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.
Interesting news tonight emerging that the takeover might be being called off.
According to the Trust statement the EFL have said it ”cannot find any evidence of the source and sufficiency of funding” being provided by the potential purchaser.
I’m not a bright fella but even I know you have to get the EFL to signoff on a takeover after what happened to our friends at bury.
Rule 16.21 appears to be the key one: “16.21. 2 The League shall have the power to require the Person who proposes to acquire or has acquired Control to appear before it and to provide evidence of the source and sufficiency of any funds which that Person proposes to invest in or otherwise make available to the Club.”
So that means if you are Andy Curran: 1) You have to go and see the EFL in person 2) You have to provide evidence of the source of the funds (i.e. have made the money legitimately from life and you’ve not up to anything naughty or illicit) 3) You have to provide sufficiency of funds (i.e. you can’t just turn up with £5 and a bag of crisps and say that will be enough to run a club before plunging them into a ton of debt).
Then the EFL have to signoff on you. No EFL signoff = no control.
I assume that person doing the signing off must be Nick Craig who is the EFL lawyer who was in the news when bury were taken over by a charlatan who ran them into the ground. I also presume that the EFL have a number of tests they do to check things like your background and your wealth to conclude you are a fit and proper person and I've heard David Bottomley use his name a few times before at fans forums.
With all that in mind if the EFL are saying they ”cannot find any evidence of the source and sufficiency of funding” being provided by the potential purchaser. then where does that leave Andy Curran?
To be fair, I’ve never heard of Andy Curran before his name showed up on here so couldn’t tell you how he’s made his money in life but he must have a wodge of cash from somewhere if he is going around trying to buy up shares in any football club.
Do that mean the takeover is off?!
It’s a strong quote from the EFL and their Head of Governance Ryan Hyde and suggests that Andy Curran is a liar who hasn’t provided what is needed for the EFL to review his credibility.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
You didn’t have to be Einstein to suss Bottomley out, he’s obviously still up to his tricks even after leaving the Club...trying his hardest to kill our Club off? Why didn’t he and his band of brothers offer their shares to the Club/ Trust, give us a chance to protect our Club?
It does beg the question if there was continued involvement by him (or others) in trying to sell the club after the board withdrew the resolutions in the face of hostile objections from shareholders. Evidence posted on here proves that shareholders were emailed by Mandy, erm, Jarvis. Now, having helped a bit in contacting shareholders pre AGM, we only had names, no addresses, phone numbers and certainly not email addresses, I know just how difficult and time consuming establishing contact details can be. The club asked shareholders to email the club with proxy wishes, zoom invites etc and so would have been able to compile an email database. The club had been instructed it was not for sale by its shareholders. Subsequent to this decision, an interested party appears to have been contacted by the club and a different route to acquiring shares has been taken. This activity is gross misconduct. I wonder if the meeting with Mr.Curran broached the subject of post-AGM contact? I feel for this chap.
Just so I understand this as it is all new to me. Does this mean that the current board can refuse to allow a transfer of shares to a new purchaser for any reason or do they have to have a good reason to turn it down? If so, would dodgy reputation and no proof of funds be sufficient?
This would mean the current board could in effect veto any transfer of ownership, despite having comparatively few shares at the moment. While this would be great in the current circumstances it would be bad if we wanted new shareholders to oust the old board (if that makes sense). Though I suppose shareholders could just call an EGM in that instance.
There are two things that needs to happen:
1. A majority purchaser has to take the sellers share certificate to the club and show the club they have fairly bought it (i.e. not robbed it).
2. The EFL have to say that the person is a fit and proper person to hold the shares and based on the EFL quote tonight they are not saying that about Curran and Rose.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
So DB failed to sell the club to someone with no money whilst CEO and failed to sell his shares in the club to someone with no money after leaving the club? Have I got that right? It isn't on his LinkedIn page yet?
It does beg the question if there was continued involvement by him (or others) in trying to sell the club after the board withdrew the resolutions in the face of hostile objections from shareholders. Evidence posted on here proves that shareholders were emailed by Mandy, erm, Jarvis. Now, having helped a bit in contacting shareholders pre AGM, we only had names, no addresses, phone numbers and certainly not email addresses, I know just how difficult and time consuming establishing contact details can be. The club asked shareholders to email the club with proxy wishes, zoom invites etc and so would have been able to compile an email database. The club had been instructed it was not for sale by its shareholders. Subsequent to this decision, an interested party appears to have been contacted by the club and a different route to acquiring shares has been taken. This activity is gross misconduct. I wonder if the meeting with Mr.Curran broached the subject of post-AGM contact? I feel for this chap.
If Mr Curran has made an offer / bought Mr Bottomley's shares off duff information then that is an issue for Mr Curran.
The purchase of shares is a private transaction between two consenting parties.
If Mr Bottomley has got top dollar for his 12,960 shares and fleeced a poor unsuspecting sap into paying well over the odds, well that is just business.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
If Mr Curran has made an offer / bought Mr Bottomley's shares off duff information then that is an issue for Mr Curran.
The purchase of shares is a private transaction between two consenting parties.
If Mr Bottomley has got top dollar for his 12,960 shares and fleeced a poor unsuspecting sap into paying well over the odds, well that is just business.
If Mr Curran has made an offer / bought Mr Bottomley's shares off duff information then that is an issue for Mr Curran.
The purchase of shares is a private transaction between two consenting parties.
If Mr Bottomley has got top dollar for his 12,960 shares and fleeced a poor unsuspecting sap into paying well over the odds, well that is just business.
From what I’m hearing about the people mentioned then if they have been fleeced by Bottomley then he might not be as smart as he thinks. Not the type of people I’d want to annoy anyway but he’s made his bed and all that.
"The EFL Head of Governance Ryan Hyde wrote to us on Friday afternoon and confirmed that they “cannot find any evidence of the source and sufficiency of funding on behalf of the potential purchaser having been provided to us.”
You would assume that Curran would just send these to the EFL to rubber stamp?
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
Sounds like it. Maybe some of those selling shares aren't completely rotten and have agreed to sell upon passing of the EFL test. Just a thought, have no knowledge of this.
Sounds like it. Maybe some of those selling shares aren't completely rotten and have agreed to sell upon passing of the EFL test. Just a thought, have no knowledge of this.
You might be right.
But if the selling of shares is contingent on getting control AND the EFL signing it off then there's a risk that those who think they have sold haven't.
There's an old saying in life about counting chickens before they had hatched.
With Alexander Jarvis involved I'd want to make sure that money was in my hands not simply promised!
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
From what I’m hearing about the people mentioned then if they have been fleeced by Bottomley then he might not be as smart as he thinks. Not the type of people I’d want to annoy anyway but he’s made his bed and all that.
We will never know kel what Bottomley has told Andy Curran.
We do know that Curran must have been third choice because Bottomley tried to get the Americans on the Board and then Martin Halsall.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
Bottomley's own ego meant he looked down on everyone. I'm not sure where Andy Curran is from or his background but I can imagine Bottomley looking down on someone less able, never run a football club, looks to have limited business background etc.
It's a classic pump and dump strategy. Bottomley says "look at this lovely shiny thing you should buy it from me for a lot of money" as he is about to get removed by shareholders at the EGM.
A naive investor gives Bottomley money for it. Said thing turns out to be worthless!
DB rides off into the sunset with cold hard cash for his shares; never to be seen again....
He did it to Newcastle fans for a bacon sandwich and a coffee in the FA Cup so he's more than capable of doing it to Andy Curran.
Yes, if Curran has seen a opportunity to make money in whatever way he sees fit that’s his prerogative, i can’t believe that he has actively gone out on his own accord to find Bottomley/ Rawlinson/ Kilpatrick though. He will no doubt have been invited to meet them by a third party (Jarvis) or by the sellers themselves. You can put the discussion about Curran to one side for a minute i think, the bottom line is Bottomley etc knew full well that anybody gaining over 50% of shares in the Club would be difficult and even then they would be met with real hostility from the fans and shareholders, alongside intense scrutiny that would never go away. The fall out from bury is still very fresh in this area and the EFL are aware of the anger from local football fans. The EFL are on red alert and will go through anybodies finances with a fine comb,that also includes involving HMRC. I am assuming that Curran was informed of all this by his advisor and Bottomley etc, he must have been.
Yes, if Curran has seen a opportunity to make money in whatever way he sees fit that’s his prerogative, i can’t believe that he has actively gone out on his own accord to find Bottomley/ Rawlinson/ Kilpatrick though. He will no doubt have been invited to meet them by a third party (Jarvis) or by the sellers themselves. You can put the discussion about Curran to one side for a minute i think, the bottom line is Bottomley etc knew full well that anybody gaining over 50% of shares in the Club would be difficult and even then they would be met with real hostility from the fans and shareholders, alongside intense scrutiny that would never go away. The fall out from bury is still very fresh in this area and the EFL are aware of the anger from local football fans. The EFL are on red alert and will go through anybodies finances with a fine comb,that also includes involving HMRC. I am assuming that Curran was informed of all this by his advisor and Bottomley etc, he must have been.
The Bottomley video is here TS:
Direct quote from the video:
"We have had NDA's in place with a number of parties and we hope to be very close to be able to put a deal together that we can present to our shareholders that says "These are the people who want to get involved in Rochdale Football club, they have the club at heart as we do and they want to take the club forward in the right direction so the reason for quite a lot of silence in the last few weeks - and I accept communication could have been better - is down to the fact that we are involved in very sensitive negotiations with people to actually want to come forward and get involved in this absolutely wonderful football club."
David Bottomley - 30th April 2021
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
"We have had NDA's in place with a number of parties and we hope to be very close to be able to put a deal together that we can present to our shareholders that says "These are the people who want to get involved in Rochdale Football club, they have the club at heart as we do and they want to take the club forward in the right direction so the reason for quite a lot of silence in the last few weeks - and I accept communication could have been better - is down to the fact that we are involved in very sensitive negotiations with people to actually want to come forward and get involved in this absolutely wonderful football club."
David Bottomley - 30th April 2021
The fella is a disgrace, somebody who purported to love the Club. If Andrew Kilpatrick has sold his dads Club (shares) he will be absolutely spinning in his grave. It makes you question Andrew and his morals if he has stooped so low as to sell the love of his dads life, he wouldn’t have done that surely not?
You didn’t have to be Einstein to suss Bottomley out, he’s obviously still up to his tricks even after leaving the Club...trying his hardest to kill our Club off? Why didn’t he and his band of brothers offer their shares to the Club/ Trust, give us a chance to protect our Club?
While selling them back to the club/trust he'd struggle to blag them for a massive profit on his shares unlike his little plan to sell to an "outsider".... the guys clearly thicker than a castle wall and whilst upsetting certain folk for years on end it will all end in tears for him.
As smart and untouchable as he seems to think he is there's many folk out there that play by very different rules to the charlatan, even more so if there's big lumps of money involved.
"The majority of those in attendance travel separately to the ground, to minimise the risk of spreading Coronavirus, which is why the car park is still in full use on a matchday."
There were that many "posh" cars in the car park for the Swindon game you'd have thought we'd had royalty coming.
Completely agree with you that the whole evening and the involvement of the Speakmans was a stunt - look at the date too - 14th April.
Bottomley said on 30th April that a number of parties had signed NDA's. Therefore you would have thought that they were the people he was beauty parading.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
"The majority of those in attendance travel separately to the ground, to minimise the risk of spreading Coronavirus, which is why the car park is still in full use on a matchday."
There were that many "posh" cars in the car park for the Swindon game you'd have thought we'd had royalty coming.
Completely agree with you that the whole evening and the involvement of the Speakmans was a stunt - look at the date too - 14th April.
Bottomley said on 30th April that a number of parties had signed NDA's. Therefore you would have thought that they were the people he was beauty parading.
I think we might be getting ahead of ourselves on this
1. Was the approach to the shareholders to buy the shares a provisional offer. i.e a commitment to buy at a certain price if the party received a commitment of 40% or 51% for example. So they might only currently have signed commitments to sell and no transactions have yet occurred?
2. The investor met the Chairman to discuss a majority stake. Did that mean 51%. Did he declare how much he had received in conditional offers and sought the Chairman's support to buy unissued shares to take his holding to 51% or more. After all, the club needs cash and he would want something in return for that cash - loans or shares! He might need the shares to achieve his ownership percentage
3. The Chairman told us he had the meeting and listened to the investor and his plans. He also said that nothing would be agreed without making the investors plans public and it be supported at an EGM. That implied to me the need to issue new shares
4. Investor told the Trust he was serious and implied he had provided proof of funds to the EFL. But nobody needs to prove funds to acquire shares to the EFL unless you want to become a Board Director and/or you want to take a majority control. So if has yet to get the support of enough shareholders, or the current Board, to achieve a 51% holding he isn't ready to go through the EFL process. But he did mislead the Trust
5. He may have zero shares right now - just commitments to sell. He doesn't need to force that unless he is confident of achieving a majority stake. This could be a protracted process. But if he walks away some shareholders will look very stupid
6. If he doesn't create a plan and share it with the Board, and then with other shareholders, he is unlikely to succeed. Having said that, if he gets commitments of 51% he can force the issue and then seek approval from the EFL. But he will have damaged his chance of building positive relationships with the fanbase
7. Perhaps Bottomley has been employed as his advisor? Would make sense. Doesn't mean the investor has yet bought his shares. But DB could earn a fee and ultimately get value for his shares
"We have had NDA's in place with a number of parties and we hope to be very close to be able to put a deal together that we can present to our shareholders that says "These are the people who want to get involved in Rochdale Football club, they have the club at heart as we do and they want to take the club forward in the right direction so the reason for quite a lot of silence in the last few weeks - and I accept communication could have been better - is down to the fact that we are involved in very sensitive negotiations with people to actually want to come forward and get involved in this absolutely wonderful football club."
I think we might be getting ahead of ourselves on this
1. Was the approach to the shareholders to buy the shares a provisional offer. i.e a commitment to buy at a certain price if the party received a commitment of 40% or 51% for example. So they might only currently have signed commitments to sell and no transactions have yet occurred?
2. The investor met the Chairman to discuss a majority stake. Did that mean 51%. Did he declare how much he had received in conditional offers and sought the Chairman's support to buy unissued shares to take his holding to 51% or more. After all, the club needs cash and he would want something in return for that cash - loans or shares! He might need the shares to achieve his ownership percentage
3. The Chairman told us he had the meeting and listened to the investor and his plans. He also said that nothing would be agreed without making the investors plans public and it be supported at an EGM. That implied to me the need to issue new shares
4. Investor told the Trust he was serious and implied he had provided proof of funds to the EFL. But nobody needs to prove funds to acquire shares to the EFL unless you want to become a Board Director and/or you want to take a majority control. So if has yet to get the support of enough shareholders, or the current Board, to achieve a 51% holding he isn't ready to go through the EFL process. But he did mislead the Trust
5. He may have zero shares right now - just commitments to sell. He doesn't need to force that unless he is confident of achieving a majority stake. This could be a protracted process. But if he walks away some shareholders will look very stupid
6. If he doesn't create a plan and share it with the Board, and then with other shareholders, he is unlikely to succeed. Having said that, if he gets commitments of 51% he can force the issue and then seek approval from the EFL. But he will have damaged his chance of building positive relationships with the fanbase
7. Perhaps Bottomley has been employed as his advisor? Would make sense. Doesn't mean the investor has yet bought his shares. But DB could earn a fee and ultimately get value for his shares
We all watch on in bewilderment
[Post edited 9 Jul 2021 23:49]
The EFL are going to make any new owner sit in front of them and look them in the eyes.
The person Curran will need to see is Nick Craig who is a hard proper lawyer and charged with EFL governance, rightly so in the current environment.
Nick Craig refused bury's change of ownership just before they went out of the league.
Here's what Steve Dale said about him at the time:
"We have a buyer proceeding. He has made various request to Nick Craig at the EFL. We are helping him all we can to get it over the line. I hope so (completed today). I can’t speak for someone else. I can’t speak for them."
It will be Curran and Jarvis who need to make their representations direct to the EFL, nothing the Club has to do or needs to do.
That's the way it works these days.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
