| Share Issue 16:24 - Nov 11 with 16951 views | HullDale |
|  | | |  |
| Share Issue on 14:29 - Nov 12 with 2493 views | nordenblue |
| Share Issue on 13:56 - Nov 12 by James1980 |
Is it due to admin costs that the minimum is 100?
I would imagine people would be happy to buy under 100 shares and pay an admin fee of a fiver to cover costs |
I agree with the min 100 type rule, it would cost more in admin for small numbers and if you actions say 10/ 20 then why not just buy 1 even, where does it end? |  | | |
| Share Issue on 14:33 - Nov 12 with 2472 views | James1980 |
| Share Issue on 14:29 - Nov 12 by nordenblue |
I agree with the min 100 type rule, it would cost more in admin for small numbers and if you actions say 10/ 20 then why not just buy 1 even, where does it end? |
But if folk are prepared to pay an admin fee, why not let them buy less than 100 shares. | |
| |
| Share Issue on 21:30 - Nov 12 with 2268 views | 49thseason |
I have been thinking about this for a few days and from conversations with a few people, I am not at all confident many will buy into this share issue without some sort of carrot.
there was a time when shareholders got benefits from the companies they invested in , I recall lots gave discounts on their products if you held a certain number of their shares it doesn't happen today because of the ease of buying and selling shares online., So....
Perhaps the club would consider giving a discount on season tickets if you were to buy say £500 worth of shares, something like £100 off next season, £50 the season after that and then £25 after that one. Clearly not every ST holder is a shareholder so the cost would not be prohibitive. Thoughts? |  | | |
| Share Issue on 21:51 - Nov 12 with 2231 views | 442Dale |
| Share Issue on 21:30 - Nov 12 by 49thseason |
I have been thinking about this for a few days and from conversations with a few people, I am not at all confident many will buy into this share issue without some sort of carrot.
there was a time when shareholders got benefits from the companies they invested in , I recall lots gave discounts on their products if you held a certain number of their shares it doesn't happen today because of the ease of buying and selling shares online., So....
Perhaps the club would consider giving a discount on season tickets if you were to buy say £500 worth of shares, something like £100 off next season, £50 the season after that and then £25 after that one. Clearly not every ST holder is a shareholder so the cost would not be prohibitive. Thoughts? |
You can send the idea to the Trust rep on the club board. He said today that he welcomes all questions from members and will always raise them with the club to get an answer.
Let us know how you get on, though I’m sure it’ll be included in a future Trust newsletter.
Send to: info@daletrust.co.uk |  |
| |
| Share Issue on 23:13 - Nov 12 with 2178 views | 49thseason |
| Share Issue on 21:51 - Nov 12 by 442Dale |
You can send the idea to the Trust rep on the club board. He said today that he welcomes all questions from members and will always raise them with the club to get an answer.
Let us know how you get on, though I’m sure it’ll be included in a future Trust newsletter.
Send to: info@daletrust.co.uk |
Thanks, I couldn't get to the AGM as it would have taken too much out of my day with the match following on, I cant leave my wife alone for so long. | | | |
| Share Issue on 06:57 - Nov 13 with 2070 views | nordenblue |
| Share Issue on 14:33 - Nov 12 by James1980 |
But if folk are prepared to pay an admin fee, why not let them buy less than 100 shares. |
What do you suggest the min purchase should/could be then, say maybe 1 share each?
It's just not practical and massively time consuming to even process I'd imagine. | | | |
| Share Issue on 08:55 - Nov 13 with 1994 views | James1980 |
| Share Issue on 06:57 - Nov 13 by nordenblue |
What do you suggest the min purchase should/could be then, say maybe 1 share each?
It's just not practical and massively time consuming to even process I'd imagine. |
How about a minimum of 20? | |
| |
| Share Issue on 12:12 - Nov 13 with 1879 views | nordenblue |
| Share Issue on 08:55 - Nov 13 by James1980 |
How about a minimum of 20? |
Why not 10 then? For 20 it's costing less than £50 minus the administration charge too and all the mither of actioning it all, hardly worth the clubs time and hassle for such an amount.
There will be good reason for it being set at 100, just over £200 is enough to start with without breaking anyones bank account | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Share Issue on 12:52 - Nov 13 with 1821 views | foreverhopefulDale |
| Share Issue on 12:12 - Nov 13 by nordenblue |
Why not 10 then? For 20 it's costing less than £50 minus the administration charge too and all the mither of actioning it all, hardly worth the clubs time and hassle for such an amount.
There will be good reason for it being set at 100, just over £200 is enough to start with without breaking anyones bank account |
Depends on whose bank account you are talking about. £200 for many is a lot of money. To some of us, we don't want those who can only afford say £50 miss out on the the chance to hold a stake in our Club.
A solution has been put forward. put an additional admin charge to cover the processing of share issues, no reason not to if the Club are serious about giving as much of the fan base a stake in the Club as possible. Otherwise it might look like the Club don't want poor fans to have a stake. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 13:11]
|  |
| |
| Share Issue on 13:35 - Nov 13 with 1786 views | D_Alien |
| Share Issue on 12:52 - Nov 13 by foreverhopefulDale |
Depends on whose bank account you are talking about. £200 for many is a lot of money. To some of us, we don't want those who can only afford say £50 miss out on the the chance to hold a stake in our Club.
A solution has been put forward. put an additional admin charge to cover the processing of share issues, no reason not to if the Club are serious about giving as much of the fan base a stake in the Club as possible. Otherwise it might look like the Club don't want poor fans to have a stake. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 13:11]
|
"...we don't want those who can only afford say £50 miss out on the chance to hold a stake in our Club..."
There's clearly a reason why the club wish to raise some more capital, and the admin side of issuing shares is a factor, but you've rightly pointed out the bigger factor. Much has been made, including by the board themselves, of the club being "fan-owned" and that should include the widest possible fanbase. Not taking that into account would be remiss
Processing of share applications may be tedious and time-consuming, but needs to be put into a much longer-term context than "oh, it's too much trouble". Just as well those fans who held shares which were used through voting to rid the club of the likes of Bottomley & Rawlinson took the trouble - it should NOT simply be a matter of who has a spare £200 available coming into a difficult financial period. Morton House had loadsamoney, apparently...
[Post edited 13 Nov 2022 13:48]
|  |
| |
| Share Issue on 13:48 - Nov 13 with 1757 views | foreverhopefulDale |
| Share Issue on 13:35 - Nov 13 by D_Alien |
"...we don't want those who can only afford say £50 miss out on the chance to hold a stake in our Club..."
There's clearly a reason why the club wish to raise some more capital, and the admin side of issuing shares is a factor, but you've rightly pointed out the bigger factor. Much has been made, including by the board themselves, of the club being "fan-owned" and that should include the widest possible fanbase. Not taking that into account would be remiss
Processing of share applications may be tedious and time-consuming, but needs to be put into a much longer-term context than "oh, it's too much trouble". Just as well those fans who held shares which were used through voting to rid the club of the likes of Bottomley & Rawlinson took the trouble - it should NOT simply be a matter of who has a spare £200 available coming into a difficult financial period. Morton House had loadsamoney, apparently...
[Post edited 13 Nov 2022 13:48]
|
Thanks for explaining better than I did what I meant to say. 👠| |
| |
| Share Issue on 14:01 - Nov 13 with 1737 views | D_Alien |
| Share Issue on 13:48 - Nov 13 by foreverhopefulDale |
Thanks for explaining better than I did what I meant to say. 👠|
I don't think i did! But those who support the club having as wide a possible share-holding fanbase need to make our voices heard | |
| |
| Share Issue on 14:15 - Nov 13 with 1711 views | 442Dale |
| Share Issue on 12:52 - Nov 13 by foreverhopefulDale |
Depends on whose bank account you are talking about. £200 for many is a lot of money. To some of us, we don't want those who can only afford say £50 miss out on the the chance to hold a stake in our Club.
A solution has been put forward. put an additional admin charge to cover the processing of share issues, no reason not to if the Club are serious about giving as much of the fan base a stake in the Club as possible. Otherwise it might look like the Club don't want poor fans to have a stake. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 13:11]
|
Some great points in this thread. Not sure what the club could have issue with, they have staff to deal with admin of season tickets during the summer, so they can presumably plan to have whatever admin is required for share issues as well.
Think it’s £2.35 a share? If that’s right, ten shares and an admin fee (though even that isn’t totally necessary as noted above) could see a £25 cost for any fan who wants to get involved.
It would be a great marketing tool as well ‘£25 to become a shareholder in your club’. It may even attract small businesses who wouldn’t normally be interested. | |
| |
| Share Issue on 16:47 - Nov 13 with 1589 views | nordenblue |
| Share Issue on 12:52 - Nov 13 by foreverhopefulDale |
Depends on whose bank account you are talking about. £200 for many is a lot of money. To some of us, we don't want those who can only afford say £50 miss out on the the chance to hold a stake in our Club.
A solution has been put forward. put an additional admin charge to cover the processing of share issues, no reason not to if the Club are serious about giving as much of the fan base a stake in the Club as possible. Otherwise it might look like the Club don't want poor fans to have a stake. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 13:11]
|
What if £50 would be a lot and break the bank why not say £10, you see where this is going?
I'd suggest if £200 is enough to break your balance maybe investing in some shares that won't see any return realistically probably isn't for you anyway.... not necessarily you personally just generally [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 16:49]
| | | |
| Share Issue on 16:53 - Nov 13 with 1568 views | foreverhopefulDale |
| Share Issue on 16:47 - Nov 13 by nordenblue |
What if £50 would be a lot and break the bank why not say £10, you see where this is going?
I'd suggest if £200 is enough to break your balance maybe investing in some shares that won't see any return realistically probably isn't for you anyway.... not necessarily you personally just generally [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 16:49]
|
Well if that was to be the view of the club, then I suggest that the Club would be wrong to truly be saying that they aim to be a "fan owned Club" as they would be counting out certain fans from being owners just because they happen to be cash poor. I would suggest that they already count out many from being regular fans by their prices, which rule out many from watching because they can't afford it.
Just to add, I have no problems with stumping up £200 for shares, but realize that many do, especially in these tough times. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 16:55]
| |
| |
| Share Issue on 17:06 - Nov 13 with 1546 views | D_Alien |
| Share Issue on 16:47 - Nov 13 by nordenblue |
What if £50 would be a lot and break the bank why not say £10, you see where this is going?
I'd suggest if £200 is enough to break your balance maybe investing in some shares that won't see any return realistically probably isn't for you anyway.... not necessarily you personally just generally [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 16:49]
|
Or you could turn your argument on its head, and make it a minimum investment of £500... or why not £1000?
See where that's going?
There's absolutely nothing in principle to stop the club from offering the latest share acquisitions at a minimum of £50, in line with its stated policy of being a Fan Owned Club
[Post edited 13 Nov 2022 17:07]
| |
| |
| Share Issue on 17:20 - Nov 13 with 1516 views | 442Dale |
| Share Issue on 16:53 - Nov 13 by foreverhopefulDale |
Well if that was to be the view of the club, then I suggest that the Club would be wrong to truly be saying that they aim to be a "fan owned Club" as they would be counting out certain fans from being owners just because they happen to be cash poor. I would suggest that they already count out many from being regular fans by their prices, which rule out many from watching because they can't afford it.
Just to add, I have no problems with stumping up £200 for shares, but realize that many do, especially in these tough times. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 16:55]
|
Your last line is spot on. And it’s exactly what the club, Trust, fans and town should be considering.
Someone who buys ten shares should feel just as important as those who buy thousands. That’s the ethos we need to not only say, but adhere to. | |
| |
| Share Issue on 17:35 - Nov 13 with 1485 views | judd |
I'm not sure how far the extra costs go.
Everything required to process share applications is already an overhead, similar to season ticket sales.
Charge a fiver for a share certificate if the purchase is less than 100, for example. |  |
| |
| Share Issue on 18:23 - Nov 13 with 1419 views | nordenblue |
| Share Issue on 17:06 - Nov 13 by D_Alien |
Or you could turn your argument on its head, and make it a minimum investment of £500... or why not £1000?
See where that's going?
There's absolutely nothing in principle to stop the club from offering the latest share acquisitions at a minimum of £50, in line with its stated policy of being a Fan Owned Club
[Post edited 13 Nov 2022 17:07]
|
Yep I see it perfectly, have no issue with them setting it a £500/£1000 either, I understand that's the clubs perogative or any business even,I wouldnt moan about it if I couldn't afford something I couldn't/wouldn't invest in it,that's how it goes sometimes.
Not sure why after the oversubscription of punters last time around when the min spend was £200 why they'd now feel the need to reduce it to just £50, it worked last time clearly, it would still be perfectly "in line with its stated policy of being a Fan Owned Club" regardless of the min amount. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 18:27]
| | | |
| Share Issue on 18:34 - Nov 13 with 1388 views | D_Alien |
| Share Issue on 18:23 - Nov 13 by nordenblue |
Yep I see it perfectly, have no issue with them setting it a £500/£1000 either, I understand that's the clubs perogative or any business even,I wouldnt moan about it if I couldn't afford something I couldn't/wouldn't invest in it,that's how it goes sometimes.
Not sure why after the oversubscription of punters last time around when the min spend was £200 why they'd now feel the need to reduce it to just £50, it worked last time clearly, it would still be perfectly "in line with its stated policy of being a Fan Owned Club" regardless of the min amount. [Post edited 13 Nov 2022 18:27]
|
Extending the depth of fan ownership of shares, in terms of numbers of individuals buying into having an investment in the club, is a good thing in itself. If it can be done, it should be, and there will be people who are willing /able to invest at £50 who can't/won't at £200
Financially, there's been a significant change in the economic outlook since the last share issue. There's the difference. Plus, at that point, there was no guarantee the club would emerge intact from the legal challenges. This ought to be celebrated by extending fan ownership as widely as possible within reason. There is no argument in principle against it | |
| |
| Share Issue on 18:57 - Nov 13 with 1355 views | nordenblue |
| Share Issue on 18:34 - Nov 13 by D_Alien |
Extending the depth of fan ownership of shares, in terms of numbers of individuals buying into having an investment in the club, is a good thing in itself. If it can be done, it should be, and there will be people who are willing /able to invest at £50 who can't/won't at £200
Financially, there's been a significant change in the economic outlook since the last share issue. There's the difference. Plus, at that point, there was no guarantee the club would emerge intact from the legal challenges. This ought to be celebrated by extending fan ownership as widely as possible within reason. There is no argument in principle against it |
There's an argument if the club feels its not in the best interests of the club or even not viable financially, doesn't bother me either way to be perfectly honest though, just seems potentially much more work issuing god knows how many extra certificates and actioning it all for the same money coming into the club. | | | |
| Share Issue on 19:06 - Nov 13 with 1344 views | James1980 |
| Share Issue on 18:57 - Nov 13 by nordenblue |
There's an argument if the club feels its not in the best interests of the club or even not viable financially, doesn't bother me either way to be perfectly honest though, just seems potentially much more work issuing god knows how many extra certificates and actioning it all for the same money coming into the club. |
But doesn't applying an admin fee to purchases of 99 shares or less deal with any financial unviability? | |
| |
| Share Issue on 19:06 - Nov 13 with 1343 views | electricblue |
One to consider about purchasing shares is why not offer the amount the person wants to buy spread over 12months and after the final payment theh then can hold the shares..
This may help due the finanicial plight we are all currently facing..... |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Share Issue on 19:12 - Nov 13 with 1320 views | D_Alien |
| Share Issue on 18:57 - Nov 13 by nordenblue |
There's an argument if the club feels its not in the best interests of the club or even not viable financially, doesn't bother me either way to be perfectly honest though, just seems potentially much more work issuing god knows how many extra certificates and actioning it all for the same money coming into the club. |
The argument for not extending the ownership in terms of individual shareholders due to admin or accruing the same amount to the club has something of "short-termism" about it
IF the club has a case for it not being in the longer terms interests to extend the numbers, that's a case that needs to be made, and I suspect there'd be few who would disagree
Otherwise, the points made in favour of extended share-ownership are more aligned to the stated ethos of the club | |
| |
| Share Issue on 19:14 - Nov 13 with 1311 views | nordenblue |
| Share Issue on 19:06 - Nov 13 by James1980 |
But doesn't applying an admin fee to purchases of 99 shares or less deal with any financial unviability? |
Ask the club if you're interested James, id guess theres perfectly good reasoning behind it there usually is, they're no idiots who sort all this out....I'm not the one complaining how they're planning to run it, I think it's perfectly fine as it is having worked remarkably well last time around.👠| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
