| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) 19:44 - May 27 with 28599 views | IOMDale |
Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere but the club have issued this statement tonight:
Rochdale AFC & Denehurst Park (Rochdale)
STATEMENT FROM CHAIRMAN ANDREW KELLY AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO RAFC SHAREHOLDERS
1. Update on Recent Developments
Ahead of the AGMs and EGMs to be held on Tuesday 1st June 2021, the board of directors would like to update shareholders with some important information.
Over the last two years, the board has held the view that to move the club forwards there is a need for outside investment. To have done nothing would have been negligent and would have placed the continuing existence of our proud football club at risk.
The Covid-19 pandemic has reset the world financially and, as a result, sustainability in the world of football is more challenging than ever. Even before that, as a Football Club operating at an elite level of professional football, we could not compete and thrive without the injection of significant amounts of money that are not open to us in the traditional way that we have been funded for 114 years.
We are currently one of less than ten percent of Football League clubs that isn’t owner-funded or major shareholder-controlled.
As a responsible board representing the Dale shareholders, who number over 300, we have looked at many outside parties who have presented varying levels of interest and associated proposals to become that new owner/investor.
Until very recently, none of the proposals tabled have been sufficiently detailed, credible or funded to a level necessary to ensure that the club is stabilised and developed to move us forwards.
The current board, in line with the wonderful previous board custodians over the past 114 years, only have the interests in the development and success of the club at heart and would not contemplate entering into an agreement that could potentially take us down the unsustainable path that other football clubs have sadly found themselves on.
Furthermore, the stringent tests now imposed by the EFL, with regards to owners and directors, are in place to ensure that such unsustainable situations like at those other clubs will never arise again. Not only is proof of funds required for any potential new owners and shareholders, but there are requirements to demonstrate how those funds were acquired and how they will sustain the club going forward. All of the parties that we are engaged in talks with fulfil those EFL requirements.
There has been a concentration by the board in the last four months to bring a conclusion to talks with genuinely interested parties that, if they were to acquire the club, would be to the betterment of RAFC. Commensurate with that, there has been a period of exclusivity with one interested party.
All parties involved wish to continue negotiations and due diligence in a confidential manner which is out of respect for the club. As a responsible board, we understand and respect this situation, but suffice it to say that throughout all the recent and continuing negotiations, we have been greatly impressed by the professional and knowledgeable approach taken at all times.
We can report that the level of investment and the short, medium and long-term plans that have been put forward represent something that this board has been seeking and the club has been in need of for several years.
We are aware of the current criticisms levelled at the existing board, but any potential new owners have confirmed that there will be a new structure introduced throughout the club should the negotiations continue to a successful conclusion. This new structure will be put in place as and when a full assessment has been concluded.
Relegation to EFL League 2 will undoubtedly influence important and immediate short-term planning but has not diminished the enthusiasm and desire to stabilise and develop RAFC over the next 5 years and to press the reset button to bring the club into the modern, post-covid, football world.
The plans discussed to date have featured greatly the urgent need to invest in Club facilities. Primarily, this includes developing first team training facilities, which can ideally become a first team, Academy and Community complex.
The second area of requirement is to invest in stadium refurbishments, both for football and non- football related development, with the third area of investment in on-the-field matters to achieve our ambitions of an immediate return to League One and to achieve greater sustainability as a football club.
At all times during the ongoing negotiations, we have been impressed by each party’s total understanding and respect for the fact that the supporters are the lifeblood of any football club.
2. The Next Steps
Due to the existing constitution of Rochdale Association Football Club Limited, there is currently no practical method of introducing the level of funding and associated control that is a pre-requisite of further negotiations.
This situation arises out of the fact that the present shareholding is so diverse, with the single largest holding representing only 21.87% of the current issued share capital.
In order to allow negotiations with the interested party to be taken to the next level, Resolutions 1, 2 and 4 need to be passed by shareholders at the EGM on 1st June.
Resolution 3 has previously been within the control of the board, but the authority to issue these shares expired in 2016, and was not renewed at that time.
Resolutions 1 and 2 would ensure that any investment will come directly into Rochdale AFC through the issue of new shares. If the board is unable to issue new shares, prospective shareholders could instead approach individual shareholders, which would see significant shareholdings being acquired with monies not benefitting the football club. This has happened in the last two years where a significant amount of money for shares has been transacted without benefit to RAFC. The new investment that is required would be put directly into achieving previously mentioned ambitions.
The board considers that this is an essential next step to allow development of the discussions with interested parties, who, with their vision, professionalism and passion, will be exactly what RAFC needs to not only secure the future, but to develop the club for the benefit of the supporters, the community and the town of Rochdale. Without having the authority to issue new shares, the board is effectively stifled in its ability to seek new investment and we are left in a situation where the status quo prevails.
Whilst the sensitivity and confidential nature of these ongoing negotiations needs to be maintained at this present time, the future transparency and engagement with the supporters on any offer can only benefit all concerned with RAFC.
If we can all work together to bring the passion, vision and investment on offer to the club, we are sure that RAFC will be in a very different place in years to come.
EGM Resolutions 1, 2, 3 & 4
1. THAT, in accordance with paragraph 42(2)(b) of Schedule 2 of the Companies Act 2006 (Commencement No. 8, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2008, the restriction on the authorised share capital of the Company be revoked and deleted from the Company’s memorandum of association.
2. THAT, subject to the passing of resolution 1, in accordance with section 551 of the Companies Act 2006, the directors of the Company (Directors) be generally and unconditionally authorised to allot shares in the Company up to an aggregate nominal amount of £348,521 (697,042 shares @ £0.50 per share) provided that —
a. this authority shall, unless renewed, varied or revoked by the Company, expire at not less than 5 years from the date this resolution is passed; and
b. all shares allotted pursuant to the authorisation hereby conferred shall be so allotted at no less than £6 per share.
3. AND, in the event that resolution 1 is not passed, in accordance with section 551 of the Companies Act 2006, the Directors be generally and unconditionally authorised to allot shares in the Company up to an aggregate nominal amount of £198,521 (397,042 shares @ £0.50 per share), which is the limit of the Company’s authorised share capital, provided that —
a. this authority shall, unless renewed, varied or revoked by the Company, expire at not less than 5 years from the date this resolution is passed; and
b. all shares allotted pursuant to the authorisation hereby conferred shall be so allotted at no less than £6 per share.
Special resolution
4. That, subject to the passing of resolution 2 or 3 and, in accordance with section 570 of the Companies Act 2006, the Directors be generally empowered to allot equity securities (as defined in section 560 of the Companies Act 2006) pursuant to the authority conferred by resolution 2, as if section 561(1) of the CA 2006 did not apply to any such allotment.
|  | | |  |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 11:19 - May 29 with 2442 views | judd |
Interesting photo of a high value car in the Spotland car park, personalised reg featuring the initials MH.
An MH featured on RAFCBLUEs summary of earlier in the thread.
Might be worth a look... |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 11:46 - May 29 with 2389 views | Stourdale |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 11:19 - May 29 by judd |
Interesting photo of a high value car in the Spotland car park, personalised reg featuring the initials MH.
An MH featured on RAFCBLUEs summary of earlier in the thread.
Might be worth a look... |
Interesting piece on his initial Wigan bid, especially the fan shares part
https://lastwordonsports.com/football/2021/01/05/martin-halsall-wigan-bid/
Also appears to have a reported net worth of £1b.
Can’t find much on why the deal fell through.
However there are also numerous football agents with the initials MH. |  | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:06 - May 29 with 2334 views | James1980 |
Was the bid shrouded in secrecy? | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:10 - May 29 with 2324 views | judd |
Wigan fans raised £800k, that's what he appears to have wanted in exchange for shares.
Where did you get the £1b nett worth?
Nothing I can find in the public domain suggests to me that he has the wherewithal to take on an enterprise of our size.
Current companies associated with him have a nett worth of almost minus £1m, significantly overdrawn directors loan account whilst taking £1.3m in dividends between directors in the last 2 published accounts. All available on Companies House. | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:12 - May 29 with 2315 views | 49thseason |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:10 - May 29 by judd |
Wigan fans raised £800k, that's what he appears to have wanted in exchange for shares.
Where did you get the £1b nett worth?
Nothing I can find in the public domain suggests to me that he has the wherewithal to take on an enterprise of our size.
Current companies associated with him have a nett worth of almost minus £1m, significantly overdrawn directors loan account whilst taking £1.3m in dividends between directors in the last 2 published accounts. All available on Companies House. |
Companycheck.. is this the one?
"MR MARTIN HALSALL - ACTIVE - Director ID is 908318023 And address is Atlas 3 St. Georges Square ... total current assets value of £4.7m with a total current liabilities of £5.8m and a total current net worth of £-927.1k". |  | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:21 - May 29 with 2290 views | judd |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:12 - May 29 by 49thseason |
Companycheck.. is this the one?
"MR MARTIN HALSALL - ACTIVE - Director ID is 908318023 And address is Atlas 3 St. Georges Square ... total current assets value of £4.7m with a total current liabilities of £5.8m and a total current net worth of £-927.1k". |
That's the one.
Appears the superbike team is no longer a going concern.
Series of inter-company loans on balance sheets.
A lot of dissolved businesses with relatively short lifespans. | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 12:29 - May 29 with 2279 views | electricblue |
If its the same guy who tried to purchase Wigan maybe his offer wasnt enough.
Halsall made an offer of £3m to buy Wigan and now people seem to think he is looking to invest in Rochdale.
If the club want £6 per share its going to cost more than the £3m he tabled for Wigan..... |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:32 - May 29 with 2269 views | ThreeLions |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:21 - May 29 by judd |
That's the one.
Appears the superbike team is no longer a going concern.
Series of inter-company loans on balance sheets.
A lot of dissolved businesses with relatively short lifespans. |
So it looks like he will borrow money to purchase the club but on the back of the club not personally. This is the exact situation of how the glaziers took over at old trafford. Very worrying |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 12:33 - May 29 with 2264 views | ThreeLions |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 12:29 - May 29 by electricblue |
If its the same guy who tried to purchase Wigan maybe his offer wasnt enough.
Halsall made an offer of £3m to buy Wigan and now people seem to think he is looking to invest in Rochdale.
If the club want £6 per share its going to cost more than the £3m he tabled for Wigan..... |
It is the same guy. I've heard these rumours about him weeks ago. Worst kept secret in Rochdale | | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 12:35 - May 29 with 2254 views | James1980 |
Do we know this chap is the mystery bidder? | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:35 - May 29 with 2260 views | judd |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:32 - May 29 by ThreeLions |
So it looks like he will borrow money to purchase the club but on the back of the club not personally. This is the exact situation of how the glaziers took over at old trafford. Very worrying |
No idea.
He must have access to £3m if he offered it for Wigan, you would imagine.
The thought of the stadium being used to underwrite a loan to a third party is a major worry.
What would be his personal risk, assuming his is the interest the board are referencing? | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 13:04 - May 29 with 2207 views | Stourdale |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:10 - May 29 by judd |
Wigan fans raised £800k, that's what he appears to have wanted in exchange for shares.
Where did you get the £1b nett worth?
Nothing I can find in the public domain suggests to me that he has the wherewithal to take on an enterprise of our size.
Current companies associated with him have a nett worth of almost minus £1m, significantly overdrawn directors loan account whilst taking £1.3m in dividends between directors in the last 2 published accounts. All available on Companies House. |
Apologies took another look and it’s £1m, time for a visit to spec savers 🥸
Just a google of Halsall nett worth [Post edited 29 May 2021 13:05]
| | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 13:06 - May 29 with 2199 views | electricblue |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:21 - May 29 by judd |
That's the one.
Appears the superbike team is no longer a going concern.
Series of inter-company loans on balance sheets.
A lot of dissolved businesses with relatively short lifespans. |
Halsall is part owner of an internet estate agent with virtually no assets and a cash balance in the minus...
For me he isnt the right person for the club..... | |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 13:13 - May 29 with 2175 views | James1980 |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 13:06 - May 29 by electricblue |
Halsall is part owner of an internet estate agent with virtually no assets and a cash balance in the minus...
For me he isnt the right person for the club..... |
Other than a number plate which could belong to someone else with the same initials what evidence is there that this chap is wanting to buy into Rochdale AFC? | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 13:16 - May 29 with 2174 views | SuddenLad |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 13:06 - May 29 by electricblue |
Halsall is part owner of an internet estate agent with virtually no assets and a cash balance in the minus...
For me he isnt the right person for the club..... |
The club should be nowhere near dealing with this kind of speculative risky kind of buyer. There is no visible way, from information in the public domain, that he has any personal wealth.
The obvious conclusion to draw at the moment is that any money he raises will be secured on the club/ground and for all we know the money could be from the Bank of Disney.
It has the makings of an absolute horror show. Steer clear. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 13:29 - May 29 with 2150 views | 442Dale |
A football club board would not ever contemplate entering into an agreement that could potentially take that football club down an unsustainable path.
In fact, they’d probably say so themselves.
Not even contemplate it. |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 13:55 - May 29 with 2069 views | finberty |
Sounds to be just the sort of jobby that a lightweight, star-struck, tone-deaf Board might be impressed by.
They were similarly confused and dazzled when deciding whether BBM knew how to win matches as opposed to how to lose them.
If this entrant butters the boys up with a bit of blarney, or something, heads are sure to turn. |  | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 14:06 - May 29 with 2043 views | kel |
If, and I mean if, this is true and this is the investor then why are fans having to find out from fellow fans and not the club?
Were they hoping to push this thorough before we found out which would then obviously be too late? I’d like to say I’m surprised we’d be treated in such a way but the awarding of a new contract to the manager without telling us shows form doesn’t it? |  | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 14:19 - May 29 with 1996 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 12:35 - May 29 by judd |
No idea.
He must have access to £3m if he offered it for Wigan, you would imagine.
The thought of the stadium being used to underwrite a loan to a third party is a major worry.
What would be his personal risk, assuming his is the interest the board are referencing? |
The statutory information is a good indicator here, judd of the operating methods of Mr Halsall. Companies House is bountiful.
Mr Halsall is 54 in June 2021 so about 10 years younger on average than our current Board. His main group holding company is called Halsall Group Limited which has net assets of £1.2m and he owns 90% of that and below that there are some other companies which list Halsall Group Limited as the company of significant control.
There is the use of lots of individual companies rather than the traditional group accounts we see, for example for RAFC. The results are all unaudited and it appears there is a large dependency on shared funding between companies.
Outside of that, there is a method of using companies for activity and then dissolving them so they no longer exist once their purpose is complete. There is a long list of dissolved companies where Mr Halsall was a director.
Without going into all the details if you want to go an look then here is the link to Companies House:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/9FZBX_7QlXV9
Looking into these things, as I do, I can't see where there is any significant wealth that would bring in the £2m to £4m noted in the Club's various literature over the last eighteen months WITHOUT borrowing on the Ground.
It is publicly known that bury borrowed Mr Day mortgaged Gigg Lane ground with Merseyside-based Capital Bridging Finance Solution Ltd for £2.5m at an interest rate of 138 per cent.
You'd imagine that is going to be a large part of the £4m the Board want and the obvious question that brings is at what cost. There are obviously parties who would lend that money too at eye watering rates but the question is at what cost.
The fact that our Board have to propose that all shareholders waive their rights and give the investor first opportunity at £6 a share means that Mr Halsall can't be an investor that would do this takeover by conventional means - i.e. buy the shares needed and then bring finance in to the club.
More likely as with most leveraged buyouts the deal would be a bank loaning the new owner the money secured on the ground asset if they are successful. If someone wanted to be unscrupulous here - as appears happened at bury, you could raised £3m on the ground, offer to buy the new shares at £6 a share for £3m (500,000 shares) and then sit there as "owner" having used a bank's money secured against an existing asset to buy it.
To answer your last question that would mean no personal risk at all as it would all be within the Company.
Finally, the picture of the Rolls Royce. Available credit checks note that this is a leased (not owned) asset.
My view:
I've never heard of this person involved in football prior to his failed bid for Wigan and I've never heard of him as a Dale fan or even as a football fan.
I've can find zero corporate information that tells me he personally has significant money to invest in the club or can do so without raising finance on currently unencumbered club assets.
I'm not jumping for joy to hear of the link to him being potentially the mystery investor. |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 14:27 - May 29 with 1971 views | judd |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 14:19 - May 29 by RAFCBLUE |
The statutory information is a good indicator here, judd of the operating methods of Mr Halsall. Companies House is bountiful.
Mr Halsall is 54 in June 2021 so about 10 years younger on average than our current Board. His main group holding company is called Halsall Group Limited which has net assets of £1.2m and he owns 90% of that and below that there are some other companies which list Halsall Group Limited as the company of significant control.
There is the use of lots of individual companies rather than the traditional group accounts we see, for example for RAFC. The results are all unaudited and it appears there is a large dependency on shared funding between companies.
Outside of that, there is a method of using companies for activity and then dissolving them so they no longer exist once their purpose is complete. There is a long list of dissolved companies where Mr Halsall was a director.
Without going into all the details if you want to go an look then here is the link to Companies House:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/9FZBX_7QlXV9
Looking into these things, as I do, I can't see where there is any significant wealth that would bring in the £2m to £4m noted in the Club's various literature over the last eighteen months WITHOUT borrowing on the Ground.
It is publicly known that bury borrowed Mr Day mortgaged Gigg Lane ground with Merseyside-based Capital Bridging Finance Solution Ltd for £2.5m at an interest rate of 138 per cent.
You'd imagine that is going to be a large part of the £4m the Board want and the obvious question that brings is at what cost. There are obviously parties who would lend that money too at eye watering rates but the question is at what cost.
The fact that our Board have to propose that all shareholders waive their rights and give the investor first opportunity at £6 a share means that Mr Halsall can't be an investor that would do this takeover by conventional means - i.e. buy the shares needed and then bring finance in to the club.
More likely as with most leveraged buyouts the deal would be a bank loaning the new owner the money secured on the ground asset if they are successful. If someone wanted to be unscrupulous here - as appears happened at bury, you could raised £3m on the ground, offer to buy the new shares at £6 a share for £3m (500,000 shares) and then sit there as "owner" having used a bank's money secured against an existing asset to buy it.
To answer your last question that would mean no personal risk at all as it would all be within the Company.
Finally, the picture of the Rolls Royce. Available credit checks note that this is a leased (not owned) asset.
My view:
I've never heard of this person involved in football prior to his failed bid for Wigan and I've never heard of him as a Dale fan or even as a football fan.
I've can find zero corporate information that tells me he personally has significant money to invest in the club or can do so without raising finance on currently unencumbered club assets.
I'm not jumping for joy to hear of the link to him being potentially the mystery investor. |
Thank you for putting that meat on the bones.
If this is seriously the investor that all bets were on and the club has done the same due diligence as us fans, what have they found that we haven't?
Since Dunphy left we have had a catalogue of failed decisions and failing leadership. | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 14:33 - May 29 with 1940 views | RAFCBLUE |
The Halsall company - WAFC 2021 Limited - which was formed to do the takeover of Wigan in January 2021 was requested to be dissolved in April 2021.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13117255
The owner of WAFC 2021 Limited is Halsall Investments Limited - a company that has net liabilities of £13,837 and two employees at the date of their last published accounts (March 2021).
That would have been the structure had the Wigan takeover been successful. No sign of the £3m. | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 14:41 - May 29 with 1915 views | D_Alien |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 14:19 - May 29 by RAFCBLUE |
The statutory information is a good indicator here, judd of the operating methods of Mr Halsall. Companies House is bountiful.
Mr Halsall is 54 in June 2021 so about 10 years younger on average than our current Board. His main group holding company is called Halsall Group Limited which has net assets of £1.2m and he owns 90% of that and below that there are some other companies which list Halsall Group Limited as the company of significant control.
There is the use of lots of individual companies rather than the traditional group accounts we see, for example for RAFC. The results are all unaudited and it appears there is a large dependency on shared funding between companies.
Outside of that, there is a method of using companies for activity and then dissolving them so they no longer exist once their purpose is complete. There is a long list of dissolved companies where Mr Halsall was a director.
Without going into all the details if you want to go an look then here is the link to Companies House:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/9FZBX_7QlXV9
Looking into these things, as I do, I can't see where there is any significant wealth that would bring in the £2m to £4m noted in the Club's various literature over the last eighteen months WITHOUT borrowing on the Ground.
It is publicly known that bury borrowed Mr Day mortgaged Gigg Lane ground with Merseyside-based Capital Bridging Finance Solution Ltd for £2.5m at an interest rate of 138 per cent.
You'd imagine that is going to be a large part of the £4m the Board want and the obvious question that brings is at what cost. There are obviously parties who would lend that money too at eye watering rates but the question is at what cost.
The fact that our Board have to propose that all shareholders waive their rights and give the investor first opportunity at £6 a share means that Mr Halsall can't be an investor that would do this takeover by conventional means - i.e. buy the shares needed and then bring finance in to the club.
More likely as with most leveraged buyouts the deal would be a bank loaning the new owner the money secured on the ground asset if they are successful. If someone wanted to be unscrupulous here - as appears happened at bury, you could raised £3m on the ground, offer to buy the new shares at £6 a share for £3m (500,000 shares) and then sit there as "owner" having used a bank's money secured against an existing asset to buy it.
To answer your last question that would mean no personal risk at all as it would all be within the Company.
Finally, the picture of the Rolls Royce. Available credit checks note that this is a leased (not owned) asset.
My view:
I've never heard of this person involved in football prior to his failed bid for Wigan and I've never heard of him as a Dale fan or even as a football fan.
I've can find zero corporate information that tells me he personally has significant money to invest in the club or can do so without raising finance on currently unencumbered club assets.
I'm not jumping for joy to hear of the link to him being potentially the mystery investor. |
Brilliant
I'm now viewing the Club Statement in a different light altogether
Imo, the board are so pissed off with the criticism they've received they've decided to get shut and leave us with a bury-type situation. The weasel words about "best interests of the club" are precisely that
I'm now also viewing the " wonderful previous board custodians over the past 114 years" as sarcasm
Anyone disagreeing with that analysis should demonstrate how they interpret the resolutions in a different way, now we have insight into what's behind all this
Whilst the resolutions put forward by the club must be stopped at all costs, i have reason for optimism, and that this can be a watershed moment for Dale and its fanbase |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 14:41 - May 29 with 1913 views | judd |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 14:33 - May 29 by RAFCBLUE |
The Halsall company - WAFC 2021 Limited - which was formed to do the takeover of Wigan in January 2021 was requested to be dissolved in April 2021.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13117255
The owner of WAFC 2021 Limited is Halsall Investments Limited - a company that has net liabilities of £13,837 and two employees at the date of their last published accounts (March 2021).
That would have been the structure had the Wigan takeover been successful. No sign of the £3m. |
Wow.
Anyone got the Speakman's number? | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 14:51 - May 29 with 1893 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) (n/t) on 14:27 - May 29 by judd |
Thank you for putting that meat on the bones.
If this is seriously the investor that all bets were on and the club has done the same due diligence as us fans, what have they found that we haven't?
Since Dunphy left we have had a catalogue of failed decisions and failing leadership. |
I think it is imperative that the club comes out and clarifies if this their individual referred to in
Clearly for his name to be out there, a picture of a car he drives and for other people on here to say things like "this is the worst kept secret in Rochdale" means that the club's non disclosure agreement (NDA) is actually breached.
It will only take Kieran Maguire or any other journalist to tweet this once as a story and the takeover plan is outed.
The question then is does a takeover complete. There are a lot of failed takeovers in the corporate world for many reasons. That would come down to shareholders.
Nothing is ever secret in football; there are banks, lawyers and individuals who are needed to make transactions happen. As do club Board directors and the shareholders that elect them.
So now the Board have a problem to deal with ahead of Tuesday AGM:
1. Is Martin Halsall their mystery investor?
2. If he is, why do they think he is suitable?
3. Has he provided proof of funds?
4. Does his proposal include mortgaging the ground?
Equally, if Martin Halsall is the one and was to pull out subsequently, what would that say about the Board's secrecy and support for a proposal that subsequently fell away within days of a broad announcement.
For me it would demonstrate a complete lack of collective capability and a breach of trust for which they are appointed by shareholders to manage. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
