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.
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 15:27 - Sep 19 by Dalenet
What rankles me is the role Andrew Kilpatrick has had in all of this. I am not close to people in the know, but he is the key to where we are even if Bottomley was the architect of the plan.
He was elected Chair for just over two years. His shares were a legacy from his father. Nobody expected him to bail out the club and I have no idea whether he did during covid. But he resigned unexpectedly in February. Does anybody know whether he walked away because they couldn't find a buyer or did he walk away because of a power struggle in the Board room driven by Bottomley? If he always wanted to sell his shares, why to somebody like the Essex boys? If he walked away in frustration maybe he decided to sell his shares because he couldn't tolerate the Board? But surely this outcome wasn't what his father would have wanted?
If he hadn't been open to sell the shares the takeover threats wouldn't be real. His shareholding is a deciding factor over any other. What really went on for him to do that?
[Post edited 19 Sep 2021 15:29]
The impression created was he didn't need.the brass and was hooked on watching us playing home and away from home.
He could have just picked some random Macedonian for example, so why fall for the charms of our Essex chum? Pros and cons all weighed up,I guess.
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 15:34 - Sep 19 by seasidedale
Could be that Kilpatrick saw us as a sinking ship at the time and decided to bail
...or it could be that Kilpatrick was looking for a way out for a long time, and when he / the board were under scrutiny by the fanbase (around the time of his resignation) he used that as his reason within the club for leaving, and it was dressed up in the statement as 'personal reasons'.
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 15:08 - Sep 19 by 49thseason
That would seem to imply that there are "volunteers" or similar who have access to information that they might not be expected or entitled to have or are being fed such information by people who do legitimately have access to information. All this flies in the face of " Team Rochdale" and needs sorting.
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 15:27 - Sep 19 by Dalenet
What rankles me is the role Andrew Kilpatrick has had in all of this. I am not close to people in the know, but he is the key to where we are even if Bottomley was the architect of the plan.
He was elected Chair for just over two years. His shares were a legacy from his father. Nobody expected him to bail out the club and I have no idea whether he did during covid. But he resigned unexpectedly in February. Does anybody know whether he walked away because they couldn't find a buyer or did he walk away because of a power struggle in the Board room driven by Bottomley? If he always wanted to sell his shares, why to somebody like the Essex boys? If he walked away in frustration maybe he decided to sell his shares because he couldn't tolerate the Board? But surely this outcome wasn't what his father would have wanted?
If he hadn't been open to sell the shares the takeover threats wouldn't be real. His shareholding is a deciding factor over any other. What really went on for him to do that?
[Post edited 19 Sep 2021 15:29]
One thing I've taken from this whole thing is that when (yes when) we do get all of the shares back into the hands of dale fans or so called dale fans (ie A.Kilpatrick) we should ensure that no one has the type of majority that Kilpatrick has/had. Circumstances change for people and we can't have that type of potential opportunity for shysters to manipulate again! The more divided the shareholding the safer we are.
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 23:43 - Sep 18 by R17ALE
Sadly, we have a former CEO who has an important list of shareholders who is hawking his list to the highest bidder. 1. Someone he met at Swindon. Failed. Now someone he met at Charlton travelling with the bloke who was there telling us there was another match in earshot. Guess who! 4-4 draw I think.
Who next is in the former CEO phone book? Probably some coont he's met along the way in League 1.
The only hope is to see the former CEO locked up. But other fans would rather harsher punishment I hear on the terraces.
Bottomley travelled to the last Charlton match with Tony Pockney - I had a conversation with them on the platform at London Bridge station.....
0
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 18:02 - Sep 19 with 3268 views
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 14:55 - Sep 19 by judd
The Trust acquisition of AKs shares will give them.a.c. 12% shareholding I think.
The last hold up was a legal challenge from Messrs Curren and Rose. Unsure where their withdrawal leaves this challenge.
However, the Trust have worked extremely hard to track down as many small shareholders as possible and have received assurances from those shareholders that they will support the Trust. Together with the AK shares, the Trust believes that they can count on 51%......
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 18:19 - Sep 19 by DorkingDale
Good point - it would've been May 2019.
Who would've been travelling there in January 2021?
Well, Well, Well. Who knew?
The case for the prosecution is a rolling stone gathering moss.
We now have eye witness testimonies placing Andrew Curran and Bottomley in the building at the Swindon home match last season.
And now we have an eye witness account placing Bottomley on his way to Charlton where you’d think he’d be in the same building as Matt Southall.
Within 2 years, both men claim to be significant shareholders in RAFC.
This just gets better and better!
Miss Marple will be shitting herself. And she predicts that should a 3rd person claim, in the future, to own a lot of Dale shares, it will be someone who was in a League 1 Boardroom at sometime in the last two years.
Just trying to get my head around the mechanics of this whole thing. As far as Companies House, clubs list of shareholders is concerned the shareholdings of a certain 5 'Fans' are still held by those fans. There are issues around voting right POA's proxies etc. If Morton House don't have their name on a Share Certificate how do they sell any of those shares to Southall. Will A Kilpatrick and another couple of shareholders sign their shares over to Southall and then the remaining holding of the Infamous 5 be signed over to another representative of Curran and Rose. Can the club refuse to accept the transfer of shares if its under 30%
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 17:07 - Sep 19 by boromat
One thing I've taken from this whole thing is that when (yes when) we do get all of the shares back into the hands of dale fans or so called dale fans (ie A.Kilpatrick) we should ensure that no one has the type of majority that Kilpatrick has/had. Circumstances change for people and we can't have that type of potential opportunity for shysters to manipulate again! The more divided the shareholding the safer we are.
#UpTheDaleNotForSale
Without wishing to sound pedantic, 22% isn't anyway near a majority. It's a substantial shareholding, but doesn't even reach the EFL requirement for a fit & proper person test. The worry is that 2 separate individuals could work together to obtain a majority without either having to pass that test. We also need to be realistic in that the club is desperately in need of investment.
1
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 12:56 - Sep 20 with 2299 views
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 09:28 - Sep 20 by DorkingDale
Without wishing to sound pedantic, 22% isn't anyway near a majority. It's a substantial shareholding, but doesn't even reach the EFL requirement for a fit & proper person test. The worry is that 2 separate individuals could work together to obtain a majority without either having to pass that test. We also need to be realistic in that the club is desperately in need of investment.
Given Southall's background, you would hope that the Board would refuse him any sort of Directorship. Being a major shareholder, if he ever actually becomes one, does not automatically bring a seat on the board. Even with 42 % he/they do not have the votes to demand a place on the board. Clearly they may become some sort of disruptive influence in terms,of AGM EGM , changing Articles of Incorporation etc that require 75% , but with the exception of being able to buy a proportional amount of shares in an open offer, which would be risky for RAFC if others did not take up their portions, they remain relatively powerless.
Or... is Southall now Bassini's bitch following the Charlton debacle and simply fronting for him or maybe someone else. Either way he and they must know he isnt going to pass the Fit and Proper Person test any more than Curran would have done and it would seem he doesn't personally have the funds .
At some point, probably the next AGM, we will know the lay of the land, as they will need to turn up or send a representative assuming the shares have been transferred by then.
Of course the Board has the facility to offer preference ( non- voting shares) that pay a rate of interest for up to 3 years and then revert to ordinary ( voting) shares if the need to raise funds is so urgent. This would stymie the Black Hats for at least 3 years even if they were to buy into the Preference shares.
As others have pointed out, the role of the EFL is now critical in keeping these people out of their clubs. You do wonder if they have the guts to front them up and produce a list of personae non grata who may not play any part in EFL member clubs be it director or shareholder. Difficult perhaps but necessary if the integrity of the EFL is to be maintained. If it can't or worse won't introduce a process to ban the likes of Southall you start to wonder what useful purpose the EFL actually performs.
[Post edited 20 Sep 2021 12:57]
1
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 00:21 - Sep 21 with 1820 views
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 12:56 - Sep 20 by 49thseason
Given Southall's background, you would hope that the Board would refuse him any sort of Directorship. Being a major shareholder, if he ever actually becomes one, does not automatically bring a seat on the board. Even with 42 % he/they do not have the votes to demand a place on the board. Clearly they may become some sort of disruptive influence in terms,of AGM EGM , changing Articles of Incorporation etc that require 75% , but with the exception of being able to buy a proportional amount of shares in an open offer, which would be risky for RAFC if others did not take up their portions, they remain relatively powerless.
Or... is Southall now Bassini's bitch following the Charlton debacle and simply fronting for him or maybe someone else. Either way he and they must know he isnt going to pass the Fit and Proper Person test any more than Curran would have done and it would seem he doesn't personally have the funds .
At some point, probably the next AGM, we will know the lay of the land, as they will need to turn up or send a representative assuming the shares have been transferred by then.
Of course the Board has the facility to offer preference ( non- voting shares) that pay a rate of interest for up to 3 years and then revert to ordinary ( voting) shares if the need to raise funds is so urgent. This would stymie the Black Hats for at least 3 years even if they were to buy into the Preference shares.
As others have pointed out, the role of the EFL is now critical in keeping these people out of their clubs. You do wonder if they have the guts to front them up and produce a list of personae non grata who may not play any part in EFL member clubs be it director or shareholder. Difficult perhaps but necessary if the integrity of the EFL is to be maintained. If it can't or worse won't introduce a process to ban the likes of Southall you start to wonder what useful purpose the EFL actually performs.
[Post edited 20 Sep 2021 12:57]
My head hurts....TBH I still really don't understand why these shysters are interested in our club (unless for money laundering purposes). Let's be honest, nobody is going to fund a £10k/month flat or a fleet of Range Rovers out of our income.
0
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 09:00 - Sep 21 with 1641 views
Morton House sell their shares. BUT.......... on 12:56 - Sep 20 by 49thseason
Given Southall's background, you would hope that the Board would refuse him any sort of Directorship. Being a major shareholder, if he ever actually becomes one, does not automatically bring a seat on the board. Even with 42 % he/they do not have the votes to demand a place on the board. Clearly they may become some sort of disruptive influence in terms,of AGM EGM , changing Articles of Incorporation etc that require 75% , but with the exception of being able to buy a proportional amount of shares in an open offer, which would be risky for RAFC if others did not take up their portions, they remain relatively powerless.
Or... is Southall now Bassini's bitch following the Charlton debacle and simply fronting for him or maybe someone else. Either way he and they must know he isnt going to pass the Fit and Proper Person test any more than Curran would have done and it would seem he doesn't personally have the funds .
At some point, probably the next AGM, we will know the lay of the land, as they will need to turn up or send a representative assuming the shares have been transferred by then.
Of course the Board has the facility to offer preference ( non- voting shares) that pay a rate of interest for up to 3 years and then revert to ordinary ( voting) shares if the need to raise funds is so urgent. This would stymie the Black Hats for at least 3 years even if they were to buy into the Preference shares.
As others have pointed out, the role of the EFL is now critical in keeping these people out of their clubs. You do wonder if they have the guts to front them up and produce a list of personae non grata who may not play any part in EFL member clubs be it director or shareholder. Difficult perhaps but necessary if the integrity of the EFL is to be maintained. If it can't or worse won't introduce a process to ban the likes of Southall you start to wonder what useful purpose the EFL actually performs.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
