| Club satement on 12:43 - Apr 7 with 2423 views | Hopwoodblue |
Would obtaining the shares enable Dunphy to sell the ground and move us to a new purpose built stadium somewhere in Rochdale (maybe Kingsway) which would be Ironic ? |  |
|  |
| Club satement on 12:44 - Apr 7 with 2423 views | Hopwoodblue |
Would obtaining the shares enable Dunphy to sell the ground and move us to a new purpose built stadium somewhere in Rochdale ? (maybe Kingsway) which would be Ironic. | |
| |
| Club satement on 12:45 - Apr 7 with 2423 views | judd |
| Club satement on 12:42 - Apr 7 by Hopwoodblue |
Would obtaining the shares enable Dunphy to sell the ground and move us to a new
ground somewhere (maybe Kingsway) which would be Ironic ? |
It would depend on the structure of shareholding. If the SC shares are acquired by RAFC as it currently exists then current shareholders would be shareholders in the new arrangement, I guess, thereby retaining control over the Directors as they currently do. |  |
| |
| Club satement on 13:42 - Apr 7 with 2267 views | BrighouseDale |
Would it actually be beneficial in any way to move to a new ground? I assume we'd have to sell Spotland (and its debt) to someone else to enable us to do so. And anyway, I don't want to move... unless they bring it closer to Brighouse. |  |
| I am the resurrection and I am the light. |
| |
| Club satement on 14:05 - Apr 7 with 2219 views | off2div1 |
Club satement (English as spoken on here will be on your case)  |  | | |
| Club satement on 14:29 - Apr 7 with 2151 views | judd |
| Club satement on 14:05 - Apr 7 by off2div1 |
Club satement (English as spoken on here will be on your case) |
Where's the full stop? | |
| |
| Club satement on 14:30 - Apr 7 with 2150 views | MoonyDale |
From the Hornets.............".We'd be crazy to take their word, verbal or in writing Puggy. There's a significant faction at the football club that would like Hornets to go out of business" Yes because you have been so transparent and honest in all your dealings over the years you egg chasing tossers. |  |
| |
| Club satement on 14:40 - Apr 7 with 2125 views | TTNYear |
Pugwash has always been a 'one'. His Hogan comment smacks of a person who has supported a club that has no concept of balancing the books. Plus I would imagine that Hogan has a clause if someone comes offering serious cash.
Oh and Puggy, if we are so hard up why are we looking to take on the Stadium Company debt?
Divvy.. |  |
| Anti-cliquism is the last refuge of the messageboard scoundrel - Copyright Dorset Dale productions |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Club satement on 14:41 - Apr 7 with 2123 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
Wonder if there will be a clause in the lease that allows for default on lease payments leading to the contract being torn up and hornets being booted out. Lets hope so as its bound to happen again soon!!!! |  |
| |
| Club satement on 14:43 - Apr 7 with 2117 views | olympicdale |
This sounds like good news, to own the ground outright will be a massive plus in its future, and the football clubs'. |  |
| |
| Club satement on 15:03 - Apr 7 with 2072 views | TalkingSutty |
| Club satement on 14:41 - Apr 7 by Thacks_Rabbits |
Wonder if there will be a clause in the lease that allows for default on lease payments leading to the contract being torn up and hornets being booted out. Lets hope so as its bound to happen again soon!!!! |
For the benefit of both parties it would make sense not to have a fall out over the stadium issue. I don't see how Hornets have any say on this matter, they don't have shares in the company do they? They shouldn't even be involved on issues regarding the stadium they gave up that privilege when they passed on their shares.
It wouldn't be right to have Hornets as tenants and make life hard for them because that wouldn't go down well with the Rochdale public, the best way forward is for all parties to sit down and put their cards on the table from a financial point of view and thrash out a rental deal which Hornets are capable of meeting. If they regularly fall behind with payments then evict them, what else can you do?
If there is stalemate regarding the stadium and it continues to lose money then maybe the time would be right to look at moving to a new purpose build location around the town, establishing ourselves in league one would also help should we have to go down that road, in an ideal world we would stay at Spotland. |  | | |
| Club satement on 15:10 - Apr 7 with 2048 views | MoonyDale |
| Club satement on 15:03 - Apr 7 by TalkingSutty |
For the benefit of both parties it would make sense not to have a fall out over the stadium issue. I don't see how Hornets have any say on this matter, they don't have shares in the company do they? They shouldn't even be involved on issues regarding the stadium they gave up that privilege when they passed on their shares.
It wouldn't be right to have Hornets as tenants and make life hard for them because that wouldn't go down well with the Rochdale public, the best way forward is for all parties to sit down and put their cards on the table from a financial point of view and thrash out a rental deal which Hornets are capable of meeting. If they regularly fall behind with payments then evict them, what else can you do?
If there is stalemate regarding the stadium and it continues to lose money then maybe the time would be right to look at moving to a new purpose build location around the town, establishing ourselves in league one would also help should we have to go down that road, in an ideal world we would stay at Spotland. |
They should have no say whatsoever in the share deal with the RFL or the council, but they do have a lot of support from our council. The debt is the clincher here, if it isn't addressed and soon this debt will no doubt cause the Stad Co to die on it's proverbial backside and we will all be up pooh creek. It all depends on how much the RFL want and I have my own ideas about that..... | |
| |
| Club satement on 15:22 - Apr 7 with 2010 views | TalkingSutty |
| Club satement on 15:10 - Apr 7 by MoonyDale |
They should have no say whatsoever in the share deal with the RFL or the council, but they do have a lot of support from our council. The debt is the clincher here, if it isn't addressed and soon this debt will no doubt cause the Stad Co to die on it's proverbial backside and we will all be up pooh creek. It all depends on how much the RFL want and I have my own ideas about that..... |
If the rugby side have a lot of support from the council then its up to the council to state they are willing to help fund the stadium debt on Hornets behalf and get the message out in the public domain but I bet they don't.
I don't think the local tax payers would be to happy if they knew of the councils intentions at a time when an awful lot of people are losing their jobs and being subjected to pay freezes. There would be a public outcry if the council went down that route. | | | |
| Club satement on 15:29 - Apr 7 with 1988 views | D_Alien |
| Club satement on 15:22 - Apr 7 by TalkingSutty |
If the rugby side have a lot of support from the council then its up to the council to state they are willing to help fund the stadium debt on Hornets behalf and get the message out in the public domain but I bet they don't.
I don't think the local tax payers would be to happy if they knew of the councils intentions at a time when an awful lot of people are losing their jobs and being subjected to pay freezes. There would be a public outcry if the council went down that route. |
Any agreements or clauses which leaves RAFC without full and unfettered control of the Stadium should be dismissed.
IF the Dale are going to take this on - and it sounds like there's been a lot of work already behind the scenes to see how this could be funded - it'd be reckless to do so if any third party could scupper future plans by having an "interest" in the funding or leverage of debt. |  |
| |
| Club satement on 15:43 - Apr 7 with 1957 views | TalkingSutty |
| Club satement on 15:29 - Apr 7 by D_Alien |
Any agreements or clauses which leaves RAFC without full and unfettered control of the Stadium should be dismissed.
IF the Dale are going to take this on - and it sounds like there's been a lot of work already behind the scenes to see how this could be funded - it'd be reckless to do so if any third party could scupper future plans by having an "interest" in the funding or leverage of debt. |
correct. | | | |
| Club satement on 15:48 - Apr 7 with 1776 views | KenBoon |
The cold hard facts are Hornets need "the afc" more than "the afc" need Hornets. Without "the afc" there is no Spotland. |  | | |
| Club satement on 16:16 - Apr 7 with 1709 views | pioneer |
Isn't there a requirement that all parties have to agree to a transfer/sale of one party's shares?
I seem to recall the transfer of the old Rochdale Hornets' shares to the RFL was never explained, ie was this agreed to by RMBC and RAFC.
If that is the case then it would mean the RFL having to agree to RAFC buying out the RMBC shares.
Lets hope there is a way to make this happen - I have continually said that this joint ownership is a recipe for disaster in the long term - It happened as a solution to a problem at the timjke when neither party could afford to stand on their own, ground wise. But that is no longer the case. Why would the football club invest serious money in the ground when they only have a minority interest in it?
It would be sad to see us move - we have a neat, tidy, comfortable stadium that is well thought of by many opposing clubs/fans . . . and the best chippy in the league (even though you cannot take em in!) |  | | |
| Club satement on 16:24 - Apr 7 with 1688 views | SuddenLad |
| Club satement on 16:16 - Apr 7 by pioneer |
Isn't there a requirement that all parties have to agree to a transfer/sale of one party's shares?
I seem to recall the transfer of the old Rochdale Hornets' shares to the RFL was never explained, ie was this agreed to by RMBC and RAFC.
If that is the case then it would mean the RFL having to agree to RAFC buying out the RMBC shares.
Lets hope there is a way to make this happen - I have continually said that this joint ownership is a recipe for disaster in the long term - It happened as a solution to a problem at the timjke when neither party could afford to stand on their own, ground wise. But that is no longer the case. Why would the football club invest serious money in the ground when they only have a minority interest in it?
It would be sad to see us move - we have a neat, tidy, comfortable stadium that is well thought of by many opposing clubs/fans . . . and the best chippy in the league (even though you cannot take em in!) |
If my understanding of the situation is correct, Hornets will have no say in the matter, as they do not own the shares. They aren't in a position to negotiate because they have no ownership stake in what is being discussed.
Hornets will have to put their case to the RL who will then negotiate (or not) with a view to representing their 'best interests'.
Any suggestions from users of Hornets messageboard that imply that the shares are worth 'millions' is utter nonsense. If that were the case, they would never have gone bust. They would have used the shares to bail themselves out. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Club satement on 16:48 - Apr 7 with 1626 views | Albert_Whitehurst |
I would imagine the RFL would love to get shut of the shares as they're pretty worthless sitting in their vaults. |  | | |
| Club satement on 17:05 - Apr 7 with 1593 views | TalkingSutty |
| Club satement on 16:48 - Apr 7 by Albert_Whitehurst |
I would imagine the RFL would love to get shut of the shares as they're pretty worthless sitting in their vaults. |
If the RFL are in possession of the shares then are they also liable to service the debt on the stadium ? | | | |
| Club satement on 17:17 - Apr 7 with 1565 views | MoonyDale |
| Club satement on 17:05 - Apr 7 by TalkingSutty |
If the RFL are in possession of the shares then are they also liable to service the debt on the stadium ? |
I would say so TS, they own them (albeit illegally) So they must be liable for their share of the debt. They can't and shouldn't be allowed it both ways........ | |
| |
| Club satement on 17:34 - Apr 7 with 1533 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
I still cannot understand wether the RFL have any LEGAL rights to the shares.
Surely RAFC and RMBC would have had to give Legal Consent( under the M&AA of the Stadium Co Ltd) to any transfer when the evil deed was done and that would certainly not have happened.
The only "possession" they have must be a share certificate,covered in tea/coffee stains made out to the old Hornets? | | | |
| Club satement on 18:04 - Apr 7 with 1472 views | off2div1 |
| Club satement on 14:29 - Apr 7 by judd |
Where's the full stop? |
The laughing man ate it. | | | |
| Club satement on 18:07 - Apr 7 with 1460 views | judd |
| Club satement on 17:05 - Apr 7 by TalkingSutty |
If the RFL are in possession of the shares then are they also liable to service the debt on the stadium ? |
Not sure that shareholders are responsible for any debts. That would be the statutory Directors, but as it is a limited Company, that liability will probably be limited to loans and personal guarantees. | |
| |
| Club satement on 18:17 - Apr 7 with 1435 views | pioneer |
| Club satement on 17:34 - Apr 7 by Yorkshire_Dale |
I still cannot understand wether the RFL have any LEGAL rights to the shares.
Surely RAFC and RMBC would have had to give Legal Consent( under the M&AA of the Stadium Co Ltd) to any transfer when the evil deed was done and that would certainly not have happened.
The only "possession" they have must be a share certificate,covered in tea/coffee stains made out to the old Hornets? |
That's an interesting point - when the old Rochdale Hornets went bust - they left a lot of debts. Presumably those owed money had a claim on the sales of any assets the old club had - and these shares in property would presumably fall under that category. So not clear how RFL was able to claim them. Seems to be inconsistent with the terms of the ownership agreement as you say and also inconsistent with the rights of creditors. Unless of course the RFL was the biggest creditor and had first dibbs on the old club's assets.
Are there any legal minds on this forum who can offer a more informed view? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.