| New shares 19:46 - Mar 7 with 32647 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 00:21 - Mar 9 with 3264 views | kiwidale |
| New shares on 21:57 - Mar 8 by D_Alien |
I very much doubt there is any connection between what James posted and your previous post(s). It wasn't even in reply to you. It seems to me he was simply making an observation based on all the posts in this thread, in terms of shareholding |
I accept that now and apologise to James. |  |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| New shares on 03:25 - Mar 9 with 3217 views | Sandyman |
There is no doubt that outside investment has been needed and desired at RAFC for years. Our directors are comfortable but not multi-millionaires that can pump ££££m's into the club, but have run it solvently (where many others have not!) for a long long time. Our model has served us well if being damn difficult to run. Our directors deserve enormous credit for keeping RAFC alive and in League One. The recent presentation at the Fans Forum showed that RAFC is being run properly.
Maybe this share issue without pre-emptive rights to buy for existing shareholders is a vehicle to invite someone / some consortium to invest in RAFC. That also could invite (IMHO), as motion 2 to the EGM is worded, someone to come in and basically grab a League One club and its assets, land and all for notional £2.4milion, which is a steal. Such a purchaser, as approved by the RAFC board, without the scrutiny of other shareholders and the Dale Trust, may be a fantastic asset to RAFC and it's aim to get in the Championship. He/she/they may be a con person/people of the SD1 + 2 ilk, playing the game to get their hands on the land and assets of Spotland. I'd sort of trust the current board to make the right call, but as a shareholder, I would have to know much more about any potential investor before using my vote one way or another. I guess the Trust will think likewise but they will be better informed taking expert advice on a complex issue.
Motion 3 on the EGM agenda offers a smaller share offer to a potential investor than motion 2. Perhaps a way to tempt someone in and then we can see the cut of their jib before allowing them a bigger slice of the Dale pie?
It has to be said, the procedure that RAFC are going through re: the EGM is entirely correct in company law (I've done the boring stuff and checked it out). This hint of secrecy as to whom a potential investor might be , quite rightly, sets the alarm bells ringing amongst us all. "Commercial confidentiality" will no doubt be a reason offered, but we want to know who wants to come in and why. And rightly so.
This is a new experience for us all. A lot of clubs change owners like underkecks. We don't. A potential change of ownership is a rare and unsettling thing for us.
We've seen the videos on Youtube of Neville Neville and bucket fans creaming themselves over Stewart Day. We know what happened afterwards. We don't want that.
We don't want an SD2 asset stripping either.
We've seen the "we've taken your town" BIFFO's led into a massive financial mire by owner after owner. We don't want that.
Macclesfield's benefactor seems to have empty pockets now. We don't want that.
We've seen what happens when your sugar daddy shuffles of his mortal coil and leaves Radio Bolton's favourite club on the edge of extinction. We don't want that.
Blackpool. We don't want that.
I could go on.
Dale fans, Trust members and shareholders will be extremely vigilant on any moves regarding ownership of the club and so they should, as we ALL want make sure RAFC is in safe hands, now and forever. I'm sure the clubs directors do as well, but forensic scrutiny is going to be there of any potential purchaser of a large block of shares. We'd be daft not to take heed of what has happened to clubs around us.
This is a massively complex issue. More factual information will come out before the AGM / EGM . As it stands, Motion 3 is a reasonable halfway house, releasing shares of an aggregate nominal amount of £198,521.50 rather than an aggregate nominal amount of £348,521.50 because full control of the club is not being given to ??? investor, only a part.
This might be an incorrect analysis but that's how I see it.
UP THE DALE |  | | |
| New shares on 04:15 - Mar 9 with 3201 views | D_Alien |
| New shares on 03:25 - Mar 9 by Sandyman |
There is no doubt that outside investment has been needed and desired at RAFC for years. Our directors are comfortable but not multi-millionaires that can pump ££££m's into the club, but have run it solvently (where many others have not!) for a long long time. Our model has served us well if being damn difficult to run. Our directors deserve enormous credit for keeping RAFC alive and in League One. The recent presentation at the Fans Forum showed that RAFC is being run properly.
Maybe this share issue without pre-emptive rights to buy for existing shareholders is a vehicle to invite someone / some consortium to invest in RAFC. That also could invite (IMHO), as motion 2 to the EGM is worded, someone to come in and basically grab a League One club and its assets, land and all for notional £2.4milion, which is a steal. Such a purchaser, as approved by the RAFC board, without the scrutiny of other shareholders and the Dale Trust, may be a fantastic asset to RAFC and it's aim to get in the Championship. He/she/they may be a con person/people of the SD1 + 2 ilk, playing the game to get their hands on the land and assets of Spotland. I'd sort of trust the current board to make the right call, but as a shareholder, I would have to know much more about any potential investor before using my vote one way or another. I guess the Trust will think likewise but they will be better informed taking expert advice on a complex issue.
Motion 3 on the EGM agenda offers a smaller share offer to a potential investor than motion 2. Perhaps a way to tempt someone in and then we can see the cut of their jib before allowing them a bigger slice of the Dale pie?
It has to be said, the procedure that RAFC are going through re: the EGM is entirely correct in company law (I've done the boring stuff and checked it out). This hint of secrecy as to whom a potential investor might be , quite rightly, sets the alarm bells ringing amongst us all. "Commercial confidentiality" will no doubt be a reason offered, but we want to know who wants to come in and why. And rightly so.
This is a new experience for us all. A lot of clubs change owners like underkecks. We don't. A potential change of ownership is a rare and unsettling thing for us.
We've seen the videos on Youtube of Neville Neville and bucket fans creaming themselves over Stewart Day. We know what happened afterwards. We don't want that.
We don't want an SD2 asset stripping either.
We've seen the "we've taken your town" BIFFO's led into a massive financial mire by owner after owner. We don't want that.
Macclesfield's benefactor seems to have empty pockets now. We don't want that.
We've seen what happens when your sugar daddy shuffles of his mortal coil and leaves Radio Bolton's favourite club on the edge of extinction. We don't want that.
Blackpool. We don't want that.
I could go on.
Dale fans, Trust members and shareholders will be extremely vigilant on any moves regarding ownership of the club and so they should, as we ALL want make sure RAFC is in safe hands, now and forever. I'm sure the clubs directors do as well, but forensic scrutiny is going to be there of any potential purchaser of a large block of shares. We'd be daft not to take heed of what has happened to clubs around us.
This is a massively complex issue. More factual information will come out before the AGM / EGM . As it stands, Motion 3 is a reasonable halfway house, releasing shares of an aggregate nominal amount of £198,521.50 rather than an aggregate nominal amount of £348,521.50 because full control of the club is not being given to ??? investor, only a part.
This might be an incorrect analysis but that's how I see it.
UP THE DALE |
Thanks for that, Sandyman. It's actually set into focus certain aspects of the proposals that have only really been indirectly referred to hitherto, especially to non-shareholders who don't have access to them - but who are nonetheless interested parties as lifelong followers of the club
What you've provided is the level of openness required for a proper debate |  |
| |
| New shares on 06:39 - Mar 9 with 3137 views | aleanddale |
| New shares on 03:25 - Mar 9 by Sandyman |
There is no doubt that outside investment has been needed and desired at RAFC for years. Our directors are comfortable but not multi-millionaires that can pump ££££m's into the club, but have run it solvently (where many others have not!) for a long long time. Our model has served us well if being damn difficult to run. Our directors deserve enormous credit for keeping RAFC alive and in League One. The recent presentation at the Fans Forum showed that RAFC is being run properly.
Maybe this share issue without pre-emptive rights to buy for existing shareholders is a vehicle to invite someone / some consortium to invest in RAFC. That also could invite (IMHO), as motion 2 to the EGM is worded, someone to come in and basically grab a League One club and its assets, land and all for notional £2.4milion, which is a steal. Such a purchaser, as approved by the RAFC board, without the scrutiny of other shareholders and the Dale Trust, may be a fantastic asset to RAFC and it's aim to get in the Championship. He/she/they may be a con person/people of the SD1 + 2 ilk, playing the game to get their hands on the land and assets of Spotland. I'd sort of trust the current board to make the right call, but as a shareholder, I would have to know much more about any potential investor before using my vote one way or another. I guess the Trust will think likewise but they will be better informed taking expert advice on a complex issue.
Motion 3 on the EGM agenda offers a smaller share offer to a potential investor than motion 2. Perhaps a way to tempt someone in and then we can see the cut of their jib before allowing them a bigger slice of the Dale pie?
It has to be said, the procedure that RAFC are going through re: the EGM is entirely correct in company law (I've done the boring stuff and checked it out). This hint of secrecy as to whom a potential investor might be , quite rightly, sets the alarm bells ringing amongst us all. "Commercial confidentiality" will no doubt be a reason offered, but we want to know who wants to come in and why. And rightly so.
This is a new experience for us all. A lot of clubs change owners like underkecks. We don't. A potential change of ownership is a rare and unsettling thing for us.
We've seen the videos on Youtube of Neville Neville and bucket fans creaming themselves over Stewart Day. We know what happened afterwards. We don't want that.
We don't want an SD2 asset stripping either.
We've seen the "we've taken your town" BIFFO's led into a massive financial mire by owner after owner. We don't want that.
Macclesfield's benefactor seems to have empty pockets now. We don't want that.
We've seen what happens when your sugar daddy shuffles of his mortal coil and leaves Radio Bolton's favourite club on the edge of extinction. We don't want that.
Blackpool. We don't want that.
I could go on.
Dale fans, Trust members and shareholders will be extremely vigilant on any moves regarding ownership of the club and so they should, as we ALL want make sure RAFC is in safe hands, now and forever. I'm sure the clubs directors do as well, but forensic scrutiny is going to be there of any potential purchaser of a large block of shares. We'd be daft not to take heed of what has happened to clubs around us.
This is a massively complex issue. More factual information will come out before the AGM / EGM . As it stands, Motion 3 is a reasonable halfway house, releasing shares of an aggregate nominal amount of £198,521.50 rather than an aggregate nominal amount of £348,521.50 because full control of the club is not being given to ??? investor, only a part.
This might be an incorrect analysis but that's how I see it.
UP THE DALE |
Fantastic post.
Made all the better with the inclusion of the work underkecks! | | | |
| New shares on 06:50 - Mar 9 with 3125 views | kiwidale |
| New shares on 03:25 - Mar 9 by Sandyman |
There is no doubt that outside investment has been needed and desired at RAFC for years. Our directors are comfortable but not multi-millionaires that can pump ££££m's into the club, but have run it solvently (where many others have not!) for a long long time. Our model has served us well if being damn difficult to run. Our directors deserve enormous credit for keeping RAFC alive and in League One. The recent presentation at the Fans Forum showed that RAFC is being run properly.
Maybe this share issue without pre-emptive rights to buy for existing shareholders is a vehicle to invite someone / some consortium to invest in RAFC. That also could invite (IMHO), as motion 2 to the EGM is worded, someone to come in and basically grab a League One club and its assets, land and all for notional £2.4milion, which is a steal. Such a purchaser, as approved by the RAFC board, without the scrutiny of other shareholders and the Dale Trust, may be a fantastic asset to RAFC and it's aim to get in the Championship. He/she/they may be a con person/people of the SD1 + 2 ilk, playing the game to get their hands on the land and assets of Spotland. I'd sort of trust the current board to make the right call, but as a shareholder, I would have to know much more about any potential investor before using my vote one way or another. I guess the Trust will think likewise but they will be better informed taking expert advice on a complex issue.
Motion 3 on the EGM agenda offers a smaller share offer to a potential investor than motion 2. Perhaps a way to tempt someone in and then we can see the cut of their jib before allowing them a bigger slice of the Dale pie?
It has to be said, the procedure that RAFC are going through re: the EGM is entirely correct in company law (I've done the boring stuff and checked it out). This hint of secrecy as to whom a potential investor might be , quite rightly, sets the alarm bells ringing amongst us all. "Commercial confidentiality" will no doubt be a reason offered, but we want to know who wants to come in and why. And rightly so.
This is a new experience for us all. A lot of clubs change owners like underkecks. We don't. A potential change of ownership is a rare and unsettling thing for us.
We've seen the videos on Youtube of Neville Neville and bucket fans creaming themselves over Stewart Day. We know what happened afterwards. We don't want that.
We don't want an SD2 asset stripping either.
We've seen the "we've taken your town" BIFFO's led into a massive financial mire by owner after owner. We don't want that.
Macclesfield's benefactor seems to have empty pockets now. We don't want that.
We've seen what happens when your sugar daddy shuffles of his mortal coil and leaves Radio Bolton's favourite club on the edge of extinction. We don't want that.
Blackpool. We don't want that.
I could go on.
Dale fans, Trust members and shareholders will be extremely vigilant on any moves regarding ownership of the club and so they should, as we ALL want make sure RAFC is in safe hands, now and forever. I'm sure the clubs directors do as well, but forensic scrutiny is going to be there of any potential purchaser of a large block of shares. We'd be daft not to take heed of what has happened to clubs around us.
This is a massively complex issue. More factual information will come out before the AGM / EGM . As it stands, Motion 3 is a reasonable halfway house, releasing shares of an aggregate nominal amount of £198,521.50 rather than an aggregate nominal amount of £348,521.50 because full control of the club is not being given to ??? investor, only a part.
This might be an incorrect analysis but that's how I see it.
UP THE DALE |
Fantastic post Sandy take a bow.  [Post edited 9 Mar 2020 6:51]
| |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| New shares on 06:58 - Mar 9 with 3118 views | kiwidale |
| New shares on 21:59 - Mar 8 by nordenblue |
Do you need to justify your actions to someone on the other side of the planet?
Carry on what you're doing James,with your enthusiasm [Post edited 8 Mar 2020 22:02]
|
This is not about me norden dont make it out to be, Ive admitted my mistake about what James posted all my other points are valid. | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| New shares on 07:15 - Mar 9 with 3104 views | TalkingSutty |
| New shares on 22:30 - Mar 8 by 442Dale |
Very true. For those who may have had valid reasons not to join the Trust in the past, reasons that remain valid now, it’s certainly worth considering again. Up to individuals of course but the advantages right now are obvious.
For those who have any issues sorting joining as mentioned, more than happy to sort your membership if you would like, send a PM with details.
And no, I’m not on the Trust. I’m as (constructively) critical of them as anyone, but their role is vital. |
I actually think there are loads of fans who would jump on board with the Trust (me) but they are viewed by many as a passive mouthpiece for those who are running the Club. They might not like that analogy but it’s the general consensus when you ask around that they are in the Clubs back pocket. The pretty farcical Q&A sessions with the Directors is a perfect example, patronising and mostly lip service, promises by those answering the questions often never fulfilled.
The main focus of the Trust has to be the welfare of the Club itself, alongside the representation of the Trust members and in my opinion the Trust is compromised. The fact they have, or have had, Club employees on the Trust Board is the biggest red flag when it comes to impartiality, that should never have been allowed to happen. As suggested,now would have been the Ideal time for the Trust to voice their concerns regarding the new shares discussion but instead they keep the secret and it takes an individual fan to start a thread and break the silence.
So contrary to your suggestion that it’s now worth considering joining the Trust, i would ask why? The Trust have a cosy relationship going on with those running the Club, a bit like a Saturday Club with access to all areas, i don’t see them ever jeopardising that by upsetting the CEO or the Directors. Going off on a tangent...why are the Trust and the Club running two separate Curry Nights, or have i misinterpreted that? [Post edited 9 Mar 2020 7:27]
|  | | |
| New shares on 07:25 - Mar 9 with 3084 views | kiwidale |
| New shares on 07:15 - Mar 9 by TalkingSutty |
I actually think there are loads of fans who would jump on board with the Trust (me) but they are viewed by many as a passive mouthpiece for those who are running the Club. They might not like that analogy but it’s the general consensus when you ask around that they are in the Clubs back pocket. The pretty farcical Q&A sessions with the Directors is a perfect example, patronising and mostly lip service, promises by those answering the questions often never fulfilled.
The main focus of the Trust has to be the welfare of the Club itself, alongside the representation of the Trust members and in my opinion the Trust is compromised. The fact they have, or have had, Club employees on the Trust Board is the biggest red flag when it comes to impartiality, that should never have been allowed to happen. As suggested,now would have been the Ideal time for the Trust to voice their concerns regarding the new shares discussion but instead they keep the secret and it takes an individual fan to start a thread and break the silence.
So contrary to your suggestion that it’s now worth considering joining the Trust, i would ask why? The Trust have a cosy relationship going on with those running the Club, a bit like a Saturday Club with access to all areas, i don’t see them ever jeopardising that by upsetting the CEO or the Directors. Going off on a tangent...why are the Trust and the Club running two separate Curry Nights, or have i misinterpreted that? [Post edited 9 Mar 2020 7:27]
|
Well Sutty you are a brave man If I had posted that I would have been pilloried on here. | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| New shares on 07:31 - Mar 9 with 3067 views | TalkingSutty |
So what...it’s a discussion forum, it doesn’t mean my opinion is correct. | | | |
| New shares on 07:41 - Mar 9 with 3032 views | kiwidale |
| New shares on 07:31 - Mar 9 by TalkingSutty |
So what...it’s a discussion forum, it doesn’t mean my opinion is correct. |
Your opinion may not be correct but it is a valid opinion I would add that if push comes to shove the trust will represent and put its members and non member fans first. | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| New shares on 07:49 - Mar 9 with 3011 views | TalkingSutty |
| New shares on 07:41 - Mar 9 by kiwidale |
Your opinion may not be correct but it is a valid opinion I would add that if push comes to shove the trust will represent and put its members and non member fans first. |
...and at that point I will view the Trust in a different light, let’s see how things pan out. | | | |
| New shares on 09:03 - Mar 9 with 2932 views | sweetcorn |
| New shares on 07:25 - Mar 9 by kiwidale |
Well Sutty you are a brave man If I had posted that I would have been pilloried on here. |
Your previous post just said it’s not about you this thread, you then yourself try to make it about yourself, stfu.
There are more than a few people on here (Myself included) have voiced that they aren’t sure about an intimate relationship between a trust board member and the CEO, it stinks of a conflict of interest. It’s a valid discussion point raised by TS whether you agree or disagree, it still needs a discussion. |  |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| New shares on 09:22 - Mar 9 with 2899 views | tony_roch975 |
| New shares on 03:25 - Mar 9 by Sandyman |
There is no doubt that outside investment has been needed and desired at RAFC for years. Our directors are comfortable but not multi-millionaires that can pump ££££m's into the club, but have run it solvently (where many others have not!) for a long long time. Our model has served us well if being damn difficult to run. Our directors deserve enormous credit for keeping RAFC alive and in League One. The recent presentation at the Fans Forum showed that RAFC is being run properly.
Maybe this share issue without pre-emptive rights to buy for existing shareholders is a vehicle to invite someone / some consortium to invest in RAFC. That also could invite (IMHO), as motion 2 to the EGM is worded, someone to come in and basically grab a League One club and its assets, land and all for notional £2.4milion, which is a steal. Such a purchaser, as approved by the RAFC board, without the scrutiny of other shareholders and the Dale Trust, may be a fantastic asset to RAFC and it's aim to get in the Championship. He/she/they may be a con person/people of the SD1 + 2 ilk, playing the game to get their hands on the land and assets of Spotland. I'd sort of trust the current board to make the right call, but as a shareholder, I would have to know much more about any potential investor before using my vote one way or another. I guess the Trust will think likewise but they will be better informed taking expert advice on a complex issue.
Motion 3 on the EGM agenda offers a smaller share offer to a potential investor than motion 2. Perhaps a way to tempt someone in and then we can see the cut of their jib before allowing them a bigger slice of the Dale pie?
It has to be said, the procedure that RAFC are going through re: the EGM is entirely correct in company law (I've done the boring stuff and checked it out). This hint of secrecy as to whom a potential investor might be , quite rightly, sets the alarm bells ringing amongst us all. "Commercial confidentiality" will no doubt be a reason offered, but we want to know who wants to come in and why. And rightly so.
This is a new experience for us all. A lot of clubs change owners like underkecks. We don't. A potential change of ownership is a rare and unsettling thing for us.
We've seen the videos on Youtube of Neville Neville and bucket fans creaming themselves over Stewart Day. We know what happened afterwards. We don't want that.
We don't want an SD2 asset stripping either.
We've seen the "we've taken your town" BIFFO's led into a massive financial mire by owner after owner. We don't want that.
Macclesfield's benefactor seems to have empty pockets now. We don't want that.
We've seen what happens when your sugar daddy shuffles of his mortal coil and leaves Radio Bolton's favourite club on the edge of extinction. We don't want that.
Blackpool. We don't want that.
I could go on.
Dale fans, Trust members and shareholders will be extremely vigilant on any moves regarding ownership of the club and so they should, as we ALL want make sure RAFC is in safe hands, now and forever. I'm sure the clubs directors do as well, but forensic scrutiny is going to be there of any potential purchaser of a large block of shares. We'd be daft not to take heed of what has happened to clubs around us.
This is a massively complex issue. More factual information will come out before the AGM / EGM . As it stands, Motion 3 is a reasonable halfway house, releasing shares of an aggregate nominal amount of £198,521.50 rather than an aggregate nominal amount of £348,521.50 because full control of the club is not being given to ??? investor, only a part.
This might be an incorrect analysis but that's how I see it.
UP THE DALE |
clearly caught the mood of many - the shares amounts you quote are 'nominal' value which is £0.50 so actual shares nos are double. | |
| |
| New shares on 09:40 - Mar 9 with 2861 views | tony_roch975 |
| New shares on 07:15 - Mar 9 by TalkingSutty |
I actually think there are loads of fans who would jump on board with the Trust (me) but they are viewed by many as a passive mouthpiece for those who are running the Club. They might not like that analogy but it’s the general consensus when you ask around that they are in the Clubs back pocket. The pretty farcical Q&A sessions with the Directors is a perfect example, patronising and mostly lip service, promises by those answering the questions often never fulfilled.
The main focus of the Trust has to be the welfare of the Club itself, alongside the representation of the Trust members and in my opinion the Trust is compromised. The fact they have, or have had, Club employees on the Trust Board is the biggest red flag when it comes to impartiality, that should never have been allowed to happen. As suggested,now would have been the Ideal time for the Trust to voice their concerns regarding the new shares discussion but instead they keep the secret and it takes an individual fan to start a thread and break the silence.
So contrary to your suggestion that it’s now worth considering joining the Trust, i would ask why? The Trust have a cosy relationship going on with those running the Club, a bit like a Saturday Club with access to all areas, i don’t see them ever jeopardising that by upsetting the CEO or the Directors. Going off on a tangent...why are the Trust and the Club running two separate Curry Nights, or have i misinterpreted that? [Post edited 9 Mar 2020 7:27]
|
a lot of generalisations here; the Trust are damned if they do & damned if they don't; if they simply voiced condemnations like yours the Club would refuse to even talk with them (the clue's in the name); as someone else posted about Exeter City Trust they can be the lifeblood of small clubs like ours; they've kept nothing 'secret' just followed their shareholding responsibility - non Trust Board members have been actively involved in their discussions which I think are continuing; if you feel the Trust is insufficiently robust - join it and change it! | |
| |
| New shares on 10:20 - Mar 9 with 2797 views | aleanddale |
| New shares on 09:40 - Mar 9 by tony_roch975 |
a lot of generalisations here; the Trust are damned if they do & damned if they don't; if they simply voiced condemnations like yours the Club would refuse to even talk with them (the clue's in the name); as someone else posted about Exeter City Trust they can be the lifeblood of small clubs like ours; they've kept nothing 'secret' just followed their shareholding responsibility - non Trust Board members have been actively involved in their discussions which I think are continuing; if you feel the Trust is insufficiently robust - join it and change it! |
Exeter looks a good model to follow. Sensible budgets and knowing how they can work at their level in the pyramid.
Exeter good.
Bolton Oldham bury bad.
How can we ensure the former and not the latter is the concern of many fans who are just that fans. Not board members or trust members just fans who live for the cut and thrust of lower league football on a Saturday afternoon at 3pm.
Not ruling this out as a bad thing if it’s bullet proof and we do not open the door to a Stewart Day style chancer. They WILL be sniffing nothing surer. | | | |
| New shares on 10:59 - Mar 9 with 2748 views | TomRAFC |
Should a more reserved motion such as motion 3 be adopted, would it be fair to assume that further change would require a further EGM? If so would a new shareholder looking to increase their share be exempt from the vote due to conflict of interest?
I appreciate this is drilling down into the minute side of things but concerns aside it's all rather interesting. | |
| |
| New shares on 12:03 - Mar 9 with 2665 views | tony_roch975 |
| New shares on 22:42 - Mar 8 by tony_roch975 |
Where in the Club's Articles of Association did you find the requirement for a 75% pass threshold? I think the Articles require the Board to seek the Company's direction at a General Meeting when seeking an increase of capital. |
apologies to RAFCBLUE - the 75% pass threshold on a 'special' resolution is a Companies Act requirement not within the Club's Articles. | |
| |
| New shares on 17:09 - Mar 9 with 2446 views | nordenblue |
| New shares on 06:58 - Mar 9 by kiwidale |
This is not about me norden dont make it out to be, Ive admitted my mistake about what James posted all my other points are valid. |
I dont need to make it out to be,you do a damn fine job of that yourself as you've once again since proved | | | |
| New shares on 17:14 - Mar 9 with 2433 views | 442Dale |
Before this goes any further in a thread that most definitely does not need to look like those at other clubs, can we try and keep away from anything personal. It cannot start to detract from the issues.
Not aimed at anyone but everyone. |  |
| |
| New shares on 17:21 - Mar 9 with 2424 views | 442Dale |
| New shares on 07:15 - Mar 9 by TalkingSutty |
I actually think there are loads of fans who would jump on board with the Trust (me) but they are viewed by many as a passive mouthpiece for those who are running the Club. They might not like that analogy but it’s the general consensus when you ask around that they are in the Clubs back pocket. The pretty farcical Q&A sessions with the Directors is a perfect example, patronising and mostly lip service, promises by those answering the questions often never fulfilled.
The main focus of the Trust has to be the welfare of the Club itself, alongside the representation of the Trust members and in my opinion the Trust is compromised. The fact they have, or have had, Club employees on the Trust Board is the biggest red flag when it comes to impartiality, that should never have been allowed to happen. As suggested,now would have been the Ideal time for the Trust to voice their concerns regarding the new shares discussion but instead they keep the secret and it takes an individual fan to start a thread and break the silence.
So contrary to your suggestion that it’s now worth considering joining the Trust, i would ask why? The Trust have a cosy relationship going on with those running the Club, a bit like a Saturday Club with access to all areas, i don’t see them ever jeopardising that by upsetting the CEO or the Directors. Going off on a tangent...why are the Trust and the Club running two separate Curry Nights, or have i misinterpreted that? [Post edited 9 Mar 2020 7:27]
|
As posted previously, totally understand anyone who has valid reasons for not joining based on past events/feelings on the impact the Trust has/can have.
It’s up to individuals, but this is about the future and like it or not the Trust have a part to play. It’s only an opinion, but I think the stronger they are by being inclusive of all fans is important, as is the role of fans in joining to help ensure that happens. | |
| |
| New shares on 19:04 - Mar 9 with 2312 views | BigDaveMyCock |
Thanks for raising this TTNYear.
If only we knew someone that knew the CEO. | |
| |
| New shares on 21:51 - Mar 9 with 2073 views | RAFCBLUE |
| New shares on 22:27 - Mar 8 by judd |
Superbly illuminating - thank you.
Does your analysis of the intention also conclude that the current restriction on authorised shares is the be removed if so voted, thereby allowing further shares to be made available over and above the c. 400,000 currently in treasury? And further weakening current shareholder influence? |
Possibly, judd.
I was talking to someone about this today and summarised it like this.
Currently, if I (or anyone else) wanted to buy the club I would have to do the following:
1) Become a shareholder - cost £100.
2) Become a director - cost £25,000 (or 12,500 shares) aka "the joining fee"
3) Pitch an offer to shareholder that tried to acquire 251,479 shares at a price agreeable to the shareholder selling.
4) I can't achieve 3) without convincing the current board that I'm a good prospect.
5) There is no guarantee that takeover is a success; it relies on
Under the proposals:
1) The number of shares can be increased to an significantly with no regard to the rights of existing shareholder to maintain their voting proportion.
2) There is no opportunity for an existing shareholder to put in more money, in fact the only way for an existing shareholder to put in more money is to pay a premium at £6 per share.
It's anti-current shareholder.
It also removes scrutiny away from anyone who is prepared to pay £25,000 to be a Director.
It allows the Board to run the club as a saleable asset for the next five year until 2025.
Not one of the Director's publically has said they want out; but that's the intention.
Interestingly:
Tony Pockney - 12,500 shares
Dale Trust - 12,625 shares
Can the Dale Trust have a seat on the Board for the next 5 years if the resolution is passed?
No chance that will be agreed to. |  |
| |
| New shares on 22:00 - Mar 9 with 2051 views | RAFCBLUE |
| New shares on 23:56 - Mar 8 by Thacks_Rabbits |
Excellent post and think it mostly agrees with what I posted.
Majority control of the club could be done for £2.4 million and whatever 50001 shares could be purchased for. I agree totally that we don’t want someone with a majority control, but isa majority control sufficient to make decisions here or does it need more, I am sure all sorts of statutes may be in place regarding the purchase off the council.
I really don’t know the full details but I think it’s been done in a very underhand way, unless there is an obligation to inform and offer to existing shareholders first, but as stated I don’t see why that would be confidential. |
Thanks TR.
I wouldn't say "underhand" since what is being done is legal and following the Companies Act process.
I'm going to say "sneaky".
Effectively, all fans who are used to financial prudence and a view on those who have their hands on the controls are now being asked to give that blessing - with no proposal on the table - to five directors.
The future of the club in the hands of just five people.
I didn't hear that at the fans forum. I don't hear that when i hear the Trust.
For 18 months what is said and what happens is incongruous.
David Kilpatrick and Graham Morris started by getting young blood on the Board on the proviso they were Dale fans.
This proposal clearly sees that as non-sustainable. | |
| |
| New shares on 00:24 - Mar 10 with 1919 views | 100notout |
A few observations from me, some of which differ from those above .......
In simple terms, my understanding is ............
Res 1 - abolish the upper limit of shares available to purchase (currently 900,000)
Res 2 - allow the allotment of up to 697,043 shares (taking total share issued to 1.2m)
Res 3 - if res 1 rejected, allow the allotment of up to 397,043 (total shares issued 900k)
Res 4 - remove pre-emption rights for existing shareholders
so a couple of scenarios .......
Res 1 and Res 2 are passed - new investor(s) could have a majority stake in the club of 58% for a minimum cost of c£4.2m (estimated net cash injection of c£4m after fees)
Res 1 rejected and Res 3 passed - new investor(s) could have a stake of 44% for a minimum cost of £2,4m say £2.3m net to the club)
Current shareholders
As previously stated, the board of directors (who are all in favour of Res 1, 2 and 4) own just under 37%
Other significant shareholders include
Dale trust - 12625
Chris Dunphy - 46010
Graham Morris - 32072
David Kilpatrick - 22397
Leods Contracts Ltd - 22500
Bill Goodwin - 12500
These 6 individuals / entities collectively own 29.5% of the current shares and will therefore have a significant say in whether any of the resolutions are passed. Collectively if they so wished they could prevent the passing of the resolutions (which I think require 75% shareholder approval).
I am a shareholder albeit with a tiny % which individually is meaningless but for what its worth, my current view is that Res 1 should be rejected and Res 3 should be approved. This would provide a welcome cash injection whilst no individual would have a majority share.
I would politely suggest the trust call a meeting of members (possibly prior to one of the forthcoming home games?) to discuss these proposals and gauge opinions before casting its vote. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.