| Statement from the Board on 08:09 - Jul 28 with 3342 views | NorthernDale |
As a good will gesture to the hornets, could we not allow the game at Spotland, with the profit gained split between the two clubs. This allow some form of unity amongst the fans of hornets and the Dale, ps what is the average home gate of the hornets. |  | |  |
| Statement from the Board on 08:34 - Jul 28 with 3245 views | kel |
| Statement from the Board on 08:09 - Jul 28 by NorthernDale |
As a good will gesture to the hornets, could we not allow the game at Spotland, with the profit gained split between the two clubs. This allow some form of unity amongst the fans of hornets and the Dale, ps what is the average home gate of the hornets. |
I wouldn’t be offering goodwill gestures to a club whose chairman uses Twitter to make allegations against Dale directors
|  |
| “He was deliberately misleading the EFL” |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 09:58 - Jul 28 with 3099 views | AtThePeake |
| Statement from the Board on 08:09 - Jul 28 by NorthernDale |
As a good will gesture to the hornets, could we not allow the game at Spotland, with the profit gained split between the two clubs. This allow some form of unity amongst the fans of hornets and the Dale, ps what is the average home gate of the hornets. |
Is £11k p/a rent for a Football League standard stadium not enough of a goodwill gesture? |  |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 10:10 - Jul 28 with 3075 views | 442Dale |
| Statement from the Board on 09:58 - Jul 28 by AtThePeake |
Is £11k p/a rent for a Football League standard stadium not enough of a goodwill gesture? |
It’s remarkable that figure hasn’t been known before, unless it was and some of us missed it! The whole thing is a bit sad really, if that game could have been played in the town, it should be. Everything else around it is another argument, one that needs sorting once and for all if those involved don’t think the situation works any more. The noise is distracting and serving no purpose, especially with a football season about to start. |  |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 10:32 - Jul 28 with 2990 views | 49thseason |
Ha ha ha, "The head of our admin at the time was at pains to tell anyone who’d listen that the council person responsible for ground safety said he was the most professional chief exec at Rochdale he’d ever dealt with."
......That probably tells us more about RMBC than RAFC! [Post edited 28 Jul 2022 10:35]
|  | | |
| Statement from the Board on 10:34 - Jul 28 with 2974 views | D_Alien |
| Statement from the Board on 10:10 - Jul 28 by 442Dale |
It’s remarkable that figure hasn’t been known before, unless it was and some of us missed it! The whole thing is a bit sad really, if that game could have been played in the town, it should be. Everything else around it is another argument, one that needs sorting once and for all if those involved don’t think the situation works any more. The noise is distracting and serving no purpose, especially with a football season about to start. |
If Mazey got his house in order and started to behave in a responsible and Chairman-like manner, the Dale board should be magnanimous enough to recognise the potential for a reconciliation. The terms of Hornets tenancy are clear enough. Whilst the letter of the agreement needs to be observed by both sides, the spirit of the agreement is just as important
I'm absolutely convinced this situation is doing Dale no good, and i'd hope our board, given the shite they've had to deal with and still have to, would want this putting to bed. For Christ's sake, give each other a call and get your heads round this
We can also play our part, as fans of a "fan-owned club". If, ultimately, Hornets leave the COA, let's make damn sure they can't claim they were driven out, or we'll never hear the end of this. Hornets represent the town, and anything which looks like a deliberate act of doing them down will remain a stain on us all
[Post edited 28 Jul 2022 12:27]
|  |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 10:41 - Jul 28 with 2964 views | golfaduffy |
| Statement from the Board on 09:58 - Jul 28 by AtThePeake |
Is £11k p/a rent for a Football League standard stadium not enough of a goodwill gesture? |
The rent was agreed by the Board of both clubs has a much lower than commercial amount because RAFC were keen to regain full control of the stadium. That was the price they was prepared to take.
It's a commercial price that both clubs (and the council) were very happy with at the time it was signed.
The football club also agreed to pay off all the Stadium Company debts, which was good for Hornets.
Move forward to today, and we ave a new Board at the football club who seem to be more business minded than the old one, and they are no longer prepared to risk being liable for problems that might arise from hosting this match .
It sounds like there was a verbal agreement to host it given by 2 ex members of staff. it should come has no surprise to anyone that Bottomley was involved, as everything he touched as turned out to be either wrong, or commercially awful.
Still think a workable compromise should have been reached here. As things stand, neither the AFC new Board or Hornets come out of it with much credit. The town as lost out I'm afraid and the relationship between landlord and tenant is as bad as ever. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Statement from the Board on 11:39 - Jul 28 with 2769 views | DaleiLama |
I have some sympathy with the posters on here who are Hornets fans and I sat next to one for a few seasons, but when you pay a peppercorn rent, you don't then "go legal" as the first step of negotiations and expect no collateral damage ffs. RAFC's very existence was under threat, Southall sabre-rattled a legal injunction to prevent the EGM taking place and the MH legal issue remains outstanding.
It should come as no surprise, even to a traffic cone, that when the club (and it's supporters by association) received another legal threat, the collective response was to go porcupine-mode and come out fighting.
There have been calls for mediation. The success of that, even if both sides want to try to rebuild bridges, will depend on what RH say next. I hope AM chooses his words wisely and seeks to collaborate rather than antagonise further. If the latter, this will only end one way. Of course, as others have alluded to, that may have been his end-game all along?
Edit: Just read Judd's posted statement. Mildly conciliatory whilst pouring more oil on troubled waters at the same time. A dirty mess which does nothing to benefit either club sadly, and a most unwanted distraction 2 days before our first game. [Post edited 28 Jul 2022 11:48]
|  |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 11:47 - Jul 28 with 2738 views | James1980 |
Sorry being lazy, does it explain why they waited till just before the season started to announce the fixture being moved? | |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 11:50 - Jul 28 with 2726 views | DaleiLama |
| Statement from the Board on 11:47 - Jul 28 by James1980 |
Sorry being lazy, does it explain why they waited till just before the season started to announce the fixture being moved? |
No. I guess AM's motives regarding everything to do with his ownership will only come out over a period time, just like what went on behind the scenes at the Dale. | |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 11:55 - Jul 28 with 2707 views | judd |
| Statement from the Board on 11:47 - Jul 28 by James1980 |
Sorry being lazy, does it explain why they waited till just before the season started to announce the fixture being moved? |
Didn't it coincide with the release of the new England kit? |  |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 12:08 - Jul 28 with 2625 views | finberty |
Good to see the high standard of grammar in that statement.
Two typos spotted on the first fast read-through.
Attention to detail, or lack of it, seems to be a thing. |  | | |
| Statement from the Board on 12:25 - Jul 28 with 2561 views | James1980 |
| Statement from the Board on 11:55 - Jul 28 by judd |
Didn't it coincide with the release of the new England kit? |
Which sport? I see our board are criticised for revealing details of the agreement regards using the ground. I'd say comments made by representatives of RH forced them into making those revelations. | |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 12:30 - Jul 28 with 2537 views | Cedar_Room |
| Statement from the Board on 11:39 - Jul 28 by DaleiLama |
I have some sympathy with the posters on here who are Hornets fans and I sat next to one for a few seasons, but when you pay a peppercorn rent, you don't then "go legal" as the first step of negotiations and expect no collateral damage ffs. RAFC's very existence was under threat, Southall sabre-rattled a legal injunction to prevent the EGM taking place and the MH legal issue remains outstanding.
It should come as no surprise, even to a traffic cone, that when the club (and it's supporters by association) received another legal threat, the collective response was to go porcupine-mode and come out fighting.
There have been calls for mediation. The success of that, even if both sides want to try to rebuild bridges, will depend on what RH say next. I hope AM chooses his words wisely and seeks to collaborate rather than antagonise further. If the latter, this will only end one way. Of course, as others have alluded to, that may have been his end-game all along?
Edit: Just read Judd's posted statement. Mildly conciliatory whilst pouring more oil on troubled waters at the same time. A dirty mess which does nothing to benefit either club sadly, and a most unwanted distraction 2 days before our first game. [Post edited 28 Jul 2022 11:48]
|
doesn't come across as conciliatory at all to me! Just puts all the blame on us for the fixture not going ahead.
They quote this clause
Schedule 3, 2.2.2 states the tenant may occupy the premises at such other time or times as the Landlord shall in its absolute discretion permit but to limit including a maximum of three friendly games
which to my understanding quite clearly states the Landlord (RAFC) has absolute discretion to permit the tenant (Hornets) occupying the premises. Meaning it would ultimately need RAFC's agreement to host any match (which we say they did not have). But more importantly this clearly applies to the TENANTS (ROCHDALE HORNETS) making use of the premises including friendly games. ENGLAND RUGBY ARE NOT A TENANT OF THE CROWN OIL ARENA. This was not a Hornets friendly match! How can they possibly think it is a winning argument to claim this paragraph, allowing the TENANTS (Hornets) to play at Spotland, could simply be applied to anyone Hornets decided should play there. As I said in a previous post we are simply dealing with morons here.
This arrangement does not benefit RAFC in the slightest. We have assumed all the debts and running costs for the stadium whilst Hornets somehow think they get to keep using it as they see fit. You had your chance to do that egg chasers and all that happened was the stadium company racked up loads of debt and you sold off part of your stake to the RFL. I see no reason whatsoever for this relationship to continue Hornets need to get out and find their own accommodation. There must be a field with a bus shelter somewhere that would be more than adequate for their use. |  | | |
| Statement from the Board on 12:35 - Jul 28 with 2500 views | Zac_B |
| Statement from the Board on 12:08 - Jul 28 by finberty |
Good to see the high standard of grammar in that statement.
Two typos spotted on the first fast read-through.
Attention to detail, or lack of it, seems to be a thing. |
I noticed that too (Were/where). Might seem pedantic, but it instantly makes me think less of a statement when that happens. | | | |
| Statement from the Board on 12:37 - Jul 28 with 2483 views | borodale |
Personally see the the stand off the board as spot on. Hornets have been a drain on the football club for too long, time to get there own house in order and act professionally rather than stamping there feet whenever the football club doesn't jump. There free to leave but somehow doubt they will !!! | | | |
| Statement from the Board on 12:38 - Jul 28 with 2461 views | D_Alien |
| Statement from the Board on 12:25 - Jul 28 by James1980 |
Which sport? I see our board are criticised for revealing details of the agreement regards using the ground. I'd say comments made by representatives of RH forced them into making those revelations. |
I wouldn't say forced James, but putting out misinformation (by Hornets) might be seen as undermining any requirement for commercial confidentiality
If Mazey has indeed got a hidden agenda, or is being prompted into one by ousted manipulators, the best course of action is to remain steadfast whilst that agenda gradually reveals itself. The ball is firmly in Mazey's court to make a move which suggests he's got Hornets best interests in staying at the COA to the fore, and he should know that ball is spherical | |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 13:05 - Jul 28 with 2342 views | DaleiLama |
| Statement from the Board on 12:30 - Jul 28 by Cedar_Room |
doesn't come across as conciliatory at all to me! Just puts all the blame on us for the fixture not going ahead.
They quote this clause
Schedule 3, 2.2.2 states the tenant may occupy the premises at such other time or times as the Landlord shall in its absolute discretion permit but to limit including a maximum of three friendly games
which to my understanding quite clearly states the Landlord (RAFC) has absolute discretion to permit the tenant (Hornets) occupying the premises. Meaning it would ultimately need RAFC's agreement to host any match (which we say they did not have). But more importantly this clearly applies to the TENANTS (ROCHDALE HORNETS) making use of the premises including friendly games. ENGLAND RUGBY ARE NOT A TENANT OF THE CROWN OIL ARENA. This was not a Hornets friendly match! How can they possibly think it is a winning argument to claim this paragraph, allowing the TENANTS (Hornets) to play at Spotland, could simply be applied to anyone Hornets decided should play there. As I said in a previous post we are simply dealing with morons here.
This arrangement does not benefit RAFC in the slightest. We have assumed all the debts and running costs for the stadium whilst Hornets somehow think they get to keep using it as they see fit. You had your chance to do that egg chasers and all that happened was the stadium company racked up loads of debt and you sold off part of your stake to the RFL. I see no reason whatsoever for this relationship to continue Hornets need to get out and find their own accommodation. There must be a field with a bus shelter somewhere that would be more than adequate for their use. |
Mildly conciliatory as in "Both parties remain in dialogue over the remaining disputes which we are attempting to reconcile. This includes, ground use, change of our office space and loss of our retail facility amongst others."
Of course the rest of it is going to be finger pointing (the oil on troubled water) regarding the Fiji fixture, but our board has made its position clear and everyone who can read now knows the truth of it - I wouldn't expect that last ball from RH to be batted back by our BoD as washing dirty laundry in public benefits no one. To extend Sandyman's analogy about holding the Stones concert in Wozza's back garden, that agreement was made - allegedly verbally - when the previous occupants lived there. Wozza is now king of his castle and he paid a lot of money for the right to that crown!
I also wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, despite the quote copy/pasted in para 1 above, if this clause is triggered. "The next ability that Rochdale Hornets has to serve notice is on 1st December 2022 if they chose to do so". Many will see that as an early Santa Claus [Post edited 28 Jul 2022 13:14]
| |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 13:16 - Jul 28 with 2288 views | HullDale |
| Statement from the Board on 13:05 - Jul 28 by DaleiLama |
Mildly conciliatory as in "Both parties remain in dialogue over the remaining disputes which we are attempting to reconcile. This includes, ground use, change of our office space and loss of our retail facility amongst others."
Of course the rest of it is going to be finger pointing (the oil on troubled water) regarding the Fiji fixture, but our board has made its position clear and everyone who can read now knows the truth of it - I wouldn't expect that last ball from RH to be batted back by our BoD as washing dirty laundry in public benefits no one. To extend Sandyman's analogy about holding the Stones concert in Wozza's back garden, that agreement was made - allegedly verbally - when the previous occupants lived there. Wozza is now king of his castle and he paid a lot of money for the right to that crown!
I also wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, despite the quote copy/pasted in para 1 above, if this clause is triggered. "The next ability that Rochdale Hornets has to serve notice is on 1st December 2022 if they chose to do so". Many will see that as an early Santa Claus [Post edited 28 Jul 2022 13:14]
|
My concern is that this publicity might be manna from heaven for Mazey.
He has stated on twitter that there was a 'legally binding clause' when they took over Hornets that they couldn't change name & location. Somebody better versed legally than me may correct me, but how could they change that? Board / shareholder vote? In which case, Mazey could easily get that passed and make the change / move blaming RAFC and the recent debate?
Less 'under the cover of darkness' and more 'in plain sight'. |  | | |
| Statement from the Board on 13:23 - Jul 28 with 2264 views | judd |
| Statement from the Board on 13:05 - Jul 28 by DaleiLama |
Mildly conciliatory as in "Both parties remain in dialogue over the remaining disputes which we are attempting to reconcile. This includes, ground use, change of our office space and loss of our retail facility amongst others."
Of course the rest of it is going to be finger pointing (the oil on troubled water) regarding the Fiji fixture, but our board has made its position clear and everyone who can read now knows the truth of it - I wouldn't expect that last ball from RH to be batted back by our BoD as washing dirty laundry in public benefits no one. To extend Sandyman's analogy about holding the Stones concert in Wozza's back garden, that agreement was made - allegedly verbally - when the previous occupants lived there. Wozza is now king of his castle and he paid a lot of money for the right to that crown!
I also wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, despite the quote copy/pasted in para 1 above, if this clause is triggered. "The next ability that Rochdale Hornets has to serve notice is on 1st December 2022 if they chose to do so". Many will see that as an early Santa Claus [Post edited 28 Jul 2022 13:14]
|
It is clear that Hornets & the RFL proceeded in the belief that the Directors and executives of RAFC at the time had agreed to the international fixture going ahead. Not at all sure if the clause as referenced re: friendlies was referenced at the time as Hornets exercising their right to stage such a high profile friendly fixture.
The landlord's representatives at the time have failed to carry out due diligence in what is required to stage such an event in that no documented agreement is or was available to cover the risk of hiring the venue to be attended in relatively large numbers by the general public.
As a new director coming in, would you want to risk facing a corprorate manslaughter charge should a fatality occur at an event for which you have legal responsibility?
I really feel for Hornets, the RFL , the town and rugby league fans, but it seems to me that our new board have spotted an error and have attempted to correct it.
The one grey area still remaining is how the AFC are portraying events re their heads of terms on offer and Hornets claiming numerous proposals to get the game on. Either way, the game should not have gone ahead at any cost unless RMBC were willing to stump up any shortfalls, in my opinion. | |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 15:16 - Jul 28 with 1956 views | DaleiLama |
| Statement from the Board on 13:23 - Jul 28 by judd |
It is clear that Hornets & the RFL proceeded in the belief that the Directors and executives of RAFC at the time had agreed to the international fixture going ahead. Not at all sure if the clause as referenced re: friendlies was referenced at the time as Hornets exercising their right to stage such a high profile friendly fixture.
The landlord's representatives at the time have failed to carry out due diligence in what is required to stage such an event in that no documented agreement is or was available to cover the risk of hiring the venue to be attended in relatively large numbers by the general public.
As a new director coming in, would you want to risk facing a corprorate manslaughter charge should a fatality occur at an event for which you have legal responsibility?
I really feel for Hornets, the RFL , the town and rugby league fans, but it seems to me that our new board have spotted an error and have attempted to correct it.
The one grey area still remaining is how the AFC are portraying events re their heads of terms on offer and Hornets claiming numerous proposals to get the game on. Either way, the game should not have gone ahead at any cost unless RMBC were willing to stump up any shortfalls, in my opinion. |
I think the new BoD have acted professionally and in the interests of RAFC by doing due diligence on everything they are faced with, as far as we can be aware, and quite rightly, they are not going to lay themselves or the club open to any risk or financial liability, over and above the balancing act of running the club on a day-to-day basis.
Whilst having no interest in RL whatsoever, I do share your sentiments regarding the fixture and the fall-out, for all the reasons already stated by yourself, Pioneer and others and knowing how I would feel if it was something I cared about. | |
| |
| Statement from the Board on 16:42 - Jul 28 with 1759 views | 49thseason |
When you consider what Hornets have been getting for £11k per season you realise that they are probably only still in existance because the AFC has been effectively sponsoring them all these years.
11K is less than £1 per spectator per season and when you realise this covers pitch maintenance, changing rooms cleaning, hot water, electricity, floodlights, bar staff, heating, a shop, a ticket office, post match cleaning, referees facilities, telephone lines, parking spaces, turnstiles, business rates, water rates, insurance, etc etc.
Put simply without RAFC underwriting them to the tune of 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands, Hornets would be playing on Firgrove by now. As with all these sorts of arrangements, eventually something has to give, perhaps it just has. And I dont necessarily blame Hornets, the Rugby League has to bear some of the responsibility for the state of the game at all but the highest levels. | | | |
| Statement from the Board on 18:30 - Jul 28 with 1519 views | hammerdale |
| Statement from the Board on 01:08 - Jul 28 by ThreeLions |
Yes I agree let's have a degree of decoram |
ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ | | | |
| Statement from the Board on 18:33 - Jul 28 with 1513 views | hammerdale |
| Statement from the Board on 10:34 - Jul 28 by D_Alien |
If Mazey got his house in order and started to behave in a responsible and Chairman-like manner, the Dale board should be magnanimous enough to recognise the potential for a reconciliation. The terms of Hornets tenancy are clear enough. Whilst the letter of the agreement needs to be observed by both sides, the spirit of the agreement is just as important
I'm absolutely convinced this situation is doing Dale no good, and i'd hope our board, given the shite they've had to deal with and still have to, would want this putting to bed. For Christ's sake, give each other a call and get your heads round this
We can also play our part, as fans of a "fan-owned club". If, ultimately, Hornets leave the COA, let's make damn sure they can't claim they were driven out, or we'll never hear the end of this. Hornets represent the town, and anything which looks like a deliberate act of doing them down will remain a stain on us all
[Post edited 28 Jul 2022 12:27]
|
Well said | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
