| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 23:29 - Nov 27 with 2732 views | D_Alien |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 23:24 - Nov 27 by James1980 |
However someone has tipped of a journalist that Rochdale staff/players have not been paid their full wages for the month. I fail to understand how a clarification regarding wages would constitute a breach of an NDA. 'We are moving the pay day to Xth of the month this means staff will be paid in two instalments, this was for accounting purposes' No revelation about prospective buyers needed. |
I agree with that James
The only potential reason for non-disclosure would be if the "accounting purposes" tied in with the prospective investors, and therefore were covered by the NDA
Seems a strange thing to do otherwise, when there must've been a perfectly good reason why staff were being paid on a date prior to the month end before now
[Post edited 27 Nov 2023 23:31]
|  |
|  |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 23:36 - Nov 27 with 2698 views | Rodingdale |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 23:15 - Nov 27 by 49thseason |
There are one-way and two-way NDA's, its a safe bet this will be a two-way as the potential buyers will want it kept as quiet as possible to try to prevent others stepping in, and to keep their financial and other details out of the public gaze. The club will not want to publicise what is happening or who with because they will not want to upset the buyers. |
Whereas what is being publicised is we reportedly aren’t paying the players. But hey, be cool, trust Simon, and whatever happens don’t upset the buyers, let’s face it such rumours would reduce the price so why would they want that out there? Oh hang on..👀 |  | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 23:41 - Nov 27 with 2686 views | James1980 |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 23:36 - Nov 27 by Rodingdale |
Whereas what is being publicised is we reportedly aren’t paying the players. But hey, be cool, trust Simon, and whatever happens don’t upset the buyers, let’s face it such rumours would reduce the price so why would they want that out there? Oh hang on..👀 |
But the club going for a reduced price is only going to benefit the buyer isn't it? | |
| |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 00:01 - Nov 28 with 2649 views | James1980 |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 23:29 - Nov 27 by D_Alien |
I agree with that James
The only potential reason for non-disclosure would be if the "accounting purposes" tied in with the prospective investors, and therefore were covered by the NDA
Seems a strange thing to do otherwise, when there must've been a perfectly good reason why staff were being paid on a date prior to the month end before now
[Post edited 27 Nov 2023 23:31]
|
Ok then what about this. After PO'R's tweet a club representative calls the prospective buyer's lawyers and requests permission to put out a statement, in which the club will not mention this has anything to do with the potential takeover. PB declines the club the opportunity to set the record straight. Would you be happy with these sorts taking over our club? | |
| |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 00:15 - Nov 28 with 2628 views | D_Alien |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 00:01 - Nov 28 by James1980 |
Ok then what about this. After PO'R's tweet a club representative calls the prospective buyer's lawyers and requests permission to put out a statement, in which the club will not mention this has anything to do with the potential takeover. PB declines the club the opportunity to set the record straight. Would you be happy with these sorts taking over our club? |
It'll be delightful...
Given the further unsecured financial input from within the current board, i doubt there's much more than another month that we can continue like this, so the chances are it'll be "beggars can't be choosers"
When thinking about all the hot air expended over whether shareholders were happy about the two directors taking out secured loans, and the fiasco around not being able to identify who all the shareholders are (which i suspect is still the case) it really wouldn't come as a surprise to find out the "quiet optimism" is in fact absolute desperation to get a deal over the line before it's too late
In that situation, investors are going to be looking at us like investors always have done - maximum return for minimum outlay
[Post edited 28 Nov 2023 0:18]
| |
| |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 00:16 - Nov 28 with 2622 views | Sandyman |
Sale or no sale is rumour. Take it as such.
Payment of 25% wages or not is rumour. Take it as such.
Clarification - yes please.
Should the club be in such a position where an "ALLEGED" non-payment of wages has occured, makes the National League culpable for stopping a potential injection of money that could have paid those wages, for reasons still unknown.
There are enough inquisitive people in our fanbase to look at potential "new owners". Morton House and Roger (*spits*) know this all too well. That, and the unique shareholding structure within the club make it a damn difficult sell. We need patience and have to trust an inexperienced board to do the right thing by the club. Dale Trust will be looking on. The ramblings of myself and fellow contributors to this forum will have little influence, but won't silence us.
Fingers crossed it all works out but FFS, PAY THE PLAYERS!! |  | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 00:16 - Nov 28 with 2618 views | DorkingDale |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 22:32 - Nov 27 by Rodingdale |
I agree with James here, the club is the vendor and we dictate the terms in the NDA. The PO’R comms are harmful to the club and need swift rebuttal. The usual silence from Gauge is not in the interests of the club or its fans. If it is then frankly it better be a bloody good reason. The fear I have it’s only in the interests of Gauge; but the glimmer of light is he was at Dagenham on Saturday for one reason or another…. |
FFS - this man is not in it for the money. Get a grip. | | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 00:20 - Nov 28 with 2609 views | James1980 |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 00:15 - Nov 28 by D_Alien |
It'll be delightful...
Given the further unsecured financial input from within the current board, i doubt there's much more than another month that we can continue like this, so the chances are it'll be "beggars can't be choosers"
When thinking about all the hot air expended over whether shareholders were happy about the two directors taking out secured loans, and the fiasco around not being able to identify who all the shareholders are (which i suspect is still the case) it really wouldn't come as a surprise to find out the "quiet optimism" is in fact absolute desperation to get a deal over the line before it's too late
In that situation, investors are going to be looking at us like investors always have done - maximum return for minimum outlay
[Post edited 28 Nov 2023 0:18]
|
Well hopefully we didn't fend off two Rottweilers to end up being taken over by sharks. [Post edited 28 Nov 2023 0:43]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 04:59 - Nov 28 with 2503 views | RooleyMoorBlue |
I cannot believe that Simon Gauge and his directors are treated with such distain and distrust by so many fans. But for them we wouldn't have a football club.
They have admitted they are green and not experienced in running a football club but they put their own money into saving the club, yet for some people that isn't enough, they want their blood also.
Too many people are overreacting and wetting themselves cos one **** stirrer decided to put out half a story that he can't back up. Perhaps the board see it as bizarre and not worth a response, but we can all be sure that when there is anything to say, the board will release a statement. I understand fans are worried when something like this is leaked, but if he knew about the 25% being paid, he MUST also know why, but has decided to let panic set instead because that's what he wanted to happen. When does he report on positive news? |  | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 06:58 - Nov 28 with 2401 views | Newbury_Dale |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 04:59 - Nov 28 by RooleyMoorBlue |
I cannot believe that Simon Gauge and his directors are treated with such distain and distrust by so many fans. But for them we wouldn't have a football club.
They have admitted they are green and not experienced in running a football club but they put their own money into saving the club, yet for some people that isn't enough, they want their blood also.
Too many people are overreacting and wetting themselves cos one **** stirrer decided to put out half a story that he can't back up. Perhaps the board see it as bizarre and not worth a response, but we can all be sure that when there is anything to say, the board will release a statement. I understand fans are worried when something like this is leaked, but if he knew about the 25% being paid, he MUST also know why, but has decided to let panic set instead because that's what he wanted to happen. When does he report on positive news? |
Well said. And O'Rourke has clearly put that half-story out to try and compromise/destabilise whatever takeover is clearly in the pipeline. I'd like to know what his motives for doing such a thing are. Or who he's leaked the 'non' story for. | | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 07:34 - Nov 28 with 2329 views | jth |
Very interesting to see how this plays out. If O’Rourke is serious with this,then it should be very easy for him to confirm that it’s not a payroll issue. If it is,he looks quite bad with his story. Also,he knows very well that the club is in talks with buyers and a story like this can be very harmful. All in all,plenty of reasons to make an accurate piece of writing.
Rochdale on the other hand could make it all go away and publish a statement today saying that the story is false and it’s a payroll issue. Nothing more needs to be said. | | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 07:38 - Nov 28 with 2319 views | TalkingSutty |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 04:59 - Nov 28 by RooleyMoorBlue |
I cannot believe that Simon Gauge and his directors are treated with such distain and distrust by so many fans. But for them we wouldn't have a football club.
They have admitted they are green and not experienced in running a football club but they put their own money into saving the club, yet for some people that isn't enough, they want their blood also.
Too many people are overreacting and wetting themselves cos one **** stirrer decided to put out half a story that he can't back up. Perhaps the board see it as bizarre and not worth a response, but we can all be sure that when there is anything to say, the board will release a statement. I understand fans are worried when something like this is leaked, but if he knew about the 25% being paid, he MUST also know why, but has decided to let panic set instead because that's what he wanted to happen. When does he report on positive news? |
Distrust stems from poor communication and its been a constant from the Chairman since it was announced out of the blue that the club had gone overnight from 'Not for Sale' to 'Up for sale'. This happened with no consultation with the Trust or Shareholders. Lifelong fans with specific skills have reached out to the Chairman during his tenure with offers of help, they have either been rudely dismissed, or completely ignored. A section of Shareholders have also been ignored and don't even receive correspondence or notifications when others do. It's pretty obvious the Trust have been frustrated at times with the Chairman and Directors and even now it wouldn't surprise me if the Chairman's lack of communication has caused disruption amongst the boardroom. Only the Directors will know that. He's a man who just does exactly what he wants and expects everybody else to fall in line behind him. Some will do that but most won't and will say it how it is. The biggest failing since he became Chairman is his communication skills and what I percieve as his arrogance, obviously my reading of him might be completely wrong but I'm yet to hear a different version. |  | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 07:46 - Nov 28 with 2300 views | rochedale |
I can’t belive the crap Simon Gauge gets on here, if it hadn’t have been for him and the others, it’s highly likely we’d have no club. The man would’ve well been within his rights to throw the towel in due to all the abuse he’s received on social media, I think he deserves a pat on the back and a big thankyou rather than all this rubbish. Give the guy a break. |  |
| |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 08:16 - Nov 28 with 2227 views | TalkingSutty |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 07:46 - Nov 28 by rochedale |
I can’t belive the crap Simon Gauge gets on here, if it hadn’t have been for him and the others, it’s highly likely we’d have no club. The man would’ve well been within his rights to throw the towel in due to all the abuse he’s received on social media, I think he deserves a pat on the back and a big thankyou rather than all this rubbish. Give the guy a break. |
He doesn't own the club, just because he has invested money into it doesn't mean everybody has to cow down to him and just be grateful. This was a fan owned club with over 500 shareholders and a supporters trust. A club and support base that was there long before he turned up at the club. Fans and their past relatives who over the years have invested very heavily into the club and fought tooth and nail to keep it going. Don't confuse Simon Gauge with being the only man who has done his wack for this club because collectively we have all been saving this club for many decades. Of course we are grateful that he has invested money in his shares and that's been acknowledged, it doesn't mean he is above criticism though. Keeping quiet and not voicing your concerns is never a good option. | | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:05 - Nov 28 with 2110 views | rochedale |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 08:16 - Nov 28 by TalkingSutty |
He doesn't own the club, just because he has invested money into it doesn't mean everybody has to cow down to him and just be grateful. This was a fan owned club with over 500 shareholders and a supporters trust. A club and support base that was there long before he turned up at the club. Fans and their past relatives who over the years have invested very heavily into the club and fought tooth and nail to keep it going. Don't confuse Simon Gauge with being the only man who has done his wack for this club because collectively we have all been saving this club for many decades. Of course we are grateful that he has invested money in his shares and that's been acknowledged, it doesn't mean he is above criticism though. Keeping quiet and not voicing your concerns is never a good option. |
There’s a difference between voicing concerns and giving abuse, which he receives on here and more so on social media. I don’t know the guy so I’ve no ulterior motive, but if he/they manage to source a suitable investor and Hernon’s this mess, it’s more than any of us have managed to do. | |
| |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:10 - Nov 28 with 2098 views | James1980 |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:05 - Nov 28 by rochedale |
There’s a difference between voicing concerns and giving abuse, which he receives on here and more so on social media. I don’t know the guy so I’ve no ulterior motive, but if he/they manage to source a suitable investor and Hernon’s this mess, it’s more than any of us have managed to do. |
Is an investor that imposes an NDA that won't allow a rebuttal of O'Rourke's tweet suitable? | |
| |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:18 - Nov 28 with 2078 views | TalkingSutty |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:05 - Nov 28 by rochedale |
There’s a difference between voicing concerns and giving abuse, which he receives on here and more so on social media. I don’t know the guy so I’ve no ulterior motive, but if he/they manage to source a suitable investor and Hernon’s this mess, it’s more than any of us have managed to do. |
I haven't seen abuse on this forum. I've seen plenty of posters relate to his lack of communication as Chairman of the Club. He's the Chairman and has overseen us losing our league status, it happened on his watch. I know for a fact that he's disrespected and completely ignored some supporters who have stepped forward to help him, one of who has now turned his back on the club as a result. He has fostered a 'us and them' environment at the club and he needs calling out for it. If you interpret that as abuse then that's your perogative. We've had enough of looking the other way and just keeping quiet, you can't complain about fans not buying bricks or selling draw tickets etc when you actively go out of your way to disconnect from them, that's not how it works. [Post edited 28 Nov 2023 9:19]
| | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:45 - Nov 28 with 1969 views | mikehunt |
But the fans who own the club (I’m one of them) did not step up to the plate to bail the club out when the MH shares were put on sale. What else could the directors do?
I would hope they would have spoken to the Trust. And with them having a sitting member on the board, should they be taking an equal share of the flack for keeping fans (or at least the share holders (owners?) in the dark? |  |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:55 - Nov 28 with 1918 views | WirralDale |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 04:59 - Nov 28 by RooleyMoorBlue |
I cannot believe that Simon Gauge and his directors are treated with such distain and distrust by so many fans. But for them we wouldn't have a football club.
They have admitted they are green and not experienced in running a football club but they put their own money into saving the club, yet for some people that isn't enough, they want their blood also.
Too many people are overreacting and wetting themselves cos one **** stirrer decided to put out half a story that he can't back up. Perhaps the board see it as bizarre and not worth a response, but we can all be sure that when there is anything to say, the board will release a statement. I understand fans are worried when something like this is leaked, but if he knew about the 25% being paid, he MUST also know why, but has decided to let panic set instead because that's what he wanted to happen. When does he report on positive news? |
Well said bro | | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:56 - Nov 28 with 1918 views | ramsdale |
I think what's been made clear multiple times but some on here and further afield still can't seem to grasp is that if the BOD simply wanted their money back and run off into the sunset, the Swindlehurst bid would've been accepted as there are more "relaxed" rules in terms of proof of funding/OADT. That was rebuked for what can only seem like Swindle by name, Swindle by nature.
I'm no fan of how the board have run the club and how they have treated the fans with such disdain at times, but what I do understand is that an NDA is an NDA. It'd make everything easier for the BOD if they could come out and tell everybody the details. It'd certainly stop the abuse they receive on a daily basis, which might I add would make anybody want to turn towards a seige-mentality and pull up the drawbridge.
I first heard this rumour on Sunday with the original source being quoted as a former employee of the club. I'm not sure how I'd link that former employee with O'Rourke so that may not be the person who has leaked it to him.
Whoever it has come from or for what reason is almost irrelevant as long as it is a payroll issue and the players are paid this week. | | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 10:02 - Nov 28 with 1880 views | rochedale |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:18 - Nov 28 by TalkingSutty |
I haven't seen abuse on this forum. I've seen plenty of posters relate to his lack of communication as Chairman of the Club. He's the Chairman and has overseen us losing our league status, it happened on his watch. I know for a fact that he's disrespected and completely ignored some supporters who have stepped forward to help him, one of who has now turned his back on the club as a result. He has fostered a 'us and them' environment at the club and he needs calling out for it. If you interpret that as abuse then that's your perogative. We've had enough of looking the other way and just keeping quiet, you can't complain about fans not buying bricks or selling draw tickets etc when you actively go out of your way to disconnect from them, that's not how it works. [Post edited 28 Nov 2023 9:19]
|
He’s overseen us losing our league position!! Jesus, as if you are blaming him for that. I am a shareholder, but have done nowhere near the amount the current board have. People need to trust them or step up and put your money where your mouth is. If they are bound by NDA’s, that should be respected. You can just imagine them giving details of potential investors, then the deal falling through and those same people who are moaning about being kept in the dark would moan about the NDA being compromised! They just can’t win with a number of people on here. | |
| |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 10:07 - Nov 28 with 1851 views | judd |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:45 - Nov 28 by mikehunt |
But the fans who own the club (I’m one of them) did not step up to the plate to bail the club out when the MH shares were put on sale. What else could the directors do?
I would hope they would have spoken to the Trust. And with them having a sitting member on the board, should they be taking an equal share of the flack for keeping fans (or at least the share holders (owners?) in the dark? |
Could you please clarify what you refer to when keeping fans in the dark?
Is it the Morton House share purchase or the Peter O'Rourke payment issue? |  |
| |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 10:23 - Nov 28 with 1782 views | Brierls |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:10 - Nov 28 by James1980 |
Is an investor that imposes an NDA that won't allow a rebuttal of O'Rourke's tweet suitable? |
James. Stop this nonsense. Please.
POR's tweet was most likely correct. If a takeover is imminent, and I believe that even more today than yesterday, then why say anything at all that would compromise that. For the sake of a few days. |  | | |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 10:26 - Nov 28 with 1768 views | mikehunt |
I meant how parlous a state the club’s finances were in and exactly how we got into that position. It all seemed to come out of the blue. I, niaively I suppose, assumed that, after fighting off the hostile take over, everything would be hunky-dory. | |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 10:27 - Nov 28 with 1760 views | Brierls |
| Peter O'Rourke Quote.. on 09:56 - Nov 28 by ramsdale |
I think what's been made clear multiple times but some on here and further afield still can't seem to grasp is that if the BOD simply wanted their money back and run off into the sunset, the Swindlehurst bid would've been accepted as there are more "relaxed" rules in terms of proof of funding/OADT. That was rebuked for what can only seem like Swindle by name, Swindle by nature.
I'm no fan of how the board have run the club and how they have treated the fans with such disdain at times, but what I do understand is that an NDA is an NDA. It'd make everything easier for the BOD if they could come out and tell everybody the details. It'd certainly stop the abuse they receive on a daily basis, which might I add would make anybody want to turn towards a seige-mentality and pull up the drawbridge.
I first heard this rumour on Sunday with the original source being quoted as a former employee of the club. I'm not sure how I'd link that former employee with O'Rourke so that may not be the person who has leaked it to him.
Whoever it has come from or for what reason is almost irrelevant as long as it is a payroll issue and the players are paid this week. |
This.
Read it. Read it again. Then if it hasn't sunk in, read it again. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
