| New shares 19:46 - Mar 7 with 32548 views | TTNYear |
Apparently new/more shares are being issued from the club... this needs discussing. |  |
| Anti-cliquism is the last refuge of the messageboard scoundrel - Copyright Dorset Dale productions |
| |  |
| New shares on 22:33 - Mar 7 with 3370 views | judd |
| New shares on 22:29 - Mar 7 by Dorislove |
DB bought 12500 (new) shares at £2 each to become a director if i have read the sharelisting correctly ,the shares now have increased value to £6 each ,who determined this and more importantly WHY. |
The unissued shares have a value of not less than £6. Existing shares that may be sold by the shareholder are valued at what the seller can get and are subject to negotiation. |  |
| |
| New shares on 22:35 - Mar 7 with 3352 views | kiwidale |
| New shares on 22:29 - Mar 7 by Dorislove |
DB bought 12500 (new) shares at £2 each to become a director if i have read the sharelisting correctly ,the shares now have increased value to £6 each ,who determined this and more importantly WHY. |
Seems like easy money even selling at 4 pounds would give an handsome profit. |  |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| New shares on 22:41 - Mar 7 with 3332 views | Dorislove |
| New shares on 22:33 - Mar 7 by judd |
The unissued shares have a value of not less than £6. Existing shares that may be sold by the shareholder are valued at what the seller can get and are subject to negotiation. |
2.4m to be a minor shareholder in a small league1/2 club with fook all fans .Is somebody having a laugh or had more beer than me?? |  | | |
| New shares on 22:44 - Mar 7 with 3319 views | judd |
| New shares on 22:35 - Mar 7 by kiwidale |
Seems like easy money even selling at 4 pounds would give an handsome profit. |
But it's not existing shareholding up for sale. It is authorised shares not subscribed that are available.
A large number of existing shares were bought for 50p. Last lot were £2. | |
| |
| New shares on 22:46 - Mar 7 with 3312 views | judd |
| New shares on 22:41 - Mar 7 by Dorislove |
2.4m to be a minor shareholder in a small league1/2 club with fook all fans .Is somebody having a laugh or had more beer than me?? |
You would be largest but not majority, assuming a single purchaser. | |
| |
| New shares on 22:46 - Mar 7 with 3308 views | Dorislove |
| New shares on 22:44 - Mar 7 by judd |
But it's not existing shareholding up for sale. It is authorised shares not subscribed that are available.
A large number of existing shares were bought for 50p. Last lot were £2. |
What are the rules for existing shareholder selling their shares. | | | |
| New shares on 22:52 - Mar 7 with 3289 views | judd |
| New shares on 22:46 - Mar 7 by Dorislove |
What are the rules for existing shareholder selling their shares. |
As I understand it you write to the secretary and advise that you have found a lunatic willing to take over your share holding.
It's possible you'd get cash for them if you can get the broker who sold George Donnelly for us | |
| |
| New shares on 23:12 - Mar 7 with 3223 views | Dorislove |
| New shares on 22:52 - Mar 7 by judd |
As I understand it you write to the secretary and advise that you have found a lunatic willing to take over your share holding.
It's possible you'd get cash for them if you can get the broker who sold George Donnelly for us |
I dont understand the rules regarding private companies and their share dealings ,if the chairman wants to sell his shares does he have to tell the rest of the board or just say sod it im selling to the nearset mug. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| New shares on 23:18 - Mar 7 with 3213 views | Dorislove |
Apparently new/more shares are being issued from the club... this needs discussing.
What are your thoughts TTnyear | | | |
| New shares on 23:20 - Mar 7 with 3207 views | 49thseason |
Reading through this thread it seems that there are 400,000 shares "in treasury" i.e. not issued to shareholders. The Board have made a decision to issue these shares, perhaps to a single buyer who would then own 44.4% of the club.
I'm not a shareholder but if I were I would have several questions:
1. What do the Articles of Association say about majority shareholding, is there a point at which the major shareholder is obliged to make an offer for the whole company and at which existing shareholders would be obliged to sell? (perhaps 70% or thereabouts).
2. Does the buyer, if indeed it is a single person, want to buy, or have options to buy shares from other shareholders?
3. Are any of the 400,000 new shares available to existing shareholders at £6.00? If not are they happy with the dilution of their shareholding with no means to buy more to offset it?
4. Will the directors be adding more shares to the treasury in case future fundraising is required? If so how many?
5. What is the cash raised going to be used for? Something which is sustainable within the normal income of the club, something which will raise extra income or to meet day to day cash requirements?
6. What is the combined shareholding of the current board as a percentage of a) the current number of shares in issue and b) the increased number of shares in issue
and will any of the existing board by buying more shares as a statement of confidence?
7. Where does the Denehurst Park Company figure in this transaction if at all? I.E. will Denehurst continue to be a separate entity?
8. Can shareholders insist that the board add a new clause to the Articles insisting that no one can own more than 49% of the total number of shares in issue? |  | | |
| New shares on 04:40 - Mar 8 with 3078 views | dawlishdale |
Only just seen this thread.
Firstly, thanks to TTN for putting it in the open...it really needs debating amongst the supporters.
My first thoughts are that this is contrary to everything that previous Boards have stood for, and could easily lead to a Bury, Oldham, or Bolton happening here. Based on my admittedly low understanding of what they propose, we could be inviting a takeover from someone who is not suitable. Let's face it, the number of new owners who actually improve things at clubs is not too high. The last release of shares was done to spread the ownership of the club amongst as many people as possible to avoid any takeover...this appears to invite one.
I'm more suspicious now because of the request for confidentiality...surely the CEO knows that there are hundreds of shareholders some of whom post here?
Why has the price of shares trebled suddenly?
Do current Directors have any interest from potential investors?
It looks to me like the current board are unable or unwilling to invest any additional funds into the business and are now looking to sell...possibly at a profit.
Until such time as the board makes absolutely clear their rationale for this, then I would advise shareholders to vote against the proposals.
Surely the board would have known their plans at the recent forum?
More questions than answers. But I'm highly suspicious due to the secrecy request. | | | |
| New shares on 07:59 - Mar 8 with 2970 views | TalkingSutty |
| New shares on 04:40 - Mar 8 by dawlishdale |
Only just seen this thread.
Firstly, thanks to TTN for putting it in the open...it really needs debating amongst the supporters.
My first thoughts are that this is contrary to everything that previous Boards have stood for, and could easily lead to a Bury, Oldham, or Bolton happening here. Based on my admittedly low understanding of what they propose, we could be inviting a takeover from someone who is not suitable. Let's face it, the number of new owners who actually improve things at clubs is not too high. The last release of shares was done to spread the ownership of the club amongst as many people as possible to avoid any takeover...this appears to invite one.
I'm more suspicious now because of the request for confidentiality...surely the CEO knows that there are hundreds of shareholders some of whom post here?
Why has the price of shares trebled suddenly?
Do current Directors have any interest from potential investors?
It looks to me like the current board are unable or unwilling to invest any additional funds into the business and are now looking to sell...possibly at a profit.
Until such time as the board makes absolutely clear their rationale for this, then I would advise shareholders to vote against the proposals.
Surely the board would have known their plans at the recent forum?
More questions than answers. But I'm highly suspicious due to the secrecy request. |
This post hits the nail on the head and thanks to TTN for starting this very important thread. It seems those in the Boardroom want to change the whole ethics and dynamics of the Club...under a veil of secrecy.
It will be interesting to hear the Trusts take on events seeing as though their members are one of the major shareholders (their members who they represent). If only Forever Bury could have turned back the clock and represented their members instead of jumping into bed with Stuart Day and falling for his false promises they would probably still have a club. Why have the Dale Trust not flagged this up when it's something that could ultimately put the Club into the hands of another Stuart Day character?...apologies if they already have done but the whole fanbase should be aware of this sort of thing, seeing as though the overwhelming number of fans choose to not join the Trust. I wonder what the likes of Chris Dunphy and David Kilpatrick think of these proposals? [Post edited 8 Mar 2020 8:27]
|  | | |
| New shares on 08:24 - Mar 8 with 2918 views | D_Alien |
Whatever the rationale, my concern is the law of unintended consequences
Any measure which increases the risk of the club becoming another BOB (Bury, Oldham, Bolton) is to be avoided at almost any cost. The suspicion that this development arouses is that the recent forum was manipulated to get fans "onside" ahead of this move. There was reference by TP to a 'carefully considered' expansion of funding but in terms of additional external income (perhaps with strings attached) rather than outright ownership, or even the potential for such. There's just no knowing what could happen in five/ten years if a significant block of shares are held by persons or bodies not directly motivated by support for Dale
I don't understand the finer details of share ownership, and the provision of having unsubscribed shares is new to me. Are there any limitations on the amount that can be declared as unsubscribed? It all sounds suspiciously like trying to print money, with all the consequences that might entail
At the forum, the impression i was left with was that whilst financial sustainability was becoming an increasingly difficult balancing act, that task was in good hands. Good hands don't engage in sleight of hand. I'll need some convincing that's not happening |  |
| |
| New shares on 08:33 - Mar 8 with 2888 views | fitzochris |
In simple terms this looks like a way of getting outside investment into the club and giving the investor(s) something in return.
A stake in the club.
That in itself is extremely concerning and it’s time for more questions to be asked of this board of ours. |  |
| |
| New shares on 09:12 - Mar 8 with 2803 views | aleanddale |
| New shares on 21:50 - Mar 7 by RAFCBLUE |
Surely in such an open an transparent environment, perhaps the Chairman, CEO and Finance Director of the club may want to publicly set out their reasons for wanting to hold an EGM with the view to altering the share capital base of the club?
Such an EGM only being necessary if changing the fundamentals of the share capital is actually on the cards.
The first warning sign was some referring to the confidential nature of the information in documents and the Board thanking people for not sharing them publicly.
The second warning sign was the Trust writing to all its members, alerting them to this, circulated before this thread.
I have a very simple observation that if the reasoning for changing is not explained to a shareholder, they should simply vote against the motion presented.
And it should be debated. |
Thank you.
I don’t know who you are RAFCBLUE but your view on all things financial makes sense to me and in my eyes your on the money so to speak. Never been a more apt phrase.
Just look at the shambles at giggle. They went down this route.
As long as everything is out in the open explained properly and does not leave us wide open to outside chancers knocking on the door then I guess there could be good reasons for this.
Anything else apart from total transparency and it stinks and needs opposing.
No chance delete this thread we are better than that as a club and as fans. | | | |
| New shares on 10:01 - Mar 8 with 2727 views | Dalenet |
| New shares on 08:24 - Mar 8 by D_Alien |
Whatever the rationale, my concern is the law of unintended consequences
Any measure which increases the risk of the club becoming another BOB (Bury, Oldham, Bolton) is to be avoided at almost any cost. The suspicion that this development arouses is that the recent forum was manipulated to get fans "onside" ahead of this move. There was reference by TP to a 'carefully considered' expansion of funding but in terms of additional external income (perhaps with strings attached) rather than outright ownership, or even the potential for such. There's just no knowing what could happen in five/ten years if a significant block of shares are held by persons or bodies not directly motivated by support for Dale
I don't understand the finer details of share ownership, and the provision of having unsubscribed shares is new to me. Are there any limitations on the amount that can be declared as unsubscribed? It all sounds suspiciously like trying to print money, with all the consequences that might entail
At the forum, the impression i was left with was that whilst financial sustainability was becoming an increasingly difficult balancing act, that task was in good hands. Good hands don't engage in sleight of hand. I'll need some convincing that's not happening |
I completely get the sentiment and worry that there is a plan to bring in an investor whose cash may be welcome but who would have a significant shareholding that could de-stabilise the club in the future. The club has alluded to the need for further investment in recent times and you wouldn't expect those actions to be made public until an investor was ready to make the commitment.
I am a bit disappointed that this has appeared as a thread as the Trust note suggested a need to keep it confidential. That meant allowing the Trust members to debate with the Trust committee on what they should vote with their 12,000 voting shares and that should have been respected. Everybody can be a Trust member afterall.
If the Board is ready to make a move on an investor we have to be realistic about what we can do to influence it. The Trust own a small percentage of the shares. The fans were given the opportunity to buy shares around 10 years ago and they didn't. The Trust could have taken a route to fund raise to buy shares and take a greater stake over the past 10 years and haven't done so for lots of good reasons. So whether we like it or not we can't do a great deal about what will happen because we haven't taken a meaningful stake. We can of course use our collective voice to try and influence the key Board members on the need to generate investment in a way that doesn't place the club at risk of asset stripping in the future.
Somebody suggested that nobody would want to pump in a few million to get access to a small club with a small fan base. As the club now owns the ground there is a valuable asset to justify an investment so we shouldn't kid ourselves that nobody will be interested.
One final thought. Our previous Chairman was a Dale fan through and through. He still has influence because of his shareholding. He will have a point of view on how this could be approached, whether he will support a change to the share issuance, and how we manage the risk of an inappropriate investor coming on board. Maybe the Trust could seek his counsel on this? | | | |
| New shares on 10:18 - Mar 8 with 2697 views | aleanddale |
Now this is out in the open I do think a statement from the trust is required ASAP.
I am not dismissing this might be the right thing for the club BUT would like to be shown in simplistic terms we cannot be sold down the river to a point The letter R needs shoe horning into BOB ( heaven forbid )
We pride ourselves on cutting cloth regardless of division. Please let’s not jump in lightly to a new model that’s boom or bust.
Rochdale Football Club for everyone even at a lower level rather than a chancers moneybox. [Post edited 8 Mar 2020 10:57]
| | | |
| New shares on 11:25 - Mar 8 with 2596 views | Quigley_dale |
| New shares on 20:32 - Mar 7 by SuddenLad |
This was supposed to be confidential and people were asked to keep it so. |
Ffs have a day off! | | | |
| New shares on 11:40 - Mar 8 with 2559 views | BartRowou |
 |  |
| |
| New shares on 15:48 - Mar 8 with 2357 views | 49thseason |
It would be interesting to find out where Denehurst Park Ltd fits into all this now.
The inference from the fans forum was that the accounts of RAFC and DP have been combined. Looking at Companies House, it seems that a mortgage owed to Thwaites since 1997 was finally paid off earlier this year,
There were initially 1,100,000 shares in DP owned 500,000 each by Hornets and RAFC wih RMBC holding 100,000 but I imagine all those shares are now owned by RAFC
So as Denehurst Park Ltd.now seems to be entirely owned by RAFC how does the idea that the separate companies keep the stadium out of the hands of an incomer stack up? It would seem that whoever owns RAFC Ltd. also owns DP Ltd
Perhaps the trust needs to persuade RAFC to issue shares in DP to existing share holders on a 1 for 1 basis for say 10p a share so that anyone trying to buy a majority in RAFC would also have to approach DP shareholders if they wanted to buy the ground. | | | |
| New shares on 16:49 - Mar 8 with 2273 views | electricblue |
Is DP protected from building any housing developments or to stop from Dale building a new stadium.. |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| New shares on 17:34 - Mar 8 with 2192 views | kiwidale |
| New shares on 10:01 - Mar 8 by Dalenet |
I completely get the sentiment and worry that there is a plan to bring in an investor whose cash may be welcome but who would have a significant shareholding that could de-stabilise the club in the future. The club has alluded to the need for further investment in recent times and you wouldn't expect those actions to be made public until an investor was ready to make the commitment.
I am a bit disappointed that this has appeared as a thread as the Trust note suggested a need to keep it confidential. That meant allowing the Trust members to debate with the Trust committee on what they should vote with their 12,000 voting shares and that should have been respected. Everybody can be a Trust member afterall.
If the Board is ready to make a move on an investor we have to be realistic about what we can do to influence it. The Trust own a small percentage of the shares. The fans were given the opportunity to buy shares around 10 years ago and they didn't. The Trust could have taken a route to fund raise to buy shares and take a greater stake over the past 10 years and haven't done so for lots of good reasons. So whether we like it or not we can't do a great deal about what will happen because we haven't taken a meaningful stake. We can of course use our collective voice to try and influence the key Board members on the need to generate investment in a way that doesn't place the club at risk of asset stripping in the future.
Somebody suggested that nobody would want to pump in a few million to get access to a small club with a small fan base. As the club now owns the ground there is a valuable asset to justify an investment so we shouldn't kid ourselves that nobody will be interested.
One final thought. Our previous Chairman was a Dale fan through and through. He still has influence because of his shareholding. He will have a point of view on how this could be approached, whether he will support a change to the share issuance, and how we manage the risk of an inappropriate investor coming on board. Maybe the Trust could seek his counsel on this? |
There is much that I agree with in your post especially your reference to Chris Dunphy the exception being
"I am a bit disappointed that this has appeared as a thread as the Trust note suggested a need to keep it confidential. That meant allowing the Trust members to debate with the Trust committee on what they should vote with their 12,000 voting shares and that should have been respected. Everybody can be a Trust member afterall."
Is it not true that the Trust represents all fans whether members or not? I understand the need for confidentiality between the board and any third parties but I question why the trust needs to keep this confidential this is an issue that concerns all fans. The trust is in a difficult situation here it's a fine line between cooperation with the board and keeping the board at arms length my concern and one shared by others is the lack of trust in what is happening behind the scenes. The trust should distance themselves from this until all cards are on the table. [Post edited 8 Mar 2020 17:54]
| |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| New shares on 17:57 - Mar 8 with 2146 views | Dalenet |
| New shares on 17:34 - Mar 8 by kiwidale |
There is much that I agree with in your post especially your reference to Chris Dunphy the exception being
"I am a bit disappointed that this has appeared as a thread as the Trust note suggested a need to keep it confidential. That meant allowing the Trust members to debate with the Trust committee on what they should vote with their 12,000 voting shares and that should have been respected. Everybody can be a Trust member afterall."
Is it not true that the Trust represents all fans whether members or not? I understand the need for confidentiality between the board and any third parties but I question why the trust needs to keep this confidential this is an issue that concerns all fans. The trust is in a difficult situation here it's a fine line between cooperation with the board and keeping the board at arms length my concern and one shared by others is the lack of trust in what is happening behind the scenes. The trust should distance themselves from this until all cards are on the table. [Post edited 8 Mar 2020 17:54]
|
I understand the perspective Kiwi. And the Trust wrote to its members with the "confidential clause" intact so they were aware of the ask. They said they were taking advice on the implications of the EGM and invited comments/observations from the members. Whatever they vote they are damned.
I suspect the Trust knew that once they released the content to members it would be published on here. So they knew what they were doing.
Almost everybody will be worried by the motives of the Board and those of us that remember the Cannon era won't want that again. But a collective of 2500 individuals can't decide who owns a business when those same 2500 people don't own it either. The accounts show that we sail close to the wind and a couple of seasons without a cup run or a player sale and we are sunk. The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to manage to a budget that is probably lower than League One will need, or to get more investment. I am open minded to the later because the former isn't very palatable. We just need to ask about the implications of the vote (which the Trust is doing) and ask the Board who they are seeking to invest in the club and what is their motive. I don't naturally distrust everybody....but maybe I am in the minority. | | | |
| New shares on 18:12 - Mar 8 with 2115 views | kiwidale |
| New shares on 17:57 - Mar 8 by Dalenet |
I understand the perspective Kiwi. And the Trust wrote to its members with the "confidential clause" intact so they were aware of the ask. They said they were taking advice on the implications of the EGM and invited comments/observations from the members. Whatever they vote they are damned.
I suspect the Trust knew that once they released the content to members it would be published on here. So they knew what they were doing.
Almost everybody will be worried by the motives of the Board and those of us that remember the Cannon era won't want that again. But a collective of 2500 individuals can't decide who owns a business when those same 2500 people don't own it either. The accounts show that we sail close to the wind and a couple of seasons without a cup run or a player sale and we are sunk. The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to manage to a budget that is probably lower than League One will need, or to get more investment. I am open minded to the later because the former isn't very palatable. We just need to ask about the implications of the vote (which the Trust is doing) and ask the Board who they are seeking to invest in the club and what is their motive. I don't naturally distrust everybody....but maybe I am in the minority. |
Thank you for your courteous reply I am confident that the trust will act in the best interests of the fans. | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| New shares on 18:59 - Mar 8 with 2060 views | James1980 |
Dare I suggest if you're not in the trust join it. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
