| SACK THE BOARD 16:32 - Dec 1 with 52220 views | RAFC1907 |
Absolutely terrible.
No ambition, robbing fans constantly with overpriced entrance fees for watching garbage.
Garbage created by them for not backing the manager with any money, constantly pocketing it and saying we don't have any.
1600 home fans today says it all.
No wonder we will always be little old Rochdale.
Shambles of a football club. |  |
| |  |
| SACK THE BOARD on 12:53 - Dec 2 with 3157 views | AussieDale |
To me the most worrying element of all this is the lack of any public statement from the chairman. If the club is struggling finance wise surely a statement on this issue with some detail provided would provide some clarity on a topic that currently appears to be the subject of much conjecture. I can't understand the reticence of the board in this issue. The air needs to be cleared. The longer this goes on without clarification then supporters are going to fear the worse.
In the absence of any clear club statement and for what it's worth my view is that the decision to try and lift attendances by significantly reducing ST prices 2/3 years ago will go down in club history as one of the worst decisions ever made. It appears to have resulted in little or no increase in attendances whilst greatly reducing matchday income. It also makes it difficult if not impossible to increase ST prices back to 'normal' levels in the future without a significant reduction in ST holders. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 12:56 - Dec 2 with 3135 views | kel |
I drink in the Cem, have only met DB a couple of times and never had a conversation with him other than exchanging pleasantries. I also didn’t attend the stag do but let’s tar everybody who drinks in a pub local to the football ground with fellow supporters with the same brush eh? |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:00 - Dec 2 with 3091 views | ChaffRAFC |
| SACK THE BOARD on 12:50 - Dec 2 by SI_Blue |
Has anybody on the trust got the balls to confront the board or is it all going to be done on the internet? just asking ? |
Email the Trust, info@daletrust.co.uk and put it to them for the next time they meet with the board. |  |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:11 - Dec 2 with 3043 views | SI_Blue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:00 - Dec 2 by ChaffRAFC |
Email the Trust, info@daletrust.co.uk and put it to them for the next time they meet with the board. |
Thought you were seeing therm tonight? | |
| Backs Against The Wall Since 1907 |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:17 - Dec 2 with 3015 views | electricblue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:24 - Dec 1 by 49thseason |
The Trust needs to get involved at a much deeper level.
There are just over half a million shares in issue, worth a nominal £250K - £0.50p per share. Some 400,000 of those are owned by just 13 people, some of them, current Directors some, previous directors and a couple of others. The trust needs to start a campaign to get shareholders to give their shares by proxy to the Trust. There are just over 300 "small" shareholders (each less than £5k worth) amounting to an approximate 20% shareholding. If the trust held these shares by proxy on behalf of the 300 or so shareholders with small(ish) holdings, they would have enough to demand a seat on the Board. If the likes of Chris Dunphy and Bill Goodwin, Graham Morris, Jim Marsh, David Kilpatrick and Geoff Brierley added their shareholdings together, then the balance of power would start to shift and AGM votes against the board or individual Directors would become more interesting.
The current Chairman owns 110,000 shares or the better part of 20%, who knows, he might be persuaded to sell them?... Anyone got a spare £50+k? |
50k.
I bet he would want far more than that amount to even be tempted to part...... |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:22 - Dec 2 with 2984 views | ChaffRAFC |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:11 - Dec 2 by SI_Blue |
Thought you were seeing therm tonight? |
You thought wrong and I've no idea where you've got that from either. I will be at home
watching football and I'm a Celeb later.
Can't wait for James Haskell to get the boot. | |
| If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:28 - Dec 2 with 2951 views | 49thseason |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:17 - Dec 2 by electricblue |
50k.
I bet he would want far more than that amount to even be tempted to part...... |
You are obviously a former student of the Theresa May School of Negotiation. Maybe he is as pissed off as the rest of us and would accept £50k to get rid of his inherited shares? There is not much Kudos in being the absentee Chairman of a potless football club when you dont even live in the vicinty, especially when the probability is that you might have to stump up more cash sometme soon. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:58 - Dec 2 with 2820 views | KenBoon |
| SACK THE BOARD on 12:53 - Dec 2 by AussieDale |
To me the most worrying element of all this is the lack of any public statement from the chairman. If the club is struggling finance wise surely a statement on this issue with some detail provided would provide some clarity on a topic that currently appears to be the subject of much conjecture. I can't understand the reticence of the board in this issue. The air needs to be cleared. The longer this goes on without clarification then supporters are going to fear the worse.
In the absence of any clear club statement and for what it's worth my view is that the decision to try and lift attendances by significantly reducing ST prices 2/3 years ago will go down in club history as one of the worst decisions ever made. It appears to have resulted in little or no increase in attendances whilst greatly reducing matchday income. It also makes it difficult if not impossible to increase ST prices back to 'normal' levels in the future without a significant reduction in ST holders. |
Season ticket numbers have increased and they were raised in price this season along with significant price increases at food kiosks and match tickets. Our biggest failures have been failing to move commercially with the times in the 00s, and we're still playing catch up. There was too much reliance on the loyal fan base although in fairness some of the fan base seemed to complain about every idea put forward.
We've been blessed with excellent CEOs for about 20 years so the current one has big shoes to fill. Right now he is far from the level set by his predecessors. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, however the way one of the most successful chairmen of this club's history was pushed out stinks. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:59 - Dec 2 with 2812 views | nordenblue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 11:51 - Dec 2 by rochdaleriddler |
I understand he is invisible in public, but is he involved at all in the running of the club? |
He doesn't need to be, he's already got someone else getting paid and very willing to shove his face in front of any available camera,to enlighten everyone how well he's running "his" club [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 14:08]
| | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 14:00 - Dec 2 with 2808 views | SI_Blue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:22 - Dec 2 by ChaffRAFC |
You thought wrong and I've no idea where you've got that from either. I will be at home
watching football and I'm a Celeb later.
Can't wait for James Haskell to get the boot. |
Credibility out of the window dude. | |
| Backs Against The Wall Since 1907 |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 14:02 - Dec 2 with 2798 views | sweetcorn |
| SACK THE BOARD on 12:50 - Dec 2 by SI_Blue |
Has anybody on the trust got the balls to confront the board or is it all going to be done on the internet? just asking ? |
Ooo you’re hard.
When are you confronting them? |  |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 14:02 - Dec 2 with 2796 views | SuddenLad |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:58 - Dec 2 by KenBoon |
Season ticket numbers have increased and they were raised in price this season along with significant price increases at food kiosks and match tickets. Our biggest failures have been failing to move commercially with the times in the 00s, and we're still playing catch up. There was too much reliance on the loyal fan base although in fairness some of the fan base seemed to complain about every idea put forward.
We've been blessed with excellent CEOs for about 20 years so the current one has big shoes to fill. Right now he is far from the level set by his predecessors. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, however the way one of the most successful chairmen of this club's history was pushed out stinks. |
It isn't shoe size that's important now. It's hat size. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 14:27 - Dec 2 with 2695 views | SI_Blue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 14:02 - Dec 2 by sweetcorn |
Ooo you’re hard.
When are you confronting them? |
Not as hard as you Sweetcorn, that name is terrifying me. We have already started our active campaign, what have you done keyboard warrior ? | |
| Backs Against The Wall Since 1907 |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 14:29 - Dec 2 with 2687 views | AtThePeake |
| SACK THE BOARD on 12:36 - Dec 2 by ChaffRAFC |
The points made by Fitz and D_Alien are absolutely spot on regarding personal attacks.
As a thread, this thread is full of perfectly valid concerns and points but these points and concerns must be made without personal attacks.
We have a passionate fan base and evidently one that will go as far as they have to in order to ensure the best for the football club, especially after the Bury situation.
Monitoring this messageboard is becoming a full time job on top of my full time job and I'm reliant on all users being able to raise their points without name calling.
As you were. |
Aaaand less than a full page later... |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 14:51 - Dec 2 with 2623 views | rochdaleriddler |
| SACK THE BOARD on 13:59 - Dec 2 by nordenblue |
He doesn't need to be, he's already got someone else getting paid and very willing to shove his face in front of any available camera,to enlighten everyone how well he's running "his" club [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 14:08]
|
Not answering my question though, is he actively involved ? |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 16:01 - Dec 2 with 2491 views | HK_Dale |
There is some interesting data in the financial statements when you look across years.
For points that stood out to me:
- Cash went up 128% between '17 & '18 to £1,151,819, avg. for '16 and '17 was £561,877
- Value of Tangible assets decreased by 13% (due to depreciation) but Investments have decreased by 100% (Stadium Company shares) have been written down to zero.
- Current Liabilities were also up 49% to short term creditors.
- Also worth noting that even with the c. £305k loss for 2018, Retained Earnings were still $1.8MM.
Income Statement:
- Revenue only down 10% between '17 and '18 but Cost of Goods Sold and Admin Expenses were up 21% and 24% respectively.
- In terms of underlying insights of the turnover number:
- Gate Receipts were up slightly
- Transfer fees were significantly down
- Prize money, youth development grant, and tv fees were also drivers of increased turnover, as was shop sales
- Bar and catering income was only c. 55k less
Additional £600k in costs for wages and salaries, likely in part due to increase of 16 staff.
Players and coaching staff went down by 1 but "Other" staff was significantly increased.
All in all, operations seem fairly robust with decent amounts of cash and retained earnings, so the line from DB may be more on how things of gone in '19... |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 16:20 - Dec 2 with 2418 views | sweetcorn |
| SACK THE BOARD on 14:27 - Dec 2 by SI_Blue |
Not as hard as you Sweetcorn, that name is terrifying me. We have already started our active campaign, what have you done keyboard warrior ? |
I'm sure the board are shitting themselves from the pending 'active campaign' | |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 16:27 - Dec 2 with 2387 views | AtThePeake |
| SACK THE BOARD on 16:01 - Dec 2 by HK_Dale |
There is some interesting data in the financial statements when you look across years.
For points that stood out to me:
- Cash went up 128% between '17 & '18 to £1,151,819, avg. for '16 and '17 was £561,877
- Value of Tangible assets decreased by 13% (due to depreciation) but Investments have decreased by 100% (Stadium Company shares) have been written down to zero.
- Current Liabilities were also up 49% to short term creditors.
- Also worth noting that even with the c. £305k loss for 2018, Retained Earnings were still $1.8MM.
Income Statement:
- Revenue only down 10% between '17 and '18 but Cost of Goods Sold and Admin Expenses were up 21% and 24% respectively.
- In terms of underlying insights of the turnover number:
- Gate Receipts were up slightly
- Transfer fees were significantly down
- Prize money, youth development grant, and tv fees were also drivers of increased turnover, as was shop sales
- Bar and catering income was only c. 55k less
Additional £600k in costs for wages and salaries, likely in part due to increase of 16 staff.
Players and coaching staff went down by 1 but "Other" staff was significantly increased.
All in all, operations seem fairly robust with decent amounts of cash and retained earnings, so the line from DB may be more on how things of gone in '19... |
- 4 players sold for cash in Adshead, Cannon, McGahey and Rafferty.
- Sell-on clause for Dawson transfer.
- An away cup tie against Manchester United.
How badly can things have gone in '19? | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 16:34 - Dec 2 with 2353 views | Rochdale_ger |
| SACK THE BOARD on 14:29 - Dec 2 by AtThePeake |
Aaaand less than a full page later... |
You’ll only take posts down anyway. Why be a moaning set of bitches if your going to be mods. Col didn’t censor folk. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 17:55 - Dec 2 with 2124 views | ColDale |
| SACK THE BOARD on 08:38 - Dec 2 by TalkingSutty |
Yes of course it’s true, David Bottomley is in a relationship with a Trust Board member and he has been for a while, that’s common knowledge, he’ll admit to that. He’s also very friendly with the Chairman of the Supporters Trust, Col Cavanagh...none of this is a secret it’s well known to a lot of Dale fans. David Bottomley is also friends with quite a few who post on this forum ( the ones who shout other posters down and never criticise him) , they drink in the Cemetery pub and all went on the infamous stag do weekend together. We all know what happened, i was told personally by two individuals who were there what took place, why would they make it up? So David Bottomley does have a handful of people who will walk out to the crease and bat for him, the reason being that he is a Dale fan and they are friends with him. If this individual was anybody but DB they would be ripping a strip off him, I can guarantee that.
Excuse me if i’m Stating something that isn’t correct or revealing information that most people aren’t aware of. There have also been things going on at the Club involving members of staff that are a disgrace, an absolute disgrace..., a lot of fans are also aware of those details. All of this is happening on the current boards watch so they are responsible. There is too much tip toeing around, it’s time we all got things into the open and voiced our concerns, those who are keeping quiet or trying to silence people to protect members of staff are damaging their own Club.
The Trust itself are 100% responsible for the situation they now find themselves in, everything is too cozy. The Club is rotten at the moment , a small group of fans decided things needed to change under Dunphy tenure and welcomed in the changes, look at what we have now ended up with...a rudderless ship. |
ok few bits in the interest of 100% openness before assumptions continue to snowball.
* Since DB's appointment as CEO, every single time I have met him it has been in a Trust capacity (and minuted on the Trust website). Every conversation throughout I've had with him whether that be via email or over the phone has been in a Trust capacity.
* To suggest that I've been complicit or an active participant as part of a group of friends in a plot to get rid of Dunphy is completely false. Apologies if I've misread that.
* As a Trust, we have worked hard to rebuild the relationship with the club since it was arguably at an all time low early in 2018. There have been a great deal of positives to come out of this, and I've always been of the opinion its better to work with someone than to work against them. The nature of the reporting back on the Trust website is (in my opinion) far more transparent and frequent that it has even been, and far superior to any club in the division (including the Trust owned clubs) though I accept my involvement brings a certain amount of bias.
* The Trust's work with the club often involves a lot of difficult conversations. The minutes from the meetings indicate this with the range of questions asked. I accept some haven't always been happy with the answers given but I don't believe there's been a single question that has been shyed away from. I appreciate the reporting back might not reflect the difficult conversations that take place, but the meetings are not an exercise in blowing smoke up each other's backsides. Take the recent discussions about attracting an investor into the club or the endless conversations about the change in pies as an example. If we feel something isn't right, we are happy to tell them so.
* if it is felt (principally by the Trust membership) that the above makes me too friendly with DB, then I will happily walk away tomorrow and never have any involvement again in the Trust. It's not a role undertaken for any personal benefit, and if I'm being honest, it takes up far more hours than it should do (through my own choice let it be said).
I've said before, dealings with DB have come across open and honest throughout. I know this doesn't always fit the narrative but I can only say it how Ive seen it throughout the past 12 months. I understand the concerns people have, and much is done with genuine care and concern for the football club. We live in a post-Bury world and in my mind, this brings a need for a greater transparency than was needed a couple of years ago, and the current climate would be helped if this was taken into account.
Anyway, changing tact much has been said about the finances of the club. Now I am no financial expert by any stretch so its entirely possible that more learned people than myself could rip this to pieces, but I spent much of last weekend going through the published accounts from the club for the five year period up until the Summer of 2018 and comparing figures. (all of these figures are available in the public domain, and no figures later than the Summer of 2018 are available yet)
This was obviously done independent of the club and is not intended as either a finger pointing exercise or as a defence for anyone(though I don't think Keith Hill comes out of it particularly well). It was prompted following the answer to the MUFC question at the recent Trust meeting which I know has caused much concern.
The stand out one for me was the Players' wages over the five year period from 2013-4 to 2017-8 comparing it with gate receipts. Within that time, the differential between gate receipts and wage budget went from £380,000 to close to £1.3 million.
What's perhaps most worrying about this is that the Summer following this, the players' wage budget was increased by 30% at a time when the season tickets were limited at £150, £200, £250. That gap might well have reached a level way in excess of £1.5m when the club publishes its accounts in the Spring time.
I don't know if this increase was par for the course for League One football during this time, and we were simply keeping up with the minimum spend but these increases in wage budget from 2017 onwards did little to improve matters on the field. There were similar increases in the budget for the manager, coaches, youth set up and off the field wages which went from £700,000 to £1.3m in the same five year time period.
The club were keen to point out that the only clubs with smaller attendances than our's in this division (Fleetwood, Accrington, Burton) all had owners who kept those clubs afloat from their own pocket. We've followed a different path of player sales keeping us going and that has worked for us - but the question is how long can this be maintained?
The figures also show during this time period the receipt of just short of £5million worth of transfer fees and sell on clauses, which in my layman's terms means that those five years were subsidised to the tune of a £1m a season. From my estimates on the player sales, sell ons and MUFC game throughout 2019, I don't think we have brought in the £2m to cover both last season and this based on the assumption of £1m subsidy per season. Of course, spending £200,000 on wages in January would be worth its weight in gold if relegation could be avoided.
I don't think there is a stockpiling of money as there's no reason to, and there is certainly no money coming out of the club as the accounts will indicate this. Any tightening of the belt is done to act before things become a problem as certainly that wage bill could not continue at the level it was increasing by. We don't want a repeat of the Le Fondre situation where we sell players to rival clubs to pay the bills. There's much work to be done, and we as a Trust have to accept and act on that, and do our bit to ask the right questions and feed that back to the supporters, and ask again if we're not satisfied with the answers. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:02 - Dec 2 with 2097 views | RAFC1907 |
| SACK THE BOARD on 16:20 - Dec 2 by sweetcorn |
I'm sure the board are shitting themselves from the pending 'active campaign' |
They will be when it hits them that its reality in a few weeks.
My question to you is this.. In fact I have two..
1) Did you think the way CD was pushed was right?
2) Would you not prefer CD to be chairman? [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 18:04]
| |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:07 - Dec 2 with 2056 views | bazingadale |
I bet this is all because of what happened on that stag do |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:13 - Dec 2 with 2014 views | Rochdale_ger |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:07 - Dec 2 by bazingadale |
I bet this is all because of what happened on that stag do |
All this is down to jealousy from a bunch of keyboard virgins jealous of the CEOs sexual prowess. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:13 - Dec 2 with 2012 views | RAFC1907 |
| SACK THE BOARD on 17:55 - Dec 2 by ColDale |
ok few bits in the interest of 100% openness before assumptions continue to snowball.
* Since DB's appointment as CEO, every single time I have met him it has been in a Trust capacity (and minuted on the Trust website). Every conversation throughout I've had with him whether that be via email or over the phone has been in a Trust capacity.
* To suggest that I've been complicit or an active participant as part of a group of friends in a plot to get rid of Dunphy is completely false. Apologies if I've misread that.
* As a Trust, we have worked hard to rebuild the relationship with the club since it was arguably at an all time low early in 2018. There have been a great deal of positives to come out of this, and I've always been of the opinion its better to work with someone than to work against them. The nature of the reporting back on the Trust website is (in my opinion) far more transparent and frequent that it has even been, and far superior to any club in the division (including the Trust owned clubs) though I accept my involvement brings a certain amount of bias.
* The Trust's work with the club often involves a lot of difficult conversations. The minutes from the meetings indicate this with the range of questions asked. I accept some haven't always been happy with the answers given but I don't believe there's been a single question that has been shyed away from. I appreciate the reporting back might not reflect the difficult conversations that take place, but the meetings are not an exercise in blowing smoke up each other's backsides. Take the recent discussions about attracting an investor into the club or the endless conversations about the change in pies as an example. If we feel something isn't right, we are happy to tell them so.
* if it is felt (principally by the Trust membership) that the above makes me too friendly with DB, then I will happily walk away tomorrow and never have any involvement again in the Trust. It's not a role undertaken for any personal benefit, and if I'm being honest, it takes up far more hours than it should do (through my own choice let it be said).
I've said before, dealings with DB have come across open and honest throughout. I know this doesn't always fit the narrative but I can only say it how Ive seen it throughout the past 12 months. I understand the concerns people have, and much is done with genuine care and concern for the football club. We live in a post-Bury world and in my mind, this brings a need for a greater transparency than was needed a couple of years ago, and the current climate would be helped if this was taken into account.
Anyway, changing tact much has been said about the finances of the club. Now I am no financial expert by any stretch so its entirely possible that more learned people than myself could rip this to pieces, but I spent much of last weekend going through the published accounts from the club for the five year period up until the Summer of 2018 and comparing figures. (all of these figures are available in the public domain, and no figures later than the Summer of 2018 are available yet)
This was obviously done independent of the club and is not intended as either a finger pointing exercise or as a defence for anyone(though I don't think Keith Hill comes out of it particularly well). It was prompted following the answer to the MUFC question at the recent Trust meeting which I know has caused much concern.
The stand out one for me was the Players' wages over the five year period from 2013-4 to 2017-8 comparing it with gate receipts. Within that time, the differential between gate receipts and wage budget went from £380,000 to close to £1.3 million.
What's perhaps most worrying about this is that the Summer following this, the players' wage budget was increased by 30% at a time when the season tickets were limited at £150, £200, £250. That gap might well have reached a level way in excess of £1.5m when the club publishes its accounts in the Spring time.
I don't know if this increase was par for the course for League One football during this time, and we were simply keeping up with the minimum spend but these increases in wage budget from 2017 onwards did little to improve matters on the field. There were similar increases in the budget for the manager, coaches, youth set up and off the field wages which went from £700,000 to £1.3m in the same five year time period.
The club were keen to point out that the only clubs with smaller attendances than our's in this division (Fleetwood, Accrington, Burton) all had owners who kept those clubs afloat from their own pocket. We've followed a different path of player sales keeping us going and that has worked for us - but the question is how long can this be maintained?
The figures also show during this time period the receipt of just short of £5million worth of transfer fees and sell on clauses, which in my layman's terms means that those five years were subsidised to the tune of a £1m a season. From my estimates on the player sales, sell ons and MUFC game throughout 2019, I don't think we have brought in the £2m to cover both last season and this based on the assumption of £1m subsidy per season. Of course, spending £200,000 on wages in January would be worth its weight in gold if relegation could be avoided.
I don't think there is a stockpiling of money as there's no reason to, and there is certainly no money coming out of the club as the accounts will indicate this. Any tightening of the belt is done to act before things become a problem as certainly that wage bill could not continue at the level it was increasing by. We don't want a repeat of the Le Fondre situation where we sell players to rival clubs to pay the bills. There's much work to be done, and we as a Trust have to accept and act on that, and do our bit to ask the right questions and feed that back to the supporters, and ask again if we're not satisfied with the answers. |
Whilst the club try to baffle us with the 'gates don't cover wages bullshit', let me put this forward.
The away fans have to pay a fortune to get in, and often bring over 500 fans on average across the season.
Now I'm assuming they are not all children and I'm assuming that they don't just pay in and don't buy any alcohol in the willbutts, or purchase any food etc.
The average attendance has increased due to the amount of away fans. So talking about cheap season tickets is just a cover up.
Thanks for the detailed info though, I know you're a loyal fan through thick and thin but come on, there's so much bullshit at the minute it needs sorting.
Nobody is asking the club to overspend like Bury but by bringing in two to three good players, whether it be short term, two year deals or even bringing in loans won't damage the bank. Especially if we show some ambition and climb the table then those extra 1000-1500 fans may turn up and repay the funds to cover any wages. | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:17 - Dec 2 with 1978 views | sweetcorn |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:02 - Dec 2 by RAFC1907 |
They will be when it hits them that its reality in a few weeks.
My question to you is this.. In fact I have two..
1) Did you think the way CD was pushed was right?
2) Would you not prefer CD to be chairman? [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 18:04]
|
What reality is that?
1) I have no idea if he was pushed. Just get little snippets from people who think they're clever posting 1% of the story and then when asking to elaborate they say they can't divulge.
2) what would really be different if dunphy was currently chairman? He doesn't have a magic money tree, I'd wager a guess we'd probably still have hill and if not we'd still have BBM.
Until someone has the balls to fully disclose what's been going on, instead of jizzing in their boxers by trying to flaunt that they know stuff that other members of this message board don't, I can't fully answer your questions. | |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
