the shares, surely they must have looked through the clubs articles of association ( not sure how that works). It seems like due diligence had totally gone out of the window in these private/ cloak and dagger transactions and now they want the EFL/Club/ Chairman/ Directors/ Trust/ Shareholders to rectify their mistakes.
I think there are only three possible outcomes to this. 1.The share transactions between MH and those selling is unraveled and MH get most of their money back. 2. The 600 or so shareholders agree to purchase the shares back off MH at a realistic price, that would have to go to a vote so would be out of our Chairman and Directors hands. 3. MH are just left with the shares and would probably never be able to reach the 75% of shares required, so they would be worthless. It’s a pointless exercise by MH to target our boardroom or Trust because ultimately it’s the hundreds of shareholders who will decide what the best solution is for the Club...those ‘small minded’ people. All of this sorry saga falls on the toes of the person and his associates who tried to do the dirty on the club and also MH I think, so let them sort it out between them. The only people winning in all of this are those that sold their shares to MH.
Was it a lack of due diligence or a insult to the intelligence of the assembled shareholders, many of them successful businessman/woman in their own right. His presentation at that EGM was amateurish and embarrassing,it summed him up really.
Due diligence was a phrase that Bottomley often banded around and he loved to mention the articles of association, so it seems inconceivable that he wouldn’t have known about the 75% threshold required, that after all is the most important piece of information you would need to complete a hostile takeover.
Kilpatrick as the ex Chairman and Rawlinson as a long standing Director must have also been aware when they sold their shares to Morton House. If a copy of Shareholders personal details could be so easily obtained then i’m certain a copy of the articles of association could have been provided to those plotting to take over the club and buy the shares. So Bottomley etc have either failed to read the clubs articles of association or they have deliberately decided to sell and conveniently not mention the 75% threshold required.
It looks like MH have been taken for a ride, they should demand their money back. Anyway it’s a private transaction between themselves,i’m assuming Solicitors on behalf of MH facilitated the sale of the shares, surely they must have looked through the clubs articles of association ( not sure how that works). It seems like due diligence had totally gone out of the window in these private/ cloak and dagger transactions and now they want the EFL/Club/ Chairman/ Directors/ Trust/ Shareholders to rectify their mistakes.
I think there are only three possible outcomes to this. 1.The share transactions between MH and those selling is unraveled and MH get most of their money back. 2. The 600 or so shareholders agree to purchase the shares back off MH at a realistic price, that would have to go to a vote so would be out of our Chairman and Directors hands. 3. MH are just left with the shares and would probably never be able to reach the 75% of shares required, so they would be worthless. It’s a pointless exercise by MH to target our boardroom or Trust because ultimately it’s the hundreds of shareholders who will decide what the best solution is for the Club...those ‘small minded’ people. All of this sorry saga falls on the toes of the person and his associates who tried to do the dirty on the club and also MH I think, so let them sort it out between them. The only people winning in all of this are those that sold their shares to MH.
The other aspect to 1/ is if the shares were ever "legally" transferred, which will no doubt be part of the court case? If the EFL didn't approve the sale (which they couldn't as they were never consulted before Southall became involved with <25% of shares - in theory) could that sale ever take place? It did, I'm sure, and no doubt money changed hands. If all MH ever bought was useless paper, however, due diligence was most certainly not done by them (caveat emptor) and MH need to be looking at their legal team/advisers. I think one of them is currently "travelling" ........ no doubt as fast as he possibly can and making cash transactions along the way so he doesn't leave a trail of breadcrumbs behind himself.
Was it a lack of due diligence or a insult to the intelligence of the assembled shareholders, many of them successful businessman/woman in their own right. His presentation at that EGM was amateurish and embarrassing,it summed him up really.
Due diligence was a phrase that Bottomley often banded around and he loved to mention the articles of association, so it seems inconceivable that he wouldn’t have known about the 75% threshold required, that after all is the most important piece of information you would need to complete a hostile takeover.
Kilpatrick as the ex Chairman and Rawlinson as a long standing Director must have also been aware when they sold their shares to Morton House. If a copy of Shareholders personal details could be so easily obtained then i’m certain a copy of the articles of association could have been provided to those plotting to take over the club and buy the shares. So Bottomley etc have either failed to read the clubs articles of association or they have deliberately decided to sell and conveniently not mention the 75% threshold required.
It looks like MH have been taken for a ride, they should demand their money back. Anyway it’s a private transaction between themselves,i’m assuming Solicitors on behalf of MH facilitated the sale of the shares, surely they must have looked through the clubs articles of association ( not sure how that works). It seems like due diligence had totally gone out of the window in these private/ cloak and dagger transactions and now they want the EFL/Club/ Chairman/ Directors/ Trust/ Shareholders to rectify their mistakes.
I think there are only three possible outcomes to this. 1.The share transactions between MH and those selling is unraveled and MH get most of their money back. 2. The 600 or so shareholders agree to purchase the shares back off MH at a realistic price, that would have to go to a vote so would be out of our Chairman and Directors hands. 3. MH are just left with the shares and would probably never be able to reach the 75% of shares required, so they would be worthless. It’s a pointless exercise by MH to target our boardroom or Trust because ultimately it’s the hundreds of shareholders who will decide what the best solution is for the Club...those ‘small minded’ people. All of this sorry saga falls on the toes of the person and his associates who tried to do the dirty on the club and also MH I think, so let them sort it out between them. The only people winning in all of this are those that sold their shares to MH.
The tale and timeline of the tape:
1. David Roger Bottomley - appointed as a statutory director on 29 June 2015 Source: Companies House
David Bottomley therefore served as a director on the Board for 5 years and 11 months, during which time period the Ground was repurchased and that press release made on behalf of the Board:
Dale Chairman Chris Dunphy commented: “I, on behalf of the Board of Directors, would like to thank fans for their support and understanding during this long process.
“It has been our desire for the last ten years to secure a deal to regain ownership of Spotland Stadium and we are delighted to reach a successful conclusion, having purchased the shares from Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and the Rugby League Facilities Trust we now own 100% of the shares in the Stadium Company.
“The Board has worked tirelessly during that time to bring our vision to fruition and today is a proud day in the club’s history.
Of that 5 years and 11 months he was the CEO from December 2018 (according to his LinkedIn) to June 2021, 2 years and 7 months.
It would be incredible if he had no knowledge of the "law of the land" of the Morris Resolution, given that the document is actually on the Companies House website.
Andrew Curran confirmed in the Manchester Evening News on 12 August 2021, that due diligence had been completed.
"Furthermore, we have paid in excess of £1 million to date in consideration for shares, due diligence and legal costs.
So no doubt that due diligence was done; its in the public domain. The question will be the quality of that due diligence.
"Due diligence" and "law of the land" on the fact that 75% of shareholders need to vote for the sale or mortgaging of the ground therefore falls logically into one of three categories:
1) Bottomley never knew about it. Pretty p*ss poor director in that case and you'd imagine some someone on the Board for nearly 6 years who bought the ground back from the council that he didn't. 2) He knew about it and disclosed it to Morton House. 3) He knew about it and didn't disclose it to Morton House.
The only logical outcomes are that either he didn't know or didn't tell. Would love to be the Morton House lawyer reading on warranties in any agreements for sellers.
If Morton House progressed and Bottomley had disclosed it to them then they will have nothing to come.
If not, Morton House could sue him (and others) for damages for misrepresentation!
Wouldn't that be ironic.
[Post edited 27 Jun 2022 12:34]
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
