| Trust meeting with BoD 09:00 - Nov 3 with 28774 views | IOMDale |
Does anybody know how last night went or are we to wait for an update from the Trust? Because let's be honest, it won't be the BoD releasing information in a rush. |  | | |  |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:41 - Nov 12 with 3313 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:20 - Nov 12 by 442Dale |
Where was it stated a club cannot ask whether such a loan would be approved by the National League before a vote is put to shareholders?
How do we know the full details of what other clubs did and how can they be compared to our case?
Should the vote now be put to shareholders again?
Certainly, along with those already noted in this thread, further questions for the Trust to follow up with when they have their meeting.
For reference, a reminder of the following information provided ahead of the shareholder vote:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/july/simongaugerichardknightmessage_2507 |
The EGM is a Companies Act meeting - it doesn't need to include football matters as the Articles of Association say somewhere that any Director must act in accordance with football rules.
It also doesn't sound like it's worth putting to anyone again if the National League are not going to support it.
Dalenet's question is a good one about not using the £350,000 loan.
"So the club is running without it. How long for?"
Assuming an operating loss (without one offs) of £1m a season, that's £20,000 a week and the loan is about 4 months of operating losses.
One-offs this season look highly unlikely barring either a January player sale or an FA Trophy run. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:49 - Nov 12 with 3271 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 19:50 - Nov 12 by RAFCBLUE |
Not quite DA.
The National League rules require their sanction, which was withheld.
Other National League clubs have done this but they said no in our specific case.
did not grant permission for it to be taken on a secured basis (despite other clubs within The National League entering into secured loans as recently as September 2023).
So you can't ask the National League unless you have shareholder approval, but you can't take the loan unless they say yes. |
Not quite, RAFCBLUE
The circumstances i described should've been reported back to shareholders
You know that, i know that, every shareholder knows that
I'm really not sure on what basis you think my post "wasn't quite"
[Post edited 12 Nov 2023 20:50]
|  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:08 - Nov 12 with 3197 views | 49thseason |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:41 - Nov 12 by RAFCBLUE |
The EGM is a Companies Act meeting - it doesn't need to include football matters as the Articles of Association say somewhere that any Director must act in accordance with football rules.
It also doesn't sound like it's worth putting to anyone again if the National League are not going to support it.
Dalenet's question is a good one about not using the £350,000 loan.
"So the club is running without it. How long for?"
Assuming an operating loss (without one offs) of £1m a season, that's £20,000 a week and the loan is about 4 months of operating losses.
One-offs this season look highly unlikely barring either a January player sale or an FA Trophy run. |
So I guess we must presume that selling Brierley has amounted to peanuts? Not much point in having payments for milestones in his career if there is no club to pay them to is there? |  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 11:40 - Nov 13 with 2952 views | 100notout |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:41 - Nov 12 by RAFCBLUE |
The EGM is a Companies Act meeting - it doesn't need to include football matters as the Articles of Association say somewhere that any Director must act in accordance with football rules.
It also doesn't sound like it's worth putting to anyone again if the National League are not going to support it.
Dalenet's question is a good one about not using the £350,000 loan.
"So the club is running without it. How long for?"
Assuming an operating loss (without one offs) of £1m a season, that's £20,000 a week and the loan is about 4 months of operating losses.
One-offs this season look highly unlikely barring either a January player sale or an FA Trophy run. |
Can we still "assume" an operating loss of £1m p.a.? Do you really think the directors have not cut their cloth accordingly?
Of course we don't know the current position (or indeed that as at 30th June 2023 - accounts will probably not be filed until March 2024) and that is a key issue that the Trust should be establishing when they meet the directors next week. By the way, I fully understand that not everything can or should be made public but some headline figures would be helpful.
Should we not be having an AGM soon to approve the accounts to 30 June 2022 (published March 2023)? |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 18:59 - Nov 13 with 2728 views | 442Dale |
From the Trust meeting with the club in May:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/05/meeting-with-the-club-16-5/
<<“ Q: On what date, presumably minuted in any board meeting confirming this, was the decision made to move away from being a ‘fan owned, fan led’ club?
Q: Shareholders were asked to approve the issue of new shares on 17th November having been told that “These new shares are simply designed to create new capital and not provoke any form of takeover of our club.” Why did that change just 43 days later?
A: The Board stated that they haven’t moved away from this model and the share issue in November was evidence of this. However, it became very clear that the shares were not going to be sold. The money from those shares was necessary for the running of the Football Club throughout this season. The Shares remain up for sale and are available to be to be purchased.”>>
From the latest update:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/11/update-to-members/
<<“ Have supporters been prevented from purchasing the unsold shares in the club and if so why? Has the minimum amount changed?
There have been very few (single figures) of recent enquiries for share purchases from supporters. The minimum amount has not changed. However, when in advanced talks with potential investors, a shareholder base and an ‘available shares’ number that is constantly moving is extremely problematic and has already been the most significant factor in seeing off several parties interested in club investment. The focus of the club is on securing investment rather than minor transactions at the present time. It was suggested by club staff that supporters who were desperate to become shareholders could consider broaching the subject with The Dale Trust for a private transaction.”>> |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 19:54 - Nov 13 with 2652 views | judd |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 18:59 - Nov 13 by 442Dale |
From the Trust meeting with the club in May:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/05/meeting-with-the-club-16-5/
<<“ Q: On what date, presumably minuted in any board meeting confirming this, was the decision made to move away from being a ‘fan owned, fan led’ club?
Q: Shareholders were asked to approve the issue of new shares on 17th November having been told that “These new shares are simply designed to create new capital and not provoke any form of takeover of our club.” Why did that change just 43 days later?
A: The Board stated that they haven’t moved away from this model and the share issue in November was evidence of this. However, it became very clear that the shares were not going to be sold. The money from those shares was necessary for the running of the Football Club throughout this season. The Shares remain up for sale and are available to be to be purchased.”>>
From the latest update:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/11/update-to-members/
<<“ Have supporters been prevented from purchasing the unsold shares in the club and if so why? Has the minimum amount changed?
There have been very few (single figures) of recent enquiries for share purchases from supporters. The minimum amount has not changed. However, when in advanced talks with potential investors, a shareholder base and an ‘available shares’ number that is constantly moving is extremely problematic and has already been the most significant factor in seeing off several parties interested in club investment. The focus of the club is on securing investment rather than minor transactions at the present time. It was suggested by club staff that supporters who were desperate to become shareholders could consider broaching the subject with The Dale Trust for a private transaction.”>> |
Pretty offensive is that answer.
Anybody remember a pissed up investor in the Black Dog? |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:48 - Nov 13 with 2566 views | James1980 |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 19:54 - Nov 13 by judd |
Pretty offensive is that answer.
Anybody remember a pissed up investor in the Black Dog? |
It's been very nearly a year since the shares were offered to supporters. If we are as brassic as we are told surely having the shares for sale front and centre on the website and social media platforms would have been worthwhile and also knocking the minimum amount down to say 50 shares per transaction. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:02 - Nov 13 with 2536 views | judd |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:48 - Nov 13 by James1980 |
It's been very nearly a year since the shares were offered to supporters. If we are as brassic as we are told surely having the shares for sale front and centre on the website and social media platforms would have been worthwhile and also knocking the minimum amount down to say 50 shares per transaction. |
"The minimum amount has not changed."
Except it clearly has.
Dale fans cannot buy the minimum amount whilst the club entertains a failed bidder at Scunthorpe.
Why do prospective investors not know how many shareholders we have and that shares are still available to buy, even the minimum amount has not changed?
Nonsense. Any investor would want 51% selling 2 or 300 shares to fans would not impact this one bit. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:19 - Nov 13 with 2499 views | 49thseason |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:48 - Nov 13 by James1980 |
It's been very nearly a year since the shares were offered to supporters. If we are as brassic as we are told surely having the shares for sale front and centre on the website and social media platforms would have been worthwhile and also knocking the minimum amount down to say 50 shares per transaction. |
James , I think I alluded to this scenario a few days ago, inbound investors want to know how many shares they have to buy in whatever scenario they are buying them (either to get to 51% or simply to buy what's available at a particular moment in time), all the paperwork will need to be accurate and it costs money to draw up that paperwork, especially if their is a consortium who will have to divide up the shares and the associated costs. Its probably slightly less important if someone is just going to buy a chunk of available shares , but imagine if someone is trying to figure out what 51% is if people keep buying a few here and a few there, its a bit problematic if you are intending to buy 51% one day and find the number of shared needed has changed the day after... | | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:21 - Nov 13 with 2497 views | 442Dale |
If there has been suggestions made around the subject, why wouldn’t it be communicated directly by the club that supporters who wish to become shareholders could consider “broaching the subject” with the Trust?
Are the Trust in a position to communicate how such a private transaction would work?
Wouldn’t any such move have to go to a members vote first? | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:36 - Nov 13 with 2458 views | James1980 |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:19 - Nov 13 by 49thseason |
James , I think I alluded to this scenario a few days ago, inbound investors want to know how many shares they have to buy in whatever scenario they are buying them (either to get to 51% or simply to buy what's available at a particular moment in time), all the paperwork will need to be accurate and it costs money to draw up that paperwork, especially if their is a consortium who will have to divide up the shares and the associated costs. Its probably slightly less important if someone is just going to buy a chunk of available shares , but imagine if someone is trying to figure out what 51% is if people keep buying a few here and a few there, its a bit problematic if you are intending to buy 51% one day and find the number of shared needed has changed the day after... |
Could an investor not achieve the required threshold for control with only limited purchases of shares from share holders with small holdings? | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:40 - Nov 13 with 2453 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:02 - Nov 13 by judd |
"The minimum amount has not changed."
Except it clearly has.
Dale fans cannot buy the minimum amount whilst the club entertains a failed bidder at Scunthorpe.
Why do prospective investors not know how many shareholders we have and that shares are still available to buy, even the minimum amount has not changed?
Nonsense. Any investor would want 51% selling 2 or 300 shares to fans would not impact this one bit. |
Problem is the Chairman and Directors just do as they please and the Trust are obviously incapable of doing anything about it and just jump to their tune. We saw the same when Bottomley was in charge and its still happening. There's no evidence to suggest otherwise. |  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:42 - Nov 13 with 2445 views | judd |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:19 - Nov 13 by 49thseason |
James , I think I alluded to this scenario a few days ago, inbound investors want to know how many shares they have to buy in whatever scenario they are buying them (either to get to 51% or simply to buy what's available at a particular moment in time), all the paperwork will need to be accurate and it costs money to draw up that paperwork, especially if their is a consortium who will have to divide up the shares and the associated costs. Its probably slightly less important if someone is just going to buy a chunk of available shares , but imagine if someone is trying to figure out what 51% is if people keep buying a few here and a few there, its a bit problematic if you are intending to buy 51% one day and find the number of shared needed has changed the day after... |
At the point in time when a deal is agreed, that's when shares sales should stop.
There's a shit load of former Morton House shares available, I believe, to help get to 51% on top of shares currently unsold. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:52 - Nov 13 with 2416 views | Dalenet |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:21 - Nov 13 by 442Dale |
If there has been suggestions made around the subject, why wouldn’t it be communicated directly by the club that supporters who wish to become shareholders could consider “broaching the subject” with the Trust?
Are the Trust in a position to communicate how such a private transaction would work?
Wouldn’t any such move have to go to a members vote first? |
I interpreted that to mean that fans can buy shares from other fans, but as there is no market to do that, the Trust might know of members wanting to sell.
On a separate but linked issue. If somebody wants to buy 51% to control the club, do they do that through buying the BoDs shares and the unsold shares only or will they want to buy up any shares from fans? Nobody in the right mind would try to buy any new shares now. We won't be fan owned in the future, there is no prospect of a dividend, and the shares become almost worthless with no control and no market place. | | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:19 - Nov 13 with 2337 views | 49thseason |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:42 - Nov 13 by judd |
At the point in time when a deal is agreed, that's when shares sales should stop.
There's a shit load of former Morton House shares available, I believe, to help get to 51% on top of shares currently unsold. |
Nail on Head.. I am expecting a 51% take over rather than just someone buying the shares in treasury. I think its unlikely anyone would put major finance in without control of the whole company. I think directors have already decided how many personally held shares they want to dispose of and my guess is there will be some shares left in the treasury after someone reaches 51%.... | | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:34 - Nov 13 with 2300 views | 100notout |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:52 - Nov 13 by Dalenet |
I interpreted that to mean that fans can buy shares from other fans, but as there is no market to do that, the Trust might know of members wanting to sell.
On a separate but linked issue. If somebody wants to buy 51% to control the club, do they do that through buying the BoDs shares and the unsold shares only or will they want to buy up any shares from fans? Nobody in the right mind would try to buy any new shares now. We won't be fan owned in the future, there is no prospect of a dividend, and the shares become almost worthless with no control and no market place. |
According to the confirmation statement filed at Companies House, there are c28% of the clubs shares available to buy and the BoD collectively own c35% so any potential investor could comfortably get to a majority shareholding. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 10:30 - Nov 14 with 2056 views | A_Newby |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:34 - Nov 13 by 100notout |
According to the confirmation statement filed at Companies House, there are c28% of the clubs shares available to buy and the BoD collectively own c35% so any potential investor could comfortably get to a majority shareholding. |
The board and their family members own 347,646 shares which is 35.56% of the CURRENT issued shares but only 25.75% of the total shares (including those unsold) available.
There are 372,420 shares “in the treasury” which is another 27.59%.
If an investor purchased all the unsold shares available and all those owned by the directors and their families, they would own 720,066 shares or 53.34%.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tFoqqFa08MOOTtCwgUauBvHQ70DJsck8/edit?us
Above is a link to a spreadsheet. It has two sheets one with calculations for current shares issued and one with calculations for total shares available. |  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:32 - Nov 14 with 1864 views | Delboy |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:02 - Nov 13 by judd |
"The minimum amount has not changed."
Except it clearly has.
Dale fans cannot buy the minimum amount whilst the club entertains a failed bidder at Scunthorpe.
Why do prospective investors not know how many shareholders we have and that shares are still available to buy, even the minimum amount has not changed?
Nonsense. Any investor would want 51% selling 2 or 300 shares to fans would not impact this one bit. |
Have I missed something ?
Where has it been said the club are involved with a former failed bidder for Scunthorpe ? | | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:55 - Nov 14 with 1819 views | Dalenet |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 10:30 - Nov 14 by A_Newby |
The board and their family members own 347,646 shares which is 35.56% of the CURRENT issued shares but only 25.75% of the total shares (including those unsold) available.
There are 372,420 shares “in the treasury” which is another 27.59%.
If an investor purchased all the unsold shares available and all those owned by the directors and their families, they would own 720,066 shares or 53.34%.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tFoqqFa08MOOTtCwgUauBvHQ70DJsck8/edit?us
Above is a link to a spreadsheet. It has two sheets one with calculations for current shares issued and one with calculations for total shares available. |
That is excellent - thanks for sharing. | | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:47 - Nov 14 with 1598 views | blackdogblue |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 19:54 - Nov 13 by judd |
Pretty offensive is that answer.
Anybody remember a pissed up investor in the Black Dog? |
Ohhh yes 😎 |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 17:18 - Nov 14 with 1542 views | blackdogblue |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:55 - Nov 14 by Dalenet |
That is excellent - thanks for sharing. |
I’m not doing this to the penny but if the list down to the Trust is £1.2 million @ 25.67 so double it to get near 51% is £2.4 million…
Talking of the Dog, the figure was £2.5 million from the Swindler… was the offer I heard him on the phone.
Whilst that ties in, to take control of the club as majority shareholder & oust the current board..
Does that now mean (for example me coughing up) do I now “own” everything, the ground including the car park to build a hotel, the Racky, the Goal Posts & the Lawnmower?
If so, I could buy it, put no money in, liquidate the Company which wipes out any other shares value to nothing, knock the lot down & extend the housing estate built on the old Church Inn.
I say build 100 2/3 bed houses at £200k each that’s £20 million.. Ok, demolition & build costs are about 8-10 mil
That is one hell of a return after investment… | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 17:20 - Nov 14 with 1541 views | blackdogblue |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:32 - Nov 14 by Delboy |
Have I missed something ?
Where has it been said the club are involved with a former failed bidder for Scunthorpe ? |
The people in the Dog were linked to them | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 17:48 - Nov 14 with 1493 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 17:20 - Nov 14 by blackdogblue |
The people in the Dog were linked to them |
Never knew The Dog was such a hotbed of financial wheeler-dealing
Any idea why those you overheard might be supping in there? Caldershaw/Norden connections? | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 18:00 - Nov 14 with 1462 views | blackdogblue |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 17:48 - Nov 14 by D_Alien |
Never knew The Dog was such a hotbed of financial wheeler-dealing
Any idea why those you overheard might be supping in there? Caldershaw/Norden connections? |
Nope.. swiftly identified as out of towners and a Bizzare experience.
I am the only albeit ex… Season Ticket holders nowadays who drank in there at the time.. long story about beer changes by Humphrey 🤬…
Was messaging other Dale Forum members & trying to do covert vids of what was happening but I won’t win any Oscars for Best Director or Cameraman 😀 | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
