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.
Whilst unissued shares were available they would surely have been at the existing value of £2?
I suppose the club could ask for more and I suppose the buyer could ask for a bulk discount.Or buy from a cheaper source and thereby not benefit the club financially?
"Our investment group could only buy shares at a price that fairly represented the value of the club. We preferred to buy the unissued shares, so that our funds would go directly towards helping the club succeed. Existing owners including Andrew Kelly offered us shares at valuations close to our own, but the board has not done the same with the unissued shares."
From that statement existing shares were offered at almost acceptable levels, whereas unissued shares were being offered at a higher level.
Would you pay, say, £6 per share when an existing shareholder offered you shares at a seemingly much lower value?
Does £6 "fairly represent the value of the club", and if so, on what basis, as there is no history whatsoever on return on investment?
If your surmising is correct, it would appear that the carrot was dangled significantly closer to the donkey than might be thought wise, if the intention was to leave it unbitten
If your surmising is correct, it would appear that the carrot was dangled significantly closer to the donkey than might be thought wise, if the intention was to leave it unbitten
I suppose it might depend on which other existing owners are referred to.
Haven't the unissued shares now lapsed, hence the desire for an EGM to either remove the cap on authorised shares and increase them to 1.2m or, failing that, to re-offer the unissued shares currently available, both share offerings at not less than £6?
I would be interested to know how that share valuation has been arrived at.
as I read it, to allot the existing unissued shares and the expansion of the capital require an ordinary resolution of an EGM of the Company.
Not entirely sure Judd, but i read it that the American's wanted to buy up all the unissued shares, thus putting funds directly into the club.
I suppose it would be a fair comparison to see what recently joining Directors who hold shares have paid for their shares.
The 2 most recent being Tony Pockney and David Bottomley. If they paid somewhere near the current valuation then fair enough.
not sure it would be a fair comparison - there's a distinct difference between a local fan making a notional contribution to 'buy' their seat on the Board and what you would try to raise in selling 51% of the Club; the prices aren't comparable
Altman values the cost of the things promised at between 3-4m and claims he has investors willing to loan that (without security!). Yet baulks at paying the equivalent amount by purchasing the unissued shares at £6 a share. Roughly 4.2m on the expanded share issue?
Doesn't quite add up to me. Either he's able to invest that money in the club and get a controlling interest or there's something he's not being entirely transparent with the trust in his answers.
Absolutely - this is key (& why we asked Altman about where the balance of funding would come from); either they had the £3-4M they budgeted the costs at, in which case why didn't they agree with the Board or they didn't, in which case they were never going to put in the level of new money needed.
Whilst unissued shares were available they would surely have been at the existing value of £2?
I suppose the club could ask for more and I suppose the buyer could ask for a bulk discount.Or buy from a cheaper source and thereby not benefit the club financially?
"Our investment group could only buy shares at a price that fairly represented the value of the club. We preferred to buy the unissued shares, so that our funds would go directly towards helping the club succeed. Existing owners including Andrew Kelly offered us shares at valuations close to our own, but the board has not done the same with the unissued shares."
From that statement existing shares were offered at almost acceptable levels, whereas unissued shares were being offered at a higher level.
Would you pay, say, £6 per share when an existing shareholder offered you shares at a seemingly much lower value?
Does £6 "fairly represent the value of the club", and if so, on what basis, as there is no history whatsoever on return on investment?
We don't know what price the Board were suggesting in the 2019 negotiations with Altman, but from the subsequent info it would look likely it was nearer to the £6 figure than £2. Are you suggesting that the Board should have sold off the Club @ £2 per share? Key is VivaDonaldo's question - if Altman/Marcelli valued the investment at £3-4M why didn't they pay that for the 400,000 unissued shares (ie @ nearly £6 per share)?
We don't know what price the Board were suggesting in the 2019 negotiations with Altman, but from the subsequent info it would look likely it was nearer to the £6 figure than £2. Are you suggesting that the Board should have sold off the Club @ £2 per share? Key is VivaDonaldo's question - if Altman/Marcelli valued the investment at £3-4M why didn't they pay that for the 400,000 unissued shares (ie @ nearly £6 per share)?
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it might be that the Board wanted the capital from any share sale in addition to the monies that Altman wanted to invest in the infrastructure of the club?
We don't know what price the Board were suggesting in the 2019 negotiations with Altman, but from the subsequent info it would look likely it was nearer to the £6 figure than £2. Are you suggesting that the Board should have sold off the Club @ £2 per share? Key is VivaDonaldo's question - if Altman/Marcelli valued the investment at £3-4M why didn't they pay that for the 400,000 unissued shares (ie @ nearly £6 per share)?
The upfront costs of the investment are not broken down.
We do not know the £6 figure to be accurate, but It was not me that questioned why they would not pay that specifically.
They clearly had a value for the club in mind, based on a recognised valuation model no doubt.
I have not suggested the board should have sold the club at any price, no. What I have pointed out is that there was a discrepancy between what the club wanted for the unissued shares and what existing owners offered their shares at, the latter being closer to the valuation of the buyers.
It all seems quite simple in reality. They had £3-4m to invest. The club/board preferred a bigger proportion of the offer to be directly into the club (via the unissued shares) as opposed to loans. Dan Altman and his team wouldn't increase the offer for shares and reduce the loans? Hence no deal!
In my eyes, the board has acted in the best interests of the club in this instance.
Would we as fans rather see us sell all shares at £2 each and then be saddled with repayable debt (whether interest free or not is irrelevant)? I know I wouldn't
It all seems quite simple in reality. They had £3-4m to invest. The club/board preferred a bigger proportion of the offer to be directly into the club (via the unissued shares) as opposed to loans. Dan Altman and his team wouldn't increase the offer for shares and reduce the loans? Hence no deal!
In my eyes, the board has acted in the best interests of the club in this instance.
Would we as fans rather see us sell all shares at £2 each and then be saddled with repayable debt (whether interest free or not is irrelevant)? I know I wouldn't
Exactly.
If the investment offered by Altman was truly without collateral or security then there should be no issue of investing via share purchase.
The fact they didn't gives room for speculation as to how they valued the club and how their further investment would have been realised.
It all seems quite simple in reality. They had £3-4m to invest. The club/board preferred a bigger proportion of the offer to be directly into the club (via the unissued shares) as opposed to loans. Dan Altman and his team wouldn't increase the offer for shares and reduce the loans? Hence no deal!
In my eyes, the board has acted in the best interests of the club in this instance.
Would we as fans rather see us sell all shares at £2 each and then be saddled with repayable debt (whether interest free or not is irrelevant)? I know I wouldn't
Absolutely the club should not be undersold.
Nor should it be priced out of the market if the realistic intention is to attract investors for the long haul.
I doubt any significant investment as alluded to as aspirational by the club at the forum is going to come without:
Nor should it be priced out of the market if the realistic intention is to attract investors for the long haul.
I doubt any significant investment as alluded to as aspirational by the club at the forum is going to come without:
the desire for control the risk of debt
Agreed
Those are the important things that the current board has to way up. Risk v reward without jeopardising the existence of the club. Same token, if investment is needed to keep the club alive then the price of the shares does need to be realistic.
I suspect £2 per share, £800k or whatever it works out to be at £2 per share would do little to keep the club going, but closer to £3-£4m that isn't repayable would help the club no end.
In reality it will be difficult to find any non-Rochdale fan to invest without any ulterior motive. They need to have a goal/motive otherwise they would just be deciding to take up a new and very expensive hobby!
Have to say that this guy knows a lot about football players. The more he explains his software, the more impressive he and it becomes. I am in no doubt having him in the boardroom would be a fantastic addition.
Have to say that this guy knows a lot about football players. The more he explains his software, the more impressive he and it becomes. I am in no doubt having him in the boardroom would be a fantastic addition.
There's little doubt, either from listening to Dan Altman or looking into his CV, that he's highly intelligent and seems to have an easy knack of locking quickly onto what makes other's tick, enabling him to open people up to his ideas
He got on well with AK when he visited the club
His ready response to the Trust question about his interim stance pending any further developments: "I'm a supporter!"
None of the above is intended negatively. It's just a description based on available information. It's my opinion that he'd run rings round those currently in charge at Dale, and i think they know it. Is that a good or a bad thing? I wouldn't like to say
There certainly seems to be a charm offensive going on here. giving all the 'right answers' to the questions posed. I have a couple of concerns around the answers. i'm no expert but here's my observations for what they are worth
Holding a Controlling Interest but saying the current Board are doing a fine job and if they want us (them) to join then all they need to do is ask.... Really ?? If I held 51% of the shares i'd damn well want to be Chairman.
"In the event of NO INTEREST LOANS then there would be no security required". What about LOANS WITH INTEREST ? These investors are not putting their money into Little Old Rochdale for the love of the Club or in memory our Our Gracie. They are going to want a return. These types of Loans could be taken out visa vie SD1@bURY with potentially the same 'introductory fees' and higher than normal repayment terms.
Also would the NEW Commercial Staff really be an investment or just a costly overhead ?. Just like a signatory signing on too high a wage that breaks down in training after a week never to be seen again.
I, personally, am very sceptical about the whole approach AND the End Game behind it from our new 'as Supporters'
There certainly seems to be a charm offensive going on here. giving all the 'right answers' to the questions posed. I have a couple of concerns around the answers. i'm no expert but here's my observations for what they are worth
Holding a Controlling Interest but saying the current Board are doing a fine job and if they want us (them) to join then all they need to do is ask.... Really ?? If I held 51% of the shares i'd damn well want to be Chairman.
"In the event of NO INTEREST LOANS then there would be no security required". What about LOANS WITH INTEREST ? These investors are not putting their money into Little Old Rochdale for the love of the Club or in memory our Our Gracie. They are going to want a return. These types of Loans could be taken out visa vie SD1@bURY with potentially the same 'introductory fees' and higher than normal repayment terms.
Also would the NEW Commercial Staff really be an investment or just a costly overhead ?. Just like a signatory signing on too high a wage that breaks down in training after a week never to be seen again.
I, personally, am very sceptical about the whole approach AND the End Game behind it from our new 'as Supporters'
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing
When you are actively seeking outside investors then this goes with the territory, they want to progress the Club by the sounds of it, probably very ambitious people. If they see that the Commercial department needs improving then they should be applauded for that not viewed with suspicion. Aren’t we going to have the same concerns with every potential investor anyway?
The Geography of it all is immaterial, Stuart Day came from Huddersfield if im not mistaken.If you want your all singing all dancing training complex and academy then you need to start embracing these type of people. The future of the Club is dire remember, i dont know what's happened because the Club has hit the financial jackpot over the last 18 months. You can’t have your cake and eat it though and investors will obviously want to have a say on how the Club is run.
There certainly seems to be a charm offensive going on here. giving all the 'right answers' to the questions posed. I have a couple of concerns around the answers. i'm no expert but here's my observations for what they are worth
Holding a Controlling Interest but saying the current Board are doing a fine job and if they want us (them) to join then all they need to do is ask.... Really ?? If I held 51% of the shares i'd damn well want to be Chairman.
"In the event of NO INTEREST LOANS then there would be no security required". What about LOANS WITH INTEREST ? These investors are not putting their money into Little Old Rochdale for the love of the Club or in memory our Our Gracie. They are going to want a return. These types of Loans could be taken out visa vie SD1@bURY with potentially the same 'introductory fees' and higher than normal repayment terms.
Also would the NEW Commercial Staff really be an investment or just a costly overhead ?. Just like a signatory signing on too high a wage that breaks down in training after a week never to be seen again.
I, personally, am very sceptical about the whole approach AND the End Game behind it from our new 'as Supporters'
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing
I’ve heard mentioned loans without security and loans without interest. That just cannot be true and I am concerned at why they are saying things like this. It just doesn’t tally with their emphasis on returns for investors. To use another analogy. If it sounds too good to be true then it usually is.
I’ve heard mentioned loans without security and loans without interest. That just cannot be true and I am concerned at why they are saying things like this. It just doesn’t tally with their emphasis on returns for investors. To use another analogy. If it sounds too good to be true then it usually is.
[Post edited 11 Jun 2020 12:10]
You could submit such a question based on your concerns. Mr. Altman could be invited to respond via the Trust. Others have done so, with a direct response.
“It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooledâ€
You could submit such a question based on your concerns. Mr. Altman could be invited to respond via the Trust. Others have done so, with a direct response.
There's little doubt, either from listening to Dan Altman or looking into his CV, that he's highly intelligent and seems to have an easy knack of locking quickly onto what makes other's tick, enabling him to open people up to his ideas
He got on well with AK when he visited the club
His ready response to the Trust question about his interim stance pending any further developments: "I'm a supporter!"
None of the above is intended negatively. It's just a description based on available information. It's my opinion that he'd run rings round those currently in charge at Dale, and i think they know it. Is that a good or a bad thing? I wouldn't like to say
Totally agree.
Can't decide whether I'm excited or worried!
YOU do not have the right to give someone else permission to tell me what I can and can't do.
I’ve heard mentioned loans without security and loans without interest. That just cannot be true and I am concerned at why they are saying things like this. It just doesn’t tally with their emphasis on returns for investors. To use another analogy. If it sounds too good to be true then it usually is.
[Post edited 11 Jun 2020 12:10]
The usual way in which this happens is by way of monthly "management fees". I have seen this happen at a company I was involved in before..... Investment is made, and those who invest have a say in the running of the business in return for fees, usually paid to their holding company. Of course, the million $ question is how much they would charge in order to make a good return for their own investors, and whether the knowledge and investment they would bring is worth the cost.
If your surmising is correct, it would appear that the carrot was dangled significantly closer to the donkey than might be thought wise, if the intention was to leave it unbitten
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.