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.
So if the removal of the need for an audit was to fail but the other motions pass would our knight in shining armour would walk away from the deal? Given the sums of money we are talking about this is a piddly amount each year so such a position could hardly be based on finances.
This is all about getting rid of the last bit of transparency shareholders would retain.
Voting down that motion would put both Gauge and the new ‘investors’ on the spot. And lets be honest…..I strongly believe the trust/fans could easily raise the cost of an audit if Gauge and his fellow directors have found out they cannot manage a few thousand between them.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 17:22 - Mar 3 with 2468 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 16:24 - Mar 3 by ChaffRAFC
If the motion is passed, I too don't see how the club continues. I'm not taking Simon's word for it and I too find it hard listening to him and his tone towards supporters. I'm taking the word of fans I trust, fans I know well and quite frankly it's time we realised this current model at the club is completely outdated and impossible to sustain.
We were pretty much told at the fans forum that to kick the can down the road for another month would cost us £160,000 I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong but how do we raise that money? We raised money for weeks to fight off Morton House and got a third of that total. It's all well and saying that about Politicians and councils etc. We already owe the council the best part of half a million according to Simon and our MP is George Galloway who is too busy trying to p!$$ off Labour and Conservatives to bother about football. Neither politicians or council stopped Bury from going bust did they? Or Macclesfield?
Far too big a risk, without a plan going forward to vote another way for me unfortunately. I completely get how it's a massive step into the unknown and unfamiliar, but we don't have a viable choice in the timeframe we have.
I wasn't aware we owe RMBC £500k, not heard that before. The Chairman's mantra is that RMBC aren't interested in helping the club so how do we owe them that money if they haven't helped us? Who told us that kicking the can down the road for another month would cost us £160k, was it Simon Gauge? Not like him to be upfront when it comes to revealing anything about the clubs finances, even to shareholders. Everything seems to be ' according to Simon'. I completely agree with your point that the current model is impossible to sustain, even more so when the clubs been run very badly since Gauge became Chairman and obvious revenue streams have just been ignored. We do need investment but we also need to stop just accepting everything that comes out of the Chairman's mouth as gospel. Does he even have any business credentials when it comes to fronting the sale of a multi million pound football club? That should be the first questions all shareholders should be asking. As I said, last week other investors did come forward after the Chairman's media tour, has he done proper due diligence on them and have the Trust been given full access. I actually have major doubts that Gauge has any sort of experience when it comes to high finance business deals, due dilligence etc. He proved that a couple of months ago when a rogue set of potential investors had his trousers down. Individuals who with just a few searches here and there were very easy to suss out. The fans interference stopped him from selling out to them. So sorry, I've no faith in him whatsoever. I'd have far more faith in you negotiating the sale of the club than him..and I'm not kidding!
I give him full credit for putting his money into the club but that shouldn't cloud anybodies judgement when it comes to how the club has been run since he became Chairman. It's on his watch that we have lost our League status and are on the verge of liquidation, so as Chairman the buck does stop with him. We can't keep blaming the usual suspects, there's been time and money invested in managers and players etc over the last couple of years to turn that slump around. I sent a email to the Trust over 12 months ago requesting them to call a EGM in order to remove Gauge from his position as Chairman, so i have been consistent. It's not personal neither, all clubs at our level need to have a connection and a unity from top to bottom, that's something he has never ever bought into and it's either Simons way or the highway. I hope something happens and he gets most of his money back, goes back to watching from the stands. He needs to pack this Chairman malarkey thing in now though, he's given it a good go but taken the club to the brink of extinction if he's to be believed, thats not a great CV is it? Work with everybody to get the best investors for the club and shareholders and recoup your outlay with the help of people who care for the club. Nobody would begrudge a outcome like that.
[Post edited 3 Mar 18:24]
3
EGM - which way are you voting? on 17:58 - Mar 3 with 2351 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 17:21 - Mar 3 by pioneer
So if the removal of the need for an audit was to fail but the other motions pass would our knight in shining armour would walk away from the deal? Given the sums of money we are talking about this is a piddly amount each year so such a position could hardly be based on finances.
This is all about getting rid of the last bit of transparency shareholders would retain.
Voting down that motion would put both Gauge and the new ‘investors’ on the spot. And lets be honest…..I strongly believe the trust/fans could easily raise the cost of an audit if Gauge and his fellow directors have found out they cannot manage a few thousand between them.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but in response to the Trust questions, the motion for the audit to be scrapped was a cost cutting exercise from the club. This was estimated at costing the club about £12,000 I think, something along those lines but it was never anything to do with any new owners, it was proposed by the club and wasn't a barrier to sale.
If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 18:27 - Mar 3 with 2257 views
All the hours of googling i've done on World Soccer Holdings LLC and Scott Dyer result in legitimate interests in Sports and Football. Bob Heere ( https://cob.unt.edu/user/2685 ), who is also a partner in WSH and on the board of MVV Maastricht, has a strong academic background in sports management and brand development. It isn't the usual trash football club saviours bring.
I know many of us often wonder what an American company want to do with Rochdale. We should remember that Rochdale is the birth place of the co-operative movement and that still means something to some people.
I'm naturally sceptical and whilst I believe they have funds, nobody knows exactly how much. However in the grand scheme of things, there are far, far worse potential "saviours".
2
EGM - which way are you voting? on 18:52 - Mar 3 with 2180 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 17:58 - Mar 3 by ChaffRAFC
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but in response to the Trust questions, the motion for the audit to be scrapped was a cost cutting exercise from the club. This was estimated at costing the club about £12,000 I think, something along those lines but it was never anything to do with any new owners, it was proposed by the club and wasn't a barrier to sale.
Thanks for clarification, but doesnt the vote relate to removing the requirement from the articles? If thats the case then the change would also apply going forward.
I would have thought new owners would want to see audited accounts anyway, even if they have to pay for them. I cannot see how this could be a show stopper….and if it was to be that would probably say something about the prospective owners.b
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:06 - Mar 3 with 2132 views
The point was made on the price of football podcast. He said the club has a million pound of debt, £560 k to him and directors and the rest was to the council.
He reiterated the debt again at the forum but didn’t name specifically the council. He also stated that £160 k was needed to make March financial commitments. There were then commitments for the rest of the season. I don’t know how many times they need to a Say it.
TS I applude your enthusiasm and your right to question what you are being told. However it doesn’t change the fact that come the end of March staff and players are not being paid.
I have stated before if anyone can give me a funded alternative with cast iron guarantees where the money to keep the club afloat is coming from then I would happily vote for it, but there isn’t anything and it not a risk I think we should take.
We have a commitment from at least one credible investor and if the trust is able to do their own due diligence and it shows no concerns then that would seem the sensible option. I might not like the way we got here or the missed opportunity but at the eleventh hour we need certainty.
2
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:44 - Mar 3 with 2031 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 15:50 - Mar 3 by TalkingSutty
You don't know that we won't exist though if the resolutions aren't passed, you're just believing what one man is telling you. In a year of a general election do you honestly think politicians/ councils etc are just going to sit back and let a club that has a awful lot of money tied up in its stadium just go into liquidation, it won't happen, it would be political suicide. We aren't a financial basketcase. If Simon Gauge stops funds after the end of March and there are still credible investors which need exploring then I'm sure money could be raised or borrowed from somewhere to buy us that critical time to explore EVERY opportunity. I would suggest that we need to tell Simon Gauge that he doesn't own this football club and he needs to respect that we have shareholders and a supporters trust to consider. If he refuses to do that and there are other credible options then let's have a vote of no confidence in him and as a fan base reach out ourselves and speak to the council/ interested investors/ local businesses/ politicians etc. Why is it that everybody just accepts Simon Gauge at his word? I repeat, this isn't his club to just do with as he pleases, he obviously thinks it is though.
By the end of March he's admitted he can't do anything else and assured us of liquidation, he actually stated that. At that point as a fan base and hopefully in conjunction with other interested parties we then see if we can bridge the financial gap until we have a credible investor/ plan in place. If Simon wants to start being inclusive then he could join in but it seems inclusivity isn't something he's very good at. We all fought hard to keep hold of this club and now we are on the verge of voting to hand it over to persons unknown because one man has set a ridiculous deadline. He'll have to wait until all avenues have been explored would be my advice and if he stops funding then we send out a very public SOS for funding to be made available to bridge the gap. If there is no other interested parties whatsoever then i take on board the panic but last week we were told potential investors have come forward. We are being dictated to by one man and its about time it stopped.
Politicians will do absolutely nothing that can save the club. We need cash, not empty words.
We already sent out a very public SOS. Before that, the club were open to investment from fans and individuals. It didn’t come.
Due diligence has been performed by club and Dale Trust. The American investor has been deemed credible and head and shoulders above anything that went before.
While scepticism is understandable to a point, you seem to be living in cloud cuckoo land with regard to the perilous state of the club and people lining up to invest. I don’t want the club to be in this position but I have accepted we are.
This isn’t about SG, it’s about the future of the club.
[Post edited 3 Mar 20:35]
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:55 - Mar 3 with 1989 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:06 - Mar 3 by wozzrafc
The point was made on the price of football podcast. He said the club has a million pound of debt, £560 k to him and directors and the rest was to the council.
He reiterated the debt again at the forum but didn’t name specifically the council. He also stated that £160 k was needed to make March financial commitments. There were then commitments for the rest of the season. I don’t know how many times they need to a Say it.
TS I applude your enthusiasm and your right to question what you are being told. However it doesn’t change the fact that come the end of March staff and players are not being paid.
I have stated before if anyone can give me a funded alternative with cast iron guarantees where the money to keep the club afloat is coming from then I would happily vote for it, but there isn’t anything and it not a risk I think we should take.
We have a commitment from at least one credible investor and if the trust is able to do their own due diligence and it shows no concerns then that would seem the sensible option. I might not like the way we got here or the missed opportunity but at the eleventh hour we need certainty.
This is a fantastic debate, which needs to be had. The passion/enthusiasm is what'll keep Dale afloat, even when we're sunk (yep, that doesn't make sense, but sense went out the window some time ago)
I'm still interested in "alternatives". I could be mistaken but there's something in the water (flowing under the bridge, no doubt) that indicates it's not just the WSH way or the highway
EGM - which way are you voting? on 17:22 - Mar 3 by TalkingSutty
I wasn't aware we owe RMBC £500k, not heard that before. The Chairman's mantra is that RMBC aren't interested in helping the club so how do we owe them that money if they haven't helped us? Who told us that kicking the can down the road for another month would cost us £160k, was it Simon Gauge? Not like him to be upfront when it comes to revealing anything about the clubs finances, even to shareholders. Everything seems to be ' according to Simon'. I completely agree with your point that the current model is impossible to sustain, even more so when the clubs been run very badly since Gauge became Chairman and obvious revenue streams have just been ignored. We do need investment but we also need to stop just accepting everything that comes out of the Chairman's mouth as gospel. Does he even have any business credentials when it comes to fronting the sale of a multi million pound football club? That should be the first questions all shareholders should be asking. As I said, last week other investors did come forward after the Chairman's media tour, has he done proper due diligence on them and have the Trust been given full access. I actually have major doubts that Gauge has any sort of experience when it comes to high finance business deals, due dilligence etc. He proved that a couple of months ago when a rogue set of potential investors had his trousers down. Individuals who with just a few searches here and there were very easy to suss out. The fans interference stopped him from selling out to them. So sorry, I've no faith in him whatsoever. I'd have far more faith in you negotiating the sale of the club than him..and I'm not kidding!
I give him full credit for putting his money into the club but that shouldn't cloud anybodies judgement when it comes to how the club has been run since he became Chairman. It's on his watch that we have lost our League status and are on the verge of liquidation, so as Chairman the buck does stop with him. We can't keep blaming the usual suspects, there's been time and money invested in managers and players etc over the last couple of years to turn that slump around. I sent a email to the Trust over 12 months ago requesting them to call a EGM in order to remove Gauge from his position as Chairman, so i have been consistent. It's not personal neither, all clubs at our level need to have a connection and a unity from top to bottom, that's something he has never ever bought into and it's either Simons way or the highway. I hope something happens and he gets most of his money back, goes back to watching from the stands. He needs to pack this Chairman malarkey thing in now though, he's given it a good go but taken the club to the brink of extinction if he's to be believed, thats not a great CV is it? Work with everybody to get the best investors for the club and shareholders and recoup your outlay with the help of people who care for the club. Nobody would begrudge a outcome like that.
[Post edited 3 Mar 18:24]
I seem to remember us being told that the club debt to Rochdale MBC had been repaid, when we had been in a position to do so, a while ago.
Have we borrowed more? I wasn't aware, though during the last 12 months, it's possible to have missed it amongst all the goings-on . In any case, why is it termed as 'friendly'? I assumed that phrase referred to money owed to Directors.
This EGM is the most important we have ever had, especially as we are stuck in a cul-de-sac and seemingly have no way out. But do we?
Why is no-one looking into the other prospective purchasers or doing due diligence in case this EGM vote doesn't carry to the satisfaction of Mr. Gauge? Aren't we as shareholders at least entitled to know what the others are offering, even if we aren't all privy to their identities?
There's a real danger here that we are are only being given one option, because that is the one that suits the existing board, rather than it being the best deal for the long term future of the club. I'm not suggesting that the preferred bidders aren't fit and proper people to take over, but let's not fall for the line that it's 'this or bust'. The others should at least be heard and their ideas/offers considered by shareholders.
Mr. Gauge smiled with relief when asked whether the new owners would install their own Chairman. "That's hopefully the plan" was his response with a broad grin. Fair enough, I understand he has had enough, and so would many of us, but his main obligation is to consider all viable offers and select (after consultation with shareholders) the best option for the club - not the deal that suits him.
Any genuine purchaser, willing to spend several millions to buy out a football club that 'doesn't carry much debt' would surely be happy to cover the expenses for March to allow time for the deal to come to fruition. We are 'asset rich' after all
I can't help but think there is a better choice to be made than chucking the baby out with the bath water.
Think very carefully ladies and gentlemen. Decide in haste and repent at leisure.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 20:05 - Mar 3 with 1931 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:59 - Mar 3 by turnthescrew
I seem to remember us being told that the club debt to Rochdale MBC had been repaid, when we had been in a position to do so, a while ago.
Have we borrowed more? I wasn't aware, though during the last 12 months, it's possible to have missed it amongst all the goings-on . In any case, why is it termed as 'friendly'? I assumed that phrase referred to money owed to Directors.
This EGM is the most important we have ever had, especially as we are stuck in a cul-de-sac and seemingly have no way out. But do we?
Why is no-one looking into the other prospective purchasers or doing due diligence in case this EGM vote doesn't carry to the satisfaction of Mr. Gauge? Aren't we as shareholders at least entitled to know what the others are offering, even if we aren't all privy to their identities?
There's a real danger here that we are are only being given one option, because that is the one that suits the existing board, rather than it being the best deal for the long term future of the club. I'm not suggesting that the preferred bidders aren't fit and proper people to take over, but let's not fall for the line that it's 'this or bust'. The others should at least be heard and their ideas/offers considered by shareholders.
Mr. Gauge smiled with relief when asked whether the new owners would install their own Chairman. "That's hopefully the plan" was his response with a broad grin. Fair enough, I understand he has had enough, and so would many of us, but his main obligation is to consider all viable offers and select (after consultation with shareholders) the best option for the club - not the deal that suits him.
Any genuine purchaser, willing to spend several millions to buy out a football club that 'doesn't carry much debt' would surely be happy to cover the expenses for March to allow time for the deal to come to fruition. We are 'asset rich' after all
I can't help but think there is a better choice to be made than chucking the baby out with the bath water.
Think very carefully ladies and gentlemen. Decide in haste and repent at leisure.
You still haven't answered the question i asked: what happens in <eight weeks> <six weeks> time, which you posted a couple of weeks ago, which then took us to the game against Eastleigh on 16 March
What on earth did you mean by that? You posted it twice. (8w, 6w). Do tell us if you know something? No reason not to reply this time. if not, why post it?
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:14 - Mar 3 by sxdale
I think (however I am no legal or financial expert) that once you own 90% of shares in a company you can do a "compulsory acquisition of shares" to get the other 10%. Which I find interesting because would they have to pay to buy existing shareholders out? and what value would be put on the existing shares, the 50p/share they will pay for their 9,000,000 or the £2/share paid by myself and many others to fight off Morton House. Of course it's all irrelevant as with 90% they can do what they want, including mortgaging the ground gor extra income.
I think that is correct ...once someone owns 90% they "may" compulsorily buy the remaining 10% , equally the 10% "may" ask for the 90% holder to buy their shares too, the price is dictated by the price paid to acquire the 90% so roughly 22p a share... so roughly another £200k if they want to buy the rest of the company , but then they are back to dealing with individual shareholders which I guess they don't really want to get involved with, at least not at this particular stage. I will probably frame my certificate and hang it on a wall in the loo.....
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 20:37 - Mar 3 with 1794 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 18:27 - Mar 3 by KenBoon
All the hours of googling i've done on World Soccer Holdings LLC and Scott Dyer result in legitimate interests in Sports and Football. Bob Heere ( https://cob.unt.edu/user/2685 ), who is also a partner in WSH and on the board of MVV Maastricht, has a strong academic background in sports management and brand development. It isn't the usual trash football club saviours bring.
I know many of us often wonder what an American company want to do with Rochdale. We should remember that Rochdale is the birth place of the co-operative movement and that still means something to some people.
I'm naturally sceptical and whilst I believe they have funds, nobody knows exactly how much. However in the grand scheme of things, there are far, far worse potential "saviours".
More importantly to the Americans, it was John Bright and Rochdale MP John Cobden who persuaded the UK Government not to send the Royal Navy to break the sea blockade that the North had initiated to stop Southern state's cotton getting to the UK (Rochdale and hereabouts particularly) in exchange for the cash to keep the Civil War going.
That decision precipitated the 1860s cotton famine across the cotton industry in the North West. John Bright was to become a close pen pal to Abraham Lincoln and it is said that when Lincoln was assassinated, they found the latest letter from Bright in his pocket. Lincoln famously only hung 1 picture in the Oval Office, .. a picture of John Bright.
The Famine Road out of Lanehead was built by out-of-work Cotton workers as a government initiative to create jobs. Lincoln too helped by shipping 1000s of barrels flour from the US to Liverpool, one of which is in the Pioneers museum.
It can be truly said that Bright and the resilience of local workers were major factors in the outcome of the US Civil War.
EGM - which way are you voting? on 20:37 - Mar 3 by 49thseason
More importantly to the Americans, it was John Bright and Rochdale MP John Cobden who persuaded the UK Government not to send the Royal Navy to break the sea blockade that the North had initiated to stop Southern state's cotton getting to the UK (Rochdale and hereabouts particularly) in exchange for the cash to keep the Civil War going.
That decision precipitated the 1860s cotton famine across the cotton industry in the North West. John Bright was to become a close pen pal to Abraham Lincoln and it is said that when Lincoln was assassinated, they found the latest letter from Bright in his pocket. Lincoln famously only hung 1 picture in the Oval Office, .. a picture of John Bright.
The Famine Road out of Lanehead was built by out-of-work Cotton workers as a government initiative to create jobs. Lincoln too helped by shipping 1000s of barrels flour from the US to Liverpool, one of which is in the Pioneers museum.
It can be truly said that Bright and the resilience of local workers were major factors in the outcome of the US Civil War.
EGM - which way are you voting? on 16:50 - Mar 3 by sxdale
I was under the impression that we had paid back the council money early which was one of the reasons we are cash poor, of course the council may very well have given/loaned us othe money which I don't know about, quite happy to be corrected. Once again I have to say that on this board people disagree and have opposing views but despite being passionate it has not sunk to abuse and remains civil.
Didn't we borrow a lot from the council during the covid period to pay for the rebuild of the pitch and drains? I am not sure if we ever repaid that - although given where we are today that was a poor investment with hindsight.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:09 - Mar 3 with 1687 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 18:27 - Mar 3 by KenBoon
All the hours of googling i've done on World Soccer Holdings LLC and Scott Dyer result in legitimate interests in Sports and Football. Bob Heere ( https://cob.unt.edu/user/2685 ), who is also a partner in WSH and on the board of MVV Maastricht, has a strong academic background in sports management and brand development. It isn't the usual trash football club saviours bring.
I know many of us often wonder what an American company want to do with Rochdale. We should remember that Rochdale is the birth place of the co-operative movement and that still means something to some people.
I'm naturally sceptical and whilst I believe they have funds, nobody knows exactly how much. However in the grand scheme of things, there are far, far worse potential "saviours".
Much the same as my own Google investigation.
As said previously, I know the lengths Judd goes to with his due diligence. If it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for me. I wanted to see things with my own eyes too, and I wasn’t alarmed by anything. If they’d been presented to fans without the threat of impending doom, or even by somebody other that SG, I suspect there would have been genuine excitement.
Of course, you can’t guarantee anything regarding the future. But i’m as sure as I can be in my own mind that voting ‘Yes’ to the resolutions, with the intention of this takeover being competed, is in the best interests of the future of our club.
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:15 - Mar 3 with 1644 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:09 - Mar 3 by Brierls
Much the same as my own Google investigation.
As said previously, I know the lengths Judd goes to with his due diligence. If it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for me. I wanted to see things with my own eyes too, and I wasn’t alarmed by anything. If they’d been presented to fans without the threat of impending doom, or even by somebody other that SG, I suspect there would have been genuine excitement.
Of course, you can’t guarantee anything regarding the future. But i’m as sure as I can be in my own mind that voting ‘Yes’ to the resolutions, with the intention of this takeover being competed, is in the best interests of the future of our club.
The Trust haven't done due diligence on WSH according to their recent newsletter, that was the way i interpreted it anyway. They've been given two names but can't really find a link to WSH. I agree from a distance they appear decent but it needs more than that. We also need to be certain that all other potential investors have been considered properly, especially if there is a option that doesn't mean we are giving complete control of the club away. If the Trust confirm all options have been explored and in there opinion this is the best one then I agree with you but I'm not sure we are at that stage yet and think this is being rushed through. I have more faith in the Trust doing proper due diligence than I have in the Chairman.
[Post edited 3 Mar 21:26]
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:16 - Mar 3 with 1643 views
I'm still riding with the good vibes from the meeting, In my opinion its the right decision to go with WSH, when the alternative, stated time, and time again that we will have unpaid players at the end of the month. I don't believe SG has manufactured the urgency, I believe the threat is real. I've no reason to feel I'm being lied to, no reason to feel Judd and the trust are being hoodwinked and have been a bit gormless in their examination of WSH. Dale is about to become part of the trend of USA investors in football who have had the thumbs up after background checks, Its now a great opportunity to breathe some life into Dale. The alternative - liquidation and down the football ladder we go. I get some fans fear the unknown, distrust of the clubs hierarchy through stubbornness maybe because of personality clashes with SG on some odd crusade. Outside Investment our most hopeful option. No guarantees, but we have to take the plunge sometime and get help to continue the club and improve its infrastructure and commercial. As everyone knows we don't have a multi millionaire fan - to look after us. Lets get this sold and take the gamble. More interest could come in but we've waited and waited for a long time for a credible investor but we've no pot to p1ss in. Too worst scenarios. - we've been lied to after selling and go bust or; we don't sell and go bust. It's the same result.
2
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:19 - Mar 3 with 1621 views
I’ve made my mind up which way I’m voting, but I’d like to acknowledge how healthy this debate seems to have become after a full weekend of us not being patronised by somebody who thinks they’re of superior intelligence to the rest of us.
Long may it continue,
4
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:25 - Mar 3 with 1570 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:15 - Mar 3 by TalkingSutty
The Trust haven't done due diligence on WSH according to their recent newsletter, that was the way i interpreted it anyway. They've been given two names but can't really find a link to WSH. I agree from a distance they appear decent but it needs more than that. We also need to be certain that all other potential investors have been considered properly, especially if there is a option that doesn't mean we are giving complete control of the club away. If the Trust confirm all options have been explored and in there opinion this is the best one then I agree with you but I'm not sure we are at that stage yet and think this is being rushed through. I have more faith in the Trust doing proper due diligence than I have in the Chairman.
[Post edited 3 Mar 21:26]
The statement on 23rd February 2024 didn’t mention names because it couldn’t (my assumption). Where has it been said the investors that passed (basic) due diligence were not linked the WSH? I haven’t seen that.
[Post edited 3 Mar 21:30]
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:27 - Mar 3 with 1559 views
From my continuing position of utter ignorance, and fully accepting that there appears to be no choice but to sell or die, it still doesn't feel like the saintliness or otherwise of the new owners has any relevance. They will be the owners.
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:32 - Mar 3 with 1513 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:25 - Mar 3 by Brierls
The statement on 23rd February 2024 didn’t mention names because it couldn’t (my assumption). Where has it been said the investors that passed (basic) due diligence were not linked the WSH? I haven’t seen that.
[Post edited 3 Mar 21:30]
It might be my mistake but I'm sure the Trust statement said that the two individuals the Trust had done due diligence on were not demonstrably linked to WSH.
[Post edited 3 Mar 21:34]
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:34 - Mar 3 with 1493 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:27 - Mar 3 by Bobbyjoe
From my continuing position of utter ignorance, and fully accepting that there appears to be no choice but to sell or die, it still doesn't feel like the saintliness or otherwise of the new owners has any relevance. They will be the owners.
and you're happy to accept that on the say so of the Chairman? You wouldn't like to see if we can get help to buy a bit more time to see if we can find a better option?
[Post edited 3 Mar 21:36]
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:34 - Mar 3 with 1493 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:32 - Mar 3 by TalkingSutty
It might be my mistake but I'm sure the Trust statement said that the two individuals the Trust had done due diligence on were not demonstrably linked to WSH.
[Post edited 3 Mar 21:34]
Correct
"One small point to clarify from the meeting is that the Trust had not carried out any due diligence on World Soccer Holdings llc, rather it was on 2 named individuals who so far we have been unable to link. Nevertheless, we have no desire to detract from the positivity this announcement has generated. Simon Gauge has agreed to meet with the Trust Chair and Secretary on Monday 4th March for an update on investors and we will report back what we can, when we can."
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:34 - Mar 3 by D_Alien
Correct
"One small point to clarify from the meeting is that the Trust had not carried out any due diligence on World Soccer Holdings llc, rather it was on 2 named individuals who so far we have been unable to link. Nevertheless, we have no desire to detract from the positivity this announcement has generated. Simon Gauge has agreed to meet with the Trust Chair and Secretary on Monday 4th March for an update on investors and we will report back what we can, when we can."
One point; it's not a small point
[Post edited 3 Mar 21:35]
Agree, it's not a small point. It's a very important point.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:47 - Mar 3 with 1403 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:34 - Mar 3 by D_Alien
Correct
"One small point to clarify from the meeting is that the Trust had not carried out any due diligence on World Soccer Holdings llc, rather it was on 2 named individuals who so far we have been unable to link. Nevertheless, we have no desire to detract from the positivity this announcement has generated. Simon Gauge has agreed to meet with the Trust Chair and Secretary on Monday 4th March for an update on investors and we will report back what we can, when we can."
One point; it's not a small point
[Post edited 3 Mar 21:35]
I wasn’t aware of that, I don’t think I got that email! And you’re right, it’s not a small point.
I don’t suppose I’ve also missed an email saying “however we have done due diligence now, and these lot look OK too”? Or otherwise.
l’ll be interested to see what comes of the meeting tomorrow, though I really wish the likes of Col or George were involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
