| Pitch inspection 10.30 10:10 - Dec 21 with 10082 views | turnthescrew |
N/T |  | | |  |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 17:30 - Dec 21 with 3276 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 17:06 - Dec 21 by 100569 |
Im guessing Murrays in-box will be filling up with an explanation from the board regarding this debacle. Its outrageous. Both fans and shareholders deserve a full and comprehensive explanation as to the current position regarding the pitch and drains. However, as per usual, we will just get fobbed off by Gauge and his cronies. [Post edited 21 Dec 17:07]
|
It is poor form from the Club, the least you would expect is a sort of apology for all the fans travelling and socialising plans thrown into confusion and the "a new date for the match will be announced in due course"....we know that, it's obvious!
Regarding the actual game.....I suspect we have lost a bit of momentum. All the usual suspects in the NL, from 8th place ,won or drew and Latics are now 7 points ahead of us and 2 games in hand on top spot York City.
Pressure for a positive on Boxing Day. Not beyond the realms though.
Stay positive you lot. No one else will. | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 17:36 - Dec 21 with 3218 views | dawlishdale |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 17:26 - Dec 21 by 442Dale |
Over six hours and nothing more than the original brief statement about the postponement. It’s disrespectful to not even acknowledge that supporters will rightly want more information with a commitment to at least say something more will follow. Maybe it will, but it already speaks volumes that we’re yet to be sure of that.
The Trust should not need prompting via their members to seek a thorough explanation of the current state of the pitch and what the plans are.
They are supporters themselves and we know that without doubt they’ll have read the reaction on here (they mention the messageboard when speaking to fans in meetings/directly) and on other forms of social media. They have to act on this, and with a Trust representative on the club board we should hope to hear something via the Trust site on Monday at the latest - even if, again, it’s to acknowledge they’ll be taking it up with the club as a matter of urgency.
As they do read, there are some simple questions that need answering:
1. What are the current specific issues with the pitch that led to today’s postponement?
2. Are all future games in doubt if there is rain in the 24 hours before kick off?
3. What are the short term solutions that are being sought; ie. will we look to purchase proper rain covers?
There is no reason why these can’t be asked, with a response from the club being provided ahead of Christmas if possible.
I’m sure others have further questions that can be added too. |
Excellent post. There absolutely should be a full statement about today's postponement, and this should be coming directly from the Board, without the need for fan pressure on here or in other places.
As I currently see it, every single home game is seriously in doubt now as it really hasn't been too extreme weather-wise this last few days. we have had little or no frost, and several dry days.
It's shameful that we were the only game called off throughout the countries top 5 divisions and shameful that no apology /explanation has been forthcoming.
As others have said; they really do make it difficult to support the team we love at times. | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 18:08 - Dec 21 with 3094 views | Rodingdale |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 17:26 - Dec 21 by 442Dale |
Over six hours and nothing more than the original brief statement about the postponement. It’s disrespectful to not even acknowledge that supporters will rightly want more information with a commitment to at least say something more will follow. Maybe it will, but it already speaks volumes that we’re yet to be sure of that.
The Trust should not need prompting via their members to seek a thorough explanation of the current state of the pitch and what the plans are.
They are supporters themselves and we know that without doubt they’ll have read the reaction on here (they mention the messageboard when speaking to fans in meetings/directly) and on other forms of social media. They have to act on this, and with a Trust representative on the club board we should hope to hear something via the Trust site on Monday at the latest - even if, again, it’s to acknowledge they’ll be taking it up with the club as a matter of urgency.
As they do read, there are some simple questions that need answering:
1. What are the current specific issues with the pitch that led to today’s postponement?
2. Are all future games in doubt if there is rain in the 24 hours before kick off?
3. What are the short term solutions that are being sought; ie. will we look to purchase proper rain covers?
There is no reason why these can’t be asked, with a response from the club being provided ahead of Christmas if possible.
I’m sure others have further questions that can be added too. |
All fair points, I’ve given up on the Trust and the Gauge led board. I will be writing to Cameron Ogden directly about this and the ever growing number of examples of mismanagement the club. I’ll post my letter and any response on this message board. I’d encourage others to do likewise. [Post edited 21 Dec 18:19]
| | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 18:12 - Dec 21 with 3065 views | 442Dale |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 18:08 - Dec 21 by Rodingdale |
All fair points, I’ve given up on the Trust and the Gauge led board. I will be writing to Cameron Ogden directly about this and the ever growing number of examples of mismanagement the club. I’ll post my letter and any response on this message board. I’d encourage others to do likewise. [Post edited 21 Dec 18:19]
|
Had enough of banging my head against the Trust’s wall too. Not going to be sending those questions to them, they can and will read them here.
If they’re bothered, we’ll see a response. |  |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 18:59 - Dec 21 with 2885 views | kel |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 18:12 - Dec 21 by 442Dale |
Had enough of banging my head against the Trust’s wall too. Not going to be sending those questions to them, they can and will read them here.
If they’re bothered, we’ll see a response. |
Again, you’ve summed it up for me. I’ve always been a staunch supporter of the trust but I’ve not bothered renewing this season for the first time I can remember. Murray is a truly wonderful bloke but I don’t think the club respect him or the trust itself and the lack of leadership since George resigned is incredibly obvious. Might be harsh but I don’t think they can be arsed anymore. |  | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:03 - Dec 21 with 2865 views | judd |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 18:59 - Dec 21 by kel |
Again, you’ve summed it up for me. I’ve always been a staunch supporter of the trust but I’ve not bothered renewing this season for the first time I can remember. Murray is a truly wonderful bloke but I don’t think the club respect him or the trust itself and the lack of leadership since George resigned is incredibly obvious. Might be harsh but I don’t think they can be arsed anymore. |
Murray is the reason I resigned.
Nothing else involved. |  |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:05 - Dec 21 with 2842 views | judd |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 18:59 - Dec 21 by kel |
Again, you’ve summed it up for me. I’ve always been a staunch supporter of the trust but I’ve not bothered renewing this season for the first time I can remember. Murray is a truly wonderful bloke but I don’t think the club respect him or the trust itself and the lack of leadership since George resigned is incredibly obvious. Might be harsh but I don’t think they can be arsed anymore. |
Double post edit [Post edited 21 Dec 19:06]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:17 - Dec 21 with 2793 views | robshaker |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 13:44 - Dec 21 by EllDale |
As far as I can see it’s the only postponed game in the top five divisions today. |
make that 6.. national north/south all played and thats 2 leagues for the price of one 
not looked any lower but we all know the answer to that dont we.
maybe its time you start paying oldham rent  | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:23 - Dec 21 with 2745 views | Edindale |
I actually thought to-days results strengthened our play off position with Altringham, Yeovil and Sutton all in the chasing pack losing and Halifax drawing. We have two games in hand on most of these teams.
York and Oldham continue to look strong. Hopefully to-days rest refreshes us for the festive fixtures. | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:26 - Dec 21 with 2726 views | kel |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:17 - Dec 21 by robshaker |
make that 6.. national north/south all played and thats 2 leagues for the price of one
not looked any lower but we all know the answer to that dont we.
maybe its time you start paying oldham rent |
Did your fans manage to refrain from assaulting any opposition players this week lad? | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:38 - Dec 21 with 2678 views | D_Alien |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:23 - Dec 21 by Edindale |
I actually thought to-days results strengthened our play off position with Altringham, Yeovil and Sutton all in the chasing pack losing and Halifax drawing. We have two games in hand on most of these teams.
York and Oldham continue to look strong. Hopefully to-days rest refreshes us for the festive fixtures. |
Agree with this. We stay 6th with games in hand (but a shit pitch)
The board have to get the pitch sorted; first of all in the short term (rain covers), then in the close season, doing the work required
I love the "community club" ethos espoused by the Ogdens, but the bottom line is we're first and foremost a football club, and if we can't play for lack of the basics in terms of pitch management, might as well forget the rest
As for the Trust: i've put a question on the Golden Share to be tabled at the Trust/Board meeting. What comes out of that will help determine whether the Trust as it's currently constituted needs to be supported, revised, or abandoned [Post edited 21 Dec 19:40]
|  |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:45 - Dec 21 with 2650 views | 442Dale |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:38 - Dec 21 by D_Alien |
Agree with this. We stay 6th with games in hand (but a shit pitch)
The board have to get the pitch sorted; first of all in the short term (rain covers), then in the close season, doing the work required
I love the "community club" ethos espoused by the Ogdens, but the bottom line is we're first and foremost a football club, and if we can't play for lack of the basics in terms of pitch management, might as well forget the rest
As for the Trust: i've put a question on the Golden Share to be tabled at the Trust/Board meeting. What comes out of that will help determine whether the Trust as it's currently constituted needs to be supported, revised, or abandoned [Post edited 21 Dec 19:40]
|
Today shows little evidence of a club who are interested in the thoughts or feelings of their “community”. | |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:52 - Dec 21 with 2617 views | D_Alien |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:45 - Dec 21 by 442Dale |
Today shows little evidence of a club who are interested in the thoughts or feelings of their “community”. |
Depends what we mean by "a club"
In a post a few days ago, i referred to CO having his head turned by SG
If that's the case, the fanbase comes nowhere, and the community even further back
I sincerely hope that's not the case, but if it is, the only solution is to somehow rid the club of SG. How? Not sure... but we've been here before
If that's not the case (about CO being in alignment with SG) then we need to somehow bypass the Trust and deal direct. The comment from judd is pertinent in this respect [Post edited 21 Dec 19:53]
| |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 20:02 - Dec 21 with 2561 views | EllDale |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:23 - Dec 21 by Edindale |
I actually thought to-days results strengthened our play off position with Altringham, Yeovil and Sutton all in the chasing pack losing and Halifax drawing. We have two games in hand on most of these teams.
York and Oldham continue to look strong. Hopefully to-days rest refreshes us for the festive fixtures. |
Oldham v York is the evening kickoff on Boxing Day.
All the teams in the top seven have to play each other before the end of the season.
What Dale don’t want to see is the current top five pulling away leaving another half a dozen clubs including themselves scrapping for the last two playoff places. | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 22:44 - Dec 21 with 2283 views | wozzrafc |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:38 - Dec 21 by D_Alien |
Agree with this. We stay 6th with games in hand (but a shit pitch)
The board have to get the pitch sorted; first of all in the short term (rain covers), then in the close season, doing the work required
I love the "community club" ethos espoused by the Ogdens, but the bottom line is we're first and foremost a football club, and if we can't play for lack of the basics in terms of pitch management, might as well forget the rest
As for the Trust: i've put a question on the Golden Share to be tabled at the Trust/Board meeting. What comes out of that will help determine whether the Trust as it's currently constituted needs to be supported, revised, or abandoned [Post edited 21 Dec 19:40]
|
I think there’s always a need for a trust. The question is what is the role it has to play. The trust has had to evolve over the years. Now if no different,
One thing to remember is that’s down to its members. It’s a democratic body. Anyone can put themselves forward to stand for the board and guide its direction. But it need people to step up. | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 23:43 - Dec 21 with 2177 views | Newbury_Dale |
We will presumably play Boston now on a cold Tuesday night in February in front of 1200 hardy souls. Big loss of revenue for the club. Will the penny ever for drop ? Probably not. | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 00:04 - Dec 22 with 2149 views | D_Alien |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 22:44 - Dec 21 by wozzrafc |
I think there’s always a need for a trust. The question is what is the role it has to play. The trust has had to evolve over the years. Now if no different,
One thing to remember is that’s down to its members. It’s a democratic body. Anyone can put themselves forward to stand for the board and guide its direction. But it need people to step up. |
Fair comment
What i meant by "abandoned" was an idea that's been put forward by others, about a completely fresh start. Depends if the proposal by the Ogdens for the Golden Share is specific to the current Trust, in which case it'd be foolish to start afresh
We'll find out after the Trust/Board meeting, but there's indications in this thread that the current setup isn't working
[Post edited 22 Dec 0:07]
| |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 03:54 - Dec 22 with 1979 views | Sandyman |
If I remember rightly, probably at the last fans forum (if wrong I'll stand being corrected), wasn't there mention from the top table about serious concerns about the pitch and consideration about legal action against those who guaranteed its ability to hold up to local conditions? This was a surprise to the people I was sat with - we were of the understanding the legacy pitch issues had been dealt with, albeit the "guarantee" to repair faults was spoken by a charlatan some years ago. Was the "guarantee" a sham or did we not comply with the terms? The RAFC board were clearly aware of the problem at that event. Why hasn't it been dealt with by them?
Losing yesterdays game when no others were called off after what has been an innocuous week of rainfall by Rochdale standards is incompetent. We lost the BIFFO game after 5 days of sub-zero temperatures followed by Storm Bert which upped the local River Roch readings by over one metre in less than 24 hours. That postponement was understandable. The same river readings on Friday and yesterday indicate barely no change. No Rochdale resident could have considered we'd had days of monsoon since the Tamworth game. We know a bad week when we get one - last week was not it.
It's like going back to the Graham Barrow era of postponements almost 30 years ago, when a shower called a match off. Progress, eh? The board in 2024 / 2025 need to get a grip. Who the fook wants to spend time travelling here or booking hospitality when the game isn't on because of a bit of rain? How to lose fans and sponsors without kicking a ball.
*Posted on here because I don't feel direct communication with the club works any more.* |  | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 12:17 - Dec 22 with 1567 views | judd |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 03:54 - Dec 22 by Sandyman |
If I remember rightly, probably at the last fans forum (if wrong I'll stand being corrected), wasn't there mention from the top table about serious concerns about the pitch and consideration about legal action against those who guaranteed its ability to hold up to local conditions? This was a surprise to the people I was sat with - we were of the understanding the legacy pitch issues had been dealt with, albeit the "guarantee" to repair faults was spoken by a charlatan some years ago. Was the "guarantee" a sham or did we not comply with the terms? The RAFC board were clearly aware of the problem at that event. Why hasn't it been dealt with by them?
Losing yesterdays game when no others were called off after what has been an innocuous week of rainfall by Rochdale standards is incompetent. We lost the BIFFO game after 5 days of sub-zero temperatures followed by Storm Bert which upped the local River Roch readings by over one metre in less than 24 hours. That postponement was understandable. The same river readings on Friday and yesterday indicate barely no change. No Rochdale resident could have considered we'd had days of monsoon since the Tamworth game. We know a bad week when we get one - last week was not it.
It's like going back to the Graham Barrow era of postponements almost 30 years ago, when a shower called a match off. Progress, eh? The board in 2024 / 2025 need to get a grip. Who the fook wants to spend time travelling here or booking hospitality when the game isn't on because of a bit of rain? How to lose fans and sponsors without kicking a ball.
*Posted on here because I don't feel direct communication with the club works any more.* |
Yes, you are correct about the mention of the dispute with the pitch supplier. Dalenet mentions a small refund from the supplier as recorded in the latest accounts in an earlier post. | |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 13:12 - Dec 22 with 1458 views | 442Dale |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 22:44 - Dec 21 by wozzrafc |
I think there’s always a need for a trust. The question is what is the role it has to play. The trust has had to evolve over the years. Now if no different,
One thing to remember is that’s down to its members. It’s a democratic body. Anyone can put themselves forward to stand for the board and guide its direction. But it need people to step up. |
Of course I agree that the Trust has an important part to play but it’s reaching a point when the same drum is being banged year on year, so it becomes less likely much will ever change.
So many have stepped up and since stepped away yet the same issues have existed over the years. The eventual response from Jamie Willoughby regarding the club AGM changes was welcome and one which acknowledged the importance of communication with supporters. That it took correspondence from a Trust member to ensure this happened illustrates the lack of structure and process despite this being brought up time and again over the last 10-15 years.
We still have no visible MOU and statements such as “act as a voice for the fanbase” mean little if there’s no consistency in approach.
A example of this:
Look back at Judd’s correspondence re. the AGM he also copied on here, it listed a series of questions. The response that came from that was the one we’ve seen from Jamie Willoughby. There remained an unanswered question.
If you’re going to take questions from members, print them and associated responses. If there is no response to a question, state that. This may appear a small thing but if you look back over the years, generalised responses to enquiries that are generalised does not ensure consistent communication. It’s communication of choice.
The attendance at the recent Trust AGM should be a sobering wake up call for all involved. As should the choice by the Trust to post an update on the postponement yesterday on their website that mirrors what we’ve seen so far from the club, with zero acknowledgment of the feelings of the fanbase of which they should be fully aware of.
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2024/12/boston-game-off/
So whilst nobody disputes about how fans can influence the Trust, you have to ask why so many have tried and felt the need to eventually admit they could do no more as part of the Trust board - instead choosing to try and influence them better as a member alone. | |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 15:20 - Dec 22 with 1233 views | nordenblue |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:03 - Dec 21 by judd |
Murray is the reason I resigned.
Nothing else involved. |
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this, I didn't realise it was linked to Murray | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 15:41 - Dec 22 with 1186 views | D_Alien |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 15:20 - Dec 22 by nordenblue |
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this, I didn't realise it was linked to Murray |
I've referred to it, although in an oblique kind of way
It's open to interpretation of course... but (unlike me!) i'd not be inclined to pursue it; may not be in anyone's best interests right now? | |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 16:01 - Dec 22 with 1101 views | 49thseason |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 13:12 - Dec 22 by 442Dale |
Of course I agree that the Trust has an important part to play but it’s reaching a point when the same drum is being banged year on year, so it becomes less likely much will ever change.
So many have stepped up and since stepped away yet the same issues have existed over the years. The eventual response from Jamie Willoughby regarding the club AGM changes was welcome and one which acknowledged the importance of communication with supporters. That it took correspondence from a Trust member to ensure this happened illustrates the lack of structure and process despite this being brought up time and again over the last 10-15 years.
We still have no visible MOU and statements such as “act as a voice for the fanbase” mean little if there’s no consistency in approach.
A example of this:
Look back at Judd’s correspondence re. the AGM he also copied on here, it listed a series of questions. The response that came from that was the one we’ve seen from Jamie Willoughby. There remained an unanswered question.
If you’re going to take questions from members, print them and associated responses. If there is no response to a question, state that. This may appear a small thing but if you look back over the years, generalised responses to enquiries that are generalised does not ensure consistent communication. It’s communication of choice.
The attendance at the recent Trust AGM should be a sobering wake up call for all involved. As should the choice by the Trust to post an update on the postponement yesterday on their website that mirrors what we’ve seen so far from the club, with zero acknowledgment of the feelings of the fanbase of which they should be fully aware of.
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2024/12/boston-game-off/
So whilst nobody disputes about how fans can influence the Trust, you have to ask why so many have tried and felt the need to eventually admit they could do no more as part of the Trust board - instead choosing to try and influence them better as a member alone. |
There is a big dilemma at the centre of the Trust in that the elected Chairman is not the person representing the Trust on the club's BoD, and even then the position is one of an invitee rather than a fully paid-up board member. Questions will inevitably be asked about the reports received from the Trust's representative but is seems he is not responsible for directly answering and defers to other members of the Trust to do so, and like Chinese whispers, each re-telling could alter the story somewhat, and may then become influenced by opinions rather than actualities.
Whilst this is a weakness the Trust may or may not have to live with , it undoubtedly strains relationships.
Fans also place too big a burden on the Trust in that they want to know the inner machinations of the BoD and expect to be kept informed at a level of detail to which they are not entitled to know even if they are shareholders, particularly in respect of forward looking or sensitive matters perhaps under negotiation with other parties.
For its part, the BoD should accept that its affairs are of great interest to the fan-base and try to be more forthcoming in those matters that can be widely disclosed bearing in mind, that much will depend on the frequency of their meetings.
I can't imagine that there are many limited companies that have invited board members selected by a trust set up by their customers. Generally you would assume that they try to keep their customers onside by delivering a top quality buying experience and a high quality product which then begs the question "does the presence of the trust provide the BoD with an excuse to be less communicative with its customers than might otherwise be the case"?
Clearly, events over the last 4 or 5 years have been a breeding ground for mis-trust and anger and memories are long, but the club is now effectively owned by a single entity which we assume is benevolent and as such, my belief is that we have to place our faith in what they are attempting to do until such time as that faith is proven to be mis-placed. We shall see if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, personally I am fed up with thin gruel. |  | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 16:29 - Dec 22 with 1020 views | D_Alien |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 16:01 - Dec 22 by 49thseason |
There is a big dilemma at the centre of the Trust in that the elected Chairman is not the person representing the Trust on the club's BoD, and even then the position is one of an invitee rather than a fully paid-up board member. Questions will inevitably be asked about the reports received from the Trust's representative but is seems he is not responsible for directly answering and defers to other members of the Trust to do so, and like Chinese whispers, each re-telling could alter the story somewhat, and may then become influenced by opinions rather than actualities.
Whilst this is a weakness the Trust may or may not have to live with , it undoubtedly strains relationships.
Fans also place too big a burden on the Trust in that they want to know the inner machinations of the BoD and expect to be kept informed at a level of detail to which they are not entitled to know even if they are shareholders, particularly in respect of forward looking or sensitive matters perhaps under negotiation with other parties.
For its part, the BoD should accept that its affairs are of great interest to the fan-base and try to be more forthcoming in those matters that can be widely disclosed bearing in mind, that much will depend on the frequency of their meetings.
I can't imagine that there are many limited companies that have invited board members selected by a trust set up by their customers. Generally you would assume that they try to keep their customers onside by delivering a top quality buying experience and a high quality product which then begs the question "does the presence of the trust provide the BoD with an excuse to be less communicative with its customers than might otherwise be the case"?
Clearly, events over the last 4 or 5 years have been a breeding ground for mis-trust and anger and memories are long, but the club is now effectively owned by a single entity which we assume is benevolent and as such, my belief is that we have to place our faith in what they are attempting to do until such time as that faith is proven to be mis-placed. We shall see if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, personally I am fed up with thin gruel. |
The key point in all of this is the stated intention by the Ogdens of Dale becoming a "community" club
Any community requires involvement with an enterprise at a level the community itself feels it can support; without that feeling, there is no support, and therefore no community
The Trust, as the primary representative of the wider community (which could extend to the entire town) just HAS to be provided with the right level of information to disseminate, and also provided with sufficient respect to disagree, if its members feel so inclined, without a breakdown in relationships
The alternative is top-down, unengaged, and ultimately failure [Post edited 22 Dec 16:38]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
