| EGM on 23:10 - Jul 24 with 4269 views | DaleFan7 |
The most worrying thing about this is the way they've gone about it. Surely as businessmen they know that if the product of the company you invest in is worse then generally the share price goes down.
We've seen a lot of players that will have been on FL wages to be replaced by players presumably on much lower given where they've come from. Are we really in that much sh!t that they now need collateral against their investment in the club?
At the moment we're heading in the same direction we would have been had someone dodgy taken over, it just seems to be happening quicker and there's no ride to enjoy along the way. |  | |  |
| EGM on 23:51 - Jul 24 with 4130 views | Hopwoodblue |
Just a question
Does this then mean if someone where to come along and buy them both out they would then get the key to the castle with no resolution in place meaning they could do with the stadium what they wanted ?
All I’m thinking is that this is the stumbling block for any investor and by removing it opens the door for a free for all ?
Hope I’m wrong but it may just be a last throw of the dice to off load what gas become way to big a job for them to handle. |  |
| |
| EGM on 23:53 - Jul 24 with 4154 views | 49thseason |
| EGM on 23:10 - Jul 24 by DaleFan7 |
The most worrying thing about this is the way they've gone about it. Surely as businessmen they know that if the product of the company you invest in is worse then generally the share price goes down.
We've seen a lot of players that will have been on FL wages to be replaced by players presumably on much lower given where they've come from. Are we really in that much sh!t that they now need collateral against their investment in the club?
At the moment we're heading in the same direction we would have been had someone dodgy taken over, it just seems to be happening quicker and there's no ride to enjoy along the way. |
In the last set of accounts, the club had 138 employees, 29 were players.
There are clubs in our league with a total of 50 employees including 25 players.
We are already £450,000 short of last season because we will not be receiving money from the Premier league distribution.
So does the board gamble and hope to get promoted or should they slash the staffing and prepare for a slow decline into obscurity? The EFL money halves next season, crowds will be in terminal decline if we are relegated again.... Its easy to criticise but if not this? What? It is worrying, but if people won't buy tickets, and no one wants to invest, the game is more or less up. This season might be the last roll of the dice. Not looking good I'm afraid. |  | | |
| EGM on 07:15 - Jul 25 with 3953 views | dingdangblue |
Have Gauge and Knight got millions to 'lend? Or are they borrowing the money themselves and need the stadium as collateral? What is the actual valuation of the Stadium these days? |  |
| |
| EGM on 07:25 - Jul 25 with 3922 views | Rodingdale |
| EGM on 23:51 - Jul 24 by Hopwoodblue |
Just a question
Does this then mean if someone where to come along and buy them both out they would then get the key to the castle with no resolution in place meaning they could do with the stadium what they wanted ?
All I’m thinking is that this is the stumbling block for any investor and by removing it opens the door for a free for all ?
Hope I’m wrong but it may just be a last throw of the dice to off load what gas become way to big a job for them to handle. |
Depends how the amendment and loan agreement is worded. To avoid the scenario you describe the amendment could be limited to only charging to Gauge and Knight and the loan would have to be non transferable.
A lot concerns me about this. Seems short notice, in August when a lot of people are away, announcing the EGM without first engaging with the fan base or it seems the trust who have again been blindsided as they were by the moving away from fan ownership announcement after Christmas. Looks like we have a cuckoo in the nest folks and we’ve been conned into believing it’s one of our own.
Will be interesting to see whether the resolution gets pulled given I can’t see - without a lot more reason how shareholders would vote for it. Thinking a bit more about this, in PR are terms this is just about the worst thing Gauge could have done which makes me think he is fully aware of that. Maybe the “or else” bit is yet to come. [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 7:30]
| | | |
| EGM on 07:44 - Jul 25 with 3882 views | NorthernDale |
Again, I repeat myself, why not seek a council loan, we have done it in the past or as other posters have implied is there some motives in their actions. Did the other board members agree to this motion.
Hopefully the trust can get to the bottom of this matter and get some answers. | | | |
| EGM on 08:28 - Jul 25 with 3771 views | A_Newby |
| EGM on 07:25 - Jul 25 by Rodingdale |
Depends how the amendment and loan agreement is worded. To avoid the scenario you describe the amendment could be limited to only charging to Gauge and Knight and the loan would have to be non transferable.
A lot concerns me about this. Seems short notice, in August when a lot of people are away, announcing the EGM without first engaging with the fan base or it seems the trust who have again been blindsided as they were by the moving away from fan ownership announcement after Christmas. Looks like we have a cuckoo in the nest folks and we’ve been conned into believing it’s one of our own.
Will be interesting to see whether the resolution gets pulled given I can’t see - without a lot more reason how shareholders would vote for it. Thinking a bit more about this, in PR are terms this is just about the worst thing Gauge could have done which makes me think he is fully aware of that. Maybe the “or else” bit is yet to come. [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 7:30]
|
Sorry accidental down vote. |  | | |
| EGM on 08:36 - Jul 25 with 3757 views | Dalenet |
Interesting that this comes after two Board directors resign voluntarily and another on health grounds. Did they walk away because they objected to the proposal? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| EGM on 08:48 - Jul 25 with 3721 views | HK_Dale |
Whilst the willingness to step forward by the current directors has rightly been applauded, they seem to have forgotten the nature of investing in equity.
No one who is a shareholder in the club should expect a return or security in the case of the club is heading in the wrong direction in terms of profitability. This move feels very much like a way of securitising the equity investment made by the two directors. As the adage goes, don’t invest more than you can afford to lose.
If this is about raising working capital, there are other means rather than putting the entire club and its assets at risk if we don’t have a successful season. Others have used platforms like Tifosy in the past to raise debt capital, but again that was unsecured. |  | | |
| EGM on 09:08 - Jul 25 with 3645 views | 442Dale |
| EGM on 07:44 - Jul 25 by NorthernDale |
Again, I repeat myself, why not seek a council loan, we have done it in the past or as other posters have implied is there some motives in their actions. Did the other board members agree to this motion.
Hopefully the trust can get to the bottom of this matter and get some answers. |
The next steps will possibly depend on what is sent out to shareholders today. As the biggest shareholder, would fully expect a Trust EGM being required, either before the Ebbsfleet game or even on Saturday if there is a pressing need with limited time ahead of the club EGM.
What doesn’t make any sense is that we have not been made aware of any impending issues that make this move as being required with such urgency. The club had an opportunity to call the AGM to give a clearer picture of where we stand. In fact, why wasn’t the prospect of an EGM communicated to the Trust rather than the following as stated in their July Newsletter three weeks ago?:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/07/trust-newsletter-july/
<<“ Rochdale AFC AGM
No date in place at the moment but hope to announce something ahead of the new season.“>> [Post edited 25 Jul 2023 9:10]
|  |
| |
| EGM on 09:11 - Jul 25 with 3637 views | samueloneils |
The timing of the posting will simply to comply with the 14 days notice required by law before a general meeting.
This in itself is nothing sinister.
It`s now all about the detail which I guess will follow very soon.
It is the first sign of divergence between the directors and the other 4. | | | |
| EGM on 09:19 - Jul 25 with 3593 views | BillyRudd |
Even if this proposal was a perfectly altruistic action by the two directors and the lien nestled in safety, I ask myself the most pertinent reasonable question. Taking judgement on the current Boards performance to date, would I want the money raised to be utilised by them going forward. Absolutely not. You might believe that SG is a cross between Mother Theresa and Warren Buffet but such a proposal still requires a plan going forward. Ie some form of justification that other options have been explored and how the money is to be spent.
I can,t help feeling that as another has already intimitated, there is an "or else" in the offing. | | | |
| EGM on 09:34 - Jul 25 with 3520 views | 442Dale |
For reference, a timeline for 2022:
29/4/22
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/
“the club has a stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season. We have returned during 2021/22 to being a properly and prudently run football club…”
“…we seek to achieve break even or better financial result in each operating season.”
“The Board is planning for a significantly increased playing budget for next season.”
8/6/22
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/
Notable points from 5:00 including: Monthly management accounts enabling identification of areas of the business making/costing the club money, hoping to break even year on year (that financial year ended at the end of the month of this interview). If you get a chance, please have a watch for further information.
26/8/22
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/
“Whilst an unwanted public hostile takeover attempt was unprecedented in the history of our club, the consortium of serving Directors have stepped in and prevented a hostile takeover and then delivered a truly fan owned and fan-led club.”
31/10/22
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/
The club call an AGM/EGM.
12/11/22
The Trust hold their AGM. No mention is made to members of any urgency to purchase more shares either by the Trust or the fan base at large.
18/11/22
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/
The day after the AGM/EGM, details of the share issue. Applications open to existing shareholders and all other supporters of the club who would like to become shareholders for the first time.
29/12/22
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/
Chairman’s Christmas message where it’s stated:
“So far, supporters have purchased just over 20,000 of these new shares and the Board of Directors will now need to look outside of the club for potential investors to purchase the remainder of these shares whilst keeping some back for supporters to buy.”
30/12/22
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/
The club invites offers for investment | |
| |
| EGM on 09:37 - Jul 25 with 3511 views | NorthernDale |
At this point, I would welcome a Chris Dunphy return, it would be nice for Simon to invite Chris and his associates to join the board. Did the present want Mr Dunphy to buy the shares of them, rather just invest in the club. Yes, Mr Dunphy made mistakes, but the club seemed better run and I now wondering, like many others, if there is an hidden agenda at the moment.
I would be interested to know, how much the money as the club raised in transfer fees this summer and how much have they saved in wages. Somebody stated that we had over 100 employees, why? | | | |
| EGM on 09:43 - Jul 25 with 3481 views | kel |
Can someone post on here when they receive the email from the club please as I want to see if my issue with getting nothing is resolved?
Thanks. |  | | |
| EGM on 10:00 - Jul 25 with 3420 views | dawlishdale |
This doesn't sit right with me, and by the looks of comments from others , they feel the same.
Firstly, as a shareholder, this should have been communicated to those who have bought shares before it was announced to the World on the Official Site. This in itself is surely against Company Law, and begs the question that something is far from right. George Delves would have known that before acting on behalf of SG and RK? And why no AGM first to explain any pressing need for the EGM? It doesn't make business sense at all.
Secondly, and very much reading between the lines; why the apparent urgent need for a cash injection just before the season starts? I can only conclude that the "several keen parties" have all fallen short of the level required to take control of the club. Perhaps this has only just happened, and leaves us desperately short of cash at a crucial time.
Thus, SG & RK have volunteered to stump up yet more money, in addition to the large sum they have previously spent. However; this time, they have requested security on any input, by way of a charge on the ground, so that should we fall into Administration, they would have some protection.
My financial mind tells me that we must be very close to the real possibility of being insolvent and thus entering administration unless significant additional cash is input.
I do feel that there could well be a connection between the departure of some of the Directors who have recently stepped down, and this announcement. Perhaps there was a rift in the Board over it?
I also feel that it makes the position of Murray almost impossible, as he has either been kept in the dark about it, or been sworn to secrecy. Both are not acceptable in my mind, and as the largest single shareholder, the Trust deserve much much better.
Finally, I have to echo the thoughts of others before me in saying that nobody before has ever put money into RAFC Ltd with as many strings attached as this. Why not introduce it by way of Directors Loans? I suspect that they are not as well secured in the event of the club folding?
In conclusion, it pains me to say this, but this hasn't been handled at all well, and it only echoes many instances of poor running of the club since the "New Board" took over.
We as supporters can only thank them so many times for stepping in and fighting MH after the real villain (Bottom) was removed by shareholders. It pains me to say it, but as things stand, RAFC is in it's death throws, and we may not have a club at all for much longer. | | | |
| EGM on 10:08 - Jul 25 with 3386 views | D_Alien |
| EGM on 10:00 - Jul 25 by dawlishdale |
This doesn't sit right with me, and by the looks of comments from others , they feel the same.
Firstly, as a shareholder, this should have been communicated to those who have bought shares before it was announced to the World on the Official Site. This in itself is surely against Company Law, and begs the question that something is far from right. George Delves would have known that before acting on behalf of SG and RK? And why no AGM first to explain any pressing need for the EGM? It doesn't make business sense at all.
Secondly, and very much reading between the lines; why the apparent urgent need for a cash injection just before the season starts? I can only conclude that the "several keen parties" have all fallen short of the level required to take control of the club. Perhaps this has only just happened, and leaves us desperately short of cash at a crucial time.
Thus, SG & RK have volunteered to stump up yet more money, in addition to the large sum they have previously spent. However; this time, they have requested security on any input, by way of a charge on the ground, so that should we fall into Administration, they would have some protection.
My financial mind tells me that we must be very close to the real possibility of being insolvent and thus entering administration unless significant additional cash is input.
I do feel that there could well be a connection between the departure of some of the Directors who have recently stepped down, and this announcement. Perhaps there was a rift in the Board over it?
I also feel that it makes the position of Murray almost impossible, as he has either been kept in the dark about it, or been sworn to secrecy. Both are not acceptable in my mind, and as the largest single shareholder, the Trust deserve much much better.
Finally, I have to echo the thoughts of others before me in saying that nobody before has ever put money into RAFC Ltd with as many strings attached as this. Why not introduce it by way of Directors Loans? I suspect that they are not as well secured in the event of the club folding?
In conclusion, it pains me to say this, but this hasn't been handled at all well, and it only echoes many instances of poor running of the club since the "New Board" took over.
We as supporters can only thank them so many times for stepping in and fighting MH after the real villain (Bottom) was removed by shareholders. It pains me to say it, but as things stand, RAFC is in it's death throws, and we may not have a club at all for much longer. |
Your point re Trust rep on the board is well-made, and along the lines i've suggested before
Just what is the point? It's for precisely this kind of scenario that it's needed, and if there's no possibility of bringing the Trust into action on fans behalf, it's actually worse than useless. It puts the individual in an invidious position. Whatever the outcome of the EGM announcement, this needs urgent review
[Post edited 25 Jul 2023 10:11]
|  |
| |
| EGM on 10:22 - Jul 25 with 3335 views | Alan_ADale |
| EGM on 10:08 - Jul 25 by D_Alien |
Your point re Trust rep on the board is well-made, and along the lines i've suggested before
Just what is the point? It's for precisely this kind of scenario that it's needed, and if there's no possibility of bringing the Trust into action on fans behalf, it's actually worse than useless. It puts the individual in an invidious position. Whatever the outcome of the EGM announcement, this needs urgent review
[Post edited 25 Jul 2023 10:11]
|
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/07/members-back-supporters-director/ |  | | |
| EGM on 10:36 - Jul 25 with 3262 views | D_Alien |
Yes, i know
That was then, this is now
It's my opinion that it induces a false sense of security among the fanbase, which is being proven (as we speak) to be false | |
| |
| EGM on 10:52 - Jul 25 with 3185 views | Brierls |
| EGM on 22:44 - Jul 24 by Yorkshire_Dale |
This action will protect the money that these two have already put into the Club......sounds ideal for them? |
You say that with authority, so many will read that and assume you know what you're talking about.
I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm confident prior investment (which was share purchases not directors loans?) can't be retrospectively secured against the ground.
This reads as new director loans, with a request for protection of getting some money back if all goes pop. I'm not comfortable with how it's been announced or the implications, though we should be expecting more info and context from the club over the next day or so. |  | | |
| EGM on 11:23 - Jul 25 with 3069 views | dawlishdale |
| EGM on 10:52 - Jul 25 by Brierls |
You say that with authority, so many will read that and assume you know what you're talking about.
I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm confident prior investment (which was share purchases not directors loans?) can't be retrospectively secured against the ground.
This reads as new director loans, with a request for protection of getting some money back if all goes pop. I'm not comfortable with how it's been announced or the implications, though we should be expecting more info and context from the club over the next day or so. |
Having read up on it somewhat (and I'm sure others will have a greater knowledge of these things) the new secured loans (if approved by the EGM) would give the 2 Directors a much stronger position on any new loans made to the club. They would, as secured creditors, rank second only to liquidators in terms of being paid out in the case of insolvency.
Shareholders, by contrast, are almost bottom of the list in order of those who would get a payout. I suspect that the families of the 2 Directors have said they won't allow any more share purchases or loans unless they are secured by a fixed charge.
Contrary to YD, I feel sure that the security will only apply to new loans made after the EGM decision, should it ratify the change.
It may well be that we have no choice. It sounds like there are no suitable outside investors, and that sales of season tickets have been disappointing, leaving us the option of secured borrowing, or administration. However, until such a position is made clear by way of an AGM, speculation will continue. | | | |
| EGM on 11:31 - Jul 25 with 3015 views | 49thseason |
| EGM on 10:00 - Jul 25 by dawlishdale |
This doesn't sit right with me, and by the looks of comments from others , they feel the same.
Firstly, as a shareholder, this should have been communicated to those who have bought shares before it was announced to the World on the Official Site. This in itself is surely against Company Law, and begs the question that something is far from right. George Delves would have known that before acting on behalf of SG and RK? And why no AGM first to explain any pressing need for the EGM? It doesn't make business sense at all.
Secondly, and very much reading between the lines; why the apparent urgent need for a cash injection just before the season starts? I can only conclude that the "several keen parties" have all fallen short of the level required to take control of the club. Perhaps this has only just happened, and leaves us desperately short of cash at a crucial time.
Thus, SG & RK have volunteered to stump up yet more money, in addition to the large sum they have previously spent. However; this time, they have requested security on any input, by way of a charge on the ground, so that should we fall into Administration, they would have some protection.
My financial mind tells me that we must be very close to the real possibility of being insolvent and thus entering administration unless significant additional cash is input.
I do feel that there could well be a connection between the departure of some of the Directors who have recently stepped down, and this announcement. Perhaps there was a rift in the Board over it?
I also feel that it makes the position of Murray almost impossible, as he has either been kept in the dark about it, or been sworn to secrecy. Both are not acceptable in my mind, and as the largest single shareholder, the Trust deserve much much better.
Finally, I have to echo the thoughts of others before me in saying that nobody before has ever put money into RAFC Ltd with as many strings attached as this. Why not introduce it by way of Directors Loans? I suspect that they are not as well secured in the event of the club folding?
In conclusion, it pains me to say this, but this hasn't been handled at all well, and it only echoes many instances of poor running of the club since the "New Board" took over.
We as supporters can only thank them so many times for stepping in and fighting MH after the real villain (Bottom) was removed by shareholders. It pains me to say it, but as things stand, RAFC is in it's death throws, and we may not have a club at all for much longer. |
I think this will be a directors loan ..they will be assured some return on their loan via the sale of the ground in the event the company cannot repay it by other means. I think they may also have priority over others who are owed money in the event the company is dissolved...but I'm not 100% certain of that if HMRC is involved for example.
Certainly unquoted companies seem to treat shareholders differently to those of quoted companies that have to issue an RNS in the event of something happening to the business which affects the share price.
We have to remember that the loan may at some point be repaid and that in the past there have been various charges on the ground by Breweries and the like who have lent money which has been paid off. | | | |
| EGM on 11:58 - Jul 25 with 2885 views | DaleiLama |
| EGM on 09:43 - Jul 25 by kel |
Can someone post on here when they receive the email from the club please as I want to see if my issue with getting nothing is resolved?
Thanks. |
I normally get mails from the club for all things so will post confirmation when I get something. |  |
| |
| EGM on 12:10 - Jul 25 with 2830 views | Drigdale |
I think I am in the minority here but can understand their reasoning for wanting some security for pumping money into the club when it is probably desperately needed. Why should they put their limited family money at risk.
By all accounts it seems that there are no external investors riding to our rescue and someone who is trying to help should be encouraged where possible. | | | |
| EGM on 12:13 - Jul 25 with 2815 views | JumeirahDale |
Agree with most of the other comments. As both a fan and shareholder, I'm willing to consider any option proposed to assist the club in operating, but it needs to be properly communicated and justified - as far as I can tell neither is the case here. We're a pretty switched-on bunch these days when it comes to financing (by necessity) so I'm surprised this shotgun wedding approach was considered viable as anything other than a signaling device. Let's see. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
