| Trust meeting with BoD 09:00 - Nov 3 with 28939 views | IOMDale |
Does anybody know how last night went or are we to wait for an update from the Trust? Because let's be honest, it won't be the BoD releasing information in a rush. |  | | |  |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 15:18 - Nov 6 with 3328 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 14:23 - Nov 6 by A_Newby |
James,
I do not like NDAs, but I do not think that the NDAs in place, even if that is why the Trust did not tell us about a meeting in advance, are over restrictive.
The Trust were able to report that they had met with the board and some potential investors after the meeting had taken place. Some NDAs would not have allowed that, in fact some NDAs will not even allow you to report that there is an NDA in place.
From the Trust newsletter.
“a meeting that both myself and Murray Knight were invited to, where we were introduced to three potential investors via Teams.”
Speculating on this short statement.
Were the Trust introduced to three competing potential investors or one consortium of three potential investors?
Was the meeting held by Teams and not in person to keep the meeting secret or was it because the three potential investors are located elsewhere in this country or abroad? [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 15:20]
|
Putting the issues to one side regarding the Trust/ cancelled meetings/ communication etc. If the right investor can be sourced and the Chairman and Directors reimbursed for their outlay ( important ), then there are plenty of positives for any new regime to work with. For all the criticism, it also has to be acknowledged that during the last six months the decision making in regards to the footballing side has been very good from the boardroom. Well i think it has, others might disagree. They got the managerial appointment right i think because Jim McNulty is doing a excellent job under difficult circumstances. The recruitment has really surprised me also, the majority of our signings have worked and i really believe that we are only a couple of decent defensive signings away from having a team capable of reaching the play offs. If MRKT are responsible for the recruitment then that's another example of the board making a good decision.
If we do have serious investors with a desire to get the club back into the EFL then the opportunity presents itself at this moment in time with us currently sitting on the cusp of the play offs, unfortunately i doubt the legality of any deal will be completed in order to affect this season and bring in two or three players to strengthen the squad, which is a shame for the manager and the fans. The other major positive for any investor is the knowledge that they will have a Trust and fan base that will be more than happy to muck in and work alongside them. There seems to be a real desire from a lot of fans to do that and it's something that any investors worth their salt will be happy to tap into. [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 15:24]
|  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 15:54 - Nov 6 with 3229 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 15:14 - Nov 6 by DaleiLama |
Sorry, badly worded, by large majority! |
"Large majority" is still badly worded, unfortunately
The head count by our COO was very roughly, 60-40 in favour of the proposed loan |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:26 - Nov 6 with 3147 views | DaleiLama |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 15:54 - Nov 6 by D_Alien |
"Large majority" is still badly worded, unfortunately
The head count by our COO was very roughly, 60-40 in favour of the proposed loan |
Really? I'm getting old. I seemed to remember it was reported more as a landslide, but I wasn't there. OK, third time lucky - "small majority!" |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:33 - Nov 6 with 3123 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:26 - Nov 6 by DaleiLama |
Really? I'm getting old. I seemed to remember it was reported more as a landslide, but I wasn't there. OK, third time lucky - "small majority!" |
Still badly worded, unfortunately
Those voting in favour tended to be on the taller side | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:36 - Nov 6 with 3104 views | blackdogblue |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:26 - Nov 6 by DaleiLama |
Really? I'm getting old. I seemed to remember it was reported more as a landslide, but I wasn't there. OK, third time lucky - "small majority!" |
From the Trust Website..
The Trust voted in favour of the motion following a survey of members. Trust members voted overwhelmingly in support of the motion. We received 319 votes, of which 14 were ineligible. There were 263 votes in favour of the motion (86.2%), and 42 votes against (13.8%). |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:43 - Nov 6 with 3089 views | DaleiLama |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:33 - Nov 6 by D_Alien |
Still badly worded, unfortunately
Those voting in favour tended to be on the taller side |
Lanky bastards! | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:45 - Nov 6 with 3078 views | DaleiLama |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:36 - Nov 6 by blackdogblue |
From the Trust Website..
The Trust voted in favour of the motion following a survey of members. Trust members voted overwhelmingly in support of the motion. We received 319 votes, of which 14 were ineligible. There were 263 votes in favour of the motion (86.2%), and 42 votes against (13.8%). |
That must be what I remembered? Thank God the trust is filled with pygmies! | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:52 - Nov 6 with 3053 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:36 - Nov 6 by blackdogblue |
From the Trust Website..
The Trust voted in favour of the motion following a survey of members. Trust members voted overwhelmingly in support of the motion. We received 319 votes, of which 14 were ineligible. There were 263 votes in favour of the motion (86.2%), and 42 votes against (13.8%). |
I assumed DL was referring to the vote of shareholders in the room at the EGM, which he confirmed with "i wasn't there"
That's the long and short of it | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust meeting with BoD on 18:46 - Nov 6 with 2843 views | blackdogblue |
CBA looking for the thread on this but hat off to CUFC for a volunteer army..
Remind me why we pay people for “Marketing”…
Just say it as it is 👏 | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 19:10 - Nov 6 with 2775 views | 442Dale |
On a couple of subjects raised in this thread:
Questions about anyone possibly looking to sell shares (see a previous response here on this subject https://www.daletrust.co.uk/meeting-with-the-board/ ) and on the progress made since the volunteer meeting that took place a month ago were submitted to the Trust to ask at the meeting that then didn’t take place. Twice.
With the Trust having their own meeting tonight, you’d hope that by tomorrow they will be providing details to members about when the scheduled meeting that has been postponed twice (despite having been in the diary for the best part of five months) will actually take place. Then further information can be provided to supporters and Trust members on the subjects people are clearly interested in. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 19:12 - Nov 6 with 2770 views | blackdogblue |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 19:10 - Nov 6 by 442Dale |
On a couple of subjects raised in this thread:
Questions about anyone possibly looking to sell shares (see a previous response here on this subject https://www.daletrust.co.uk/meeting-with-the-board/ ) and on the progress made since the volunteer meeting that took place a month ago were submitted to the Trust to ask at the meeting that then didn’t take place. Twice.
With the Trust having their own meeting tonight, you’d hope that by tomorrow they will be providing details to members about when the scheduled meeting that has been postponed twice (despite having been in the diary for the best part of five months) will actually take place. Then further information can be provided to supporters and Trust members on the subjects people are clearly interested in. |
Sell them at what price though… must have devalued post relegation? | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:50 - Nov 6 with 2511 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 05:40 - Nov 6 by TalkingSutty |
Nobody is daft enough to suggest that the Trust should expect or need to have a complete say in the boardroom, so your last point isn’t relevant.
As somebody who was very vocal on this forum during the MH saga and also went out of your way to do a character assassination on our ex Chairman Chris Dunphy i’m interested to hear your views on why the ‘us and them’ has come about between those in the boardroom and the fans since the buy back of the MH shares? Do you feel as though the Chairman and Directors ever bought into the concept of a fan owned club with a long term vision to fully engage the Trust, shareholders and the fanbase..do you even view it as a fan owned club, more importantly, do you think those in the Boardroom do?
Do you think the communication and engagement has been better than we have seen from Chairmen such as David Kilpatrick and Chris Dunphy, that at a time when the Trust had little to no shares in the club? I’m asking you that as a fan of the club and hopefully a shareholder and member of the Trust. I take on board the fact that we now have a fan in the boardroom but to my mind that’s just given the rest of the members of the boardroom the green light to distance themselves even further in regards to communication.
I have a feeling the Trust Committee will come in for some stick over the coming days and i’m at the point where i’m starting to wonder if there is a deliberate ploy to cause disharmony amongst the fanbase and undermine the Trust, at a time when we all need to be united and keep a close eye on the credentials on any investor. I think fans need to consider that possibility, no matter how unpalatable that might be for some. It makes no sense for the board not to fully engage with the Trust. Remember we ALL promised to try to protect the club so let’s be suspicious of everything and keep a open mind when it comes to investors. It needs to be investors who are right for the long term good of the club and not just down to the preference of those in the boardroom, would you agree with that?
If investors are presented to the Trust/ shareholders/ fans who are deemed not to be suitable what would you suggest should happen then from a Trust/ shareholders perspective? What course of action should they take?
Apologies for all the questions but rightly or wrongly i interpret your posts as somebody who is trying to play devils advocate and your stock answer always seems to come down to finance. If you could remove your financial hat and give me your perspective from a run of the mill fans point of view i would appreciate it. Thanks in advance. [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 6:06]
|
In the sense that all the shares of the legal entity which owns the club are all owned by fans in various proportions then yes we have always been fan owned.
But, if you go back to look at the June 2018 confirmation statement, the Dale Trust had 12,625 shares and there were 333 shareholders.
June 2019 confirmation statement the Dale Trust had 12,625 shares and there were 334 shareholders.
The fact is that we have been fan owned under at least the last three Chairmen (Dunphy, A. Kilpatrick and finally Kelly), I personally don't see a lot of difference over the past 6 or 7 years.
What we have never been is fan controlled in a Boardroom sense. In the last 5 years since 2018 I think we have had 15 individuals voting in the Boardroom.
That has always been the conflict for me.
Add to that that Dunphy felt in 2019 that he had to sell all of his shares to two Americans for reasons we all understand. The Trust felt in 2021 they had to intervene and propose a shareholder motion that complied with the 'law of the land' for shareholders.
All of that happened when the Trust had just 12,625 shares.
What changed in June 2021?
The Trust won, from an absolute point of no hope (in the eyes of some) to remove two directors, one of whom is still serving a lengthy ban from football.
The "them" part of your terminology went and sold out their shares anyway to Morton House, something from which I fear we will never truly recover.
It is hard enough at any level of football where a club is not sustainable. What was in it for the fans for the sale to Morton House, completely against EFL rules?
Why did they do that? I suppose you'd have to ask them but the cold hard cash being waved under their noses might have been a factor.
Those who stepped forward (including the Trust) had a distinct choice - did they hand over the keys to Morton House or not. I recall Captain Sabotage saying they had something like 42% of shares.
That legal battle from memory took over a year to conclude with certain shareholders that bought shares from Morton House.
I do wish in June 2021 that Dunphy had come back and been one of the many that bought shares, he'd joined the Trust and rallied the fans but he didn't. He's not a shareholder according to Companies House. Depending what the Americans paid him and what Morton House paid the Americans then both could have received good money.
So to try to answer your question I think the communications, frustrations and complaints about the BoD of the day's interactions with the Trust are probably the same as in 2018, 2019 and 2020 except with the Trust's significant victory at the June 2021 EGM there's an expectation that the Trust can intervene - which they can - but they need lots of other shareholders to support a shareholder motion.
There is now a direct line into the Boardroom that Trust have which I always though can only be a positive thing; others won't but the way I think about it is would we have gone through the Morton House sage if the Trust has had a rep on the Board?
One director of the last few years used to do a weekly diary where he pointed out some of the key achievements. This belter is from 2019:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2019/february/davids-diary_16.02.19/
"The EFL are aware that we at Dale are one of the first Clubs to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with our Supporters Trust, and that we are keen as to continue working together in the excellent way that we do."
Memorandum of Understanding? Continue working together in the excellent way we do?
That's not aged well! |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:13 - Nov 6 with 2479 views | DorkingDale |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 14:55 - Nov 6 by A_Newby |
Here are a couple of questions I would like answered.
Are the Board trying to sell just the new shares or the new shares and those owned by the board members?
If the latter, a new investor could buy the “new” shares and those of the current directors for around £1.5 to £1.7 million and then own just over 53% of the club and have effective control.
If the club get new “owners” under the above scenario what will happen to the remaining 47% of the shares owned by the trust and individual shareholders. (value £1.4 to £1.6 million)?
Will there be an offer to purchase these shares at the same price as that paid for the board’s shares? |
Unlikely - why would they? If you have 53% there is no advantage in having any more..... |  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:22 - Nov 6 with 2463 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:50 - Nov 6 by RAFCBLUE |
In the sense that all the shares of the legal entity which owns the club are all owned by fans in various proportions then yes we have always been fan owned.
But, if you go back to look at the June 2018 confirmation statement, the Dale Trust had 12,625 shares and there were 333 shareholders.
June 2019 confirmation statement the Dale Trust had 12,625 shares and there were 334 shareholders.
The fact is that we have been fan owned under at least the last three Chairmen (Dunphy, A. Kilpatrick and finally Kelly), I personally don't see a lot of difference over the past 6 or 7 years.
What we have never been is fan controlled in a Boardroom sense. In the last 5 years since 2018 I think we have had 15 individuals voting in the Boardroom.
That has always been the conflict for me.
Add to that that Dunphy felt in 2019 that he had to sell all of his shares to two Americans for reasons we all understand. The Trust felt in 2021 they had to intervene and propose a shareholder motion that complied with the 'law of the land' for shareholders.
All of that happened when the Trust had just 12,625 shares.
What changed in June 2021?
The Trust won, from an absolute point of no hope (in the eyes of some) to remove two directors, one of whom is still serving a lengthy ban from football.
The "them" part of your terminology went and sold out their shares anyway to Morton House, something from which I fear we will never truly recover.
It is hard enough at any level of football where a club is not sustainable. What was in it for the fans for the sale to Morton House, completely against EFL rules?
Why did they do that? I suppose you'd have to ask them but the cold hard cash being waved under their noses might have been a factor.
Those who stepped forward (including the Trust) had a distinct choice - did they hand over the keys to Morton House or not. I recall Captain Sabotage saying they had something like 42% of shares.
That legal battle from memory took over a year to conclude with certain shareholders that bought shares from Morton House.
I do wish in June 2021 that Dunphy had come back and been one of the many that bought shares, he'd joined the Trust and rallied the fans but he didn't. He's not a shareholder according to Companies House. Depending what the Americans paid him and what Morton House paid the Americans then both could have received good money.
So to try to answer your question I think the communications, frustrations and complaints about the BoD of the day's interactions with the Trust are probably the same as in 2018, 2019 and 2020 except with the Trust's significant victory at the June 2021 EGM there's an expectation that the Trust can intervene - which they can - but they need lots of other shareholders to support a shareholder motion.
There is now a direct line into the Boardroom that Trust have which I always though can only be a positive thing; others won't but the way I think about it is would we have gone through the Morton House sage if the Trust has had a rep on the Board?
One director of the last few years used to do a weekly diary where he pointed out some of the key achievements. This belter is from 2019:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2019/february/davids-diary_16.02.19/
"The EFL are aware that we at Dale are one of the first Clubs to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with our Supporters Trust, and that we are keen as to continue working together in the excellent way that we do."
Memorandum of Understanding? Continue working together in the excellent way we do?
That's not aged well! |
Thanks for your reply. Regarding your last point and the Directors comment about the memorandum of understanding, there was no feedback from the Trust Committee at the time to suggest that what he was saying wasn't correct. That reflects badly on the Trust for not calling him out. Fast forward and you have to ask the question, have any lessons been learned?
So yes i agree, it hasn't aged well. [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 23:32]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:39 - Nov 6 with 2426 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:22 - Nov 6 by TalkingSutty |
Thanks for your reply. Regarding your last point and the Directors comment about the memorandum of understanding, there was no feedback from the Trust Committee at the time to suggest that what he was saying wasn't correct. That reflects badly on the Trust for not calling him out. Fast forward and you have to ask the question, have any lessons been learned?
So yes i agree, it hasn't aged well. [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 23:32]
|
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2019/01/mou-signed-between-trust-and-club/
This is the document that the diary referred to:
The club will:
1) Provide a suitable level of financial information split into appropriate categories and with a level of detail that builds trust and understanding of how the club is being run
2) Use the structured dialogue format to consult about significant decisions such as any permanent ground move, change of club badge or substantial change to club colours.
3) Use the meetings to discuss wider league/national consultation that will affect supporters
4) Take the opportunity to discuss any potential ownership changes including future opportunity for supporters to invest in their club
5) Not exclude individuals without good reason
6) Send suitable senior club representatives who have the appropriate knowledge of the club and decision making authority
Not sure 4) was ever disclosed until the Trust met with representatives of Morton House which tipped off the EFL.
I don’t think btw any criticism can be levied at the volunteers at the time. The MOU was not honoured by those in the club who drafted it.
I think I read somewhere a new MOU for 2023 is being sought by the Trust. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 06:31 - Nov 7 with 2334 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:39 - Nov 6 by RAFCBLUE |
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2019/01/mou-signed-between-trust-and-club/
This is the document that the diary referred to:
The club will:
1) Provide a suitable level of financial information split into appropriate categories and with a level of detail that builds trust and understanding of how the club is being run
2) Use the structured dialogue format to consult about significant decisions such as any permanent ground move, change of club badge or substantial change to club colours.
3) Use the meetings to discuss wider league/national consultation that will affect supporters
4) Take the opportunity to discuss any potential ownership changes including future opportunity for supporters to invest in their club
5) Not exclude individuals without good reason
6) Send suitable senior club representatives who have the appropriate knowledge of the club and decision making authority
Not sure 4) was ever disclosed until the Trust met with representatives of Morton House which tipped off the EFL.
I don’t think btw any criticism can be levied at the volunteers at the time. The MOU was not honoured by those in the club who drafted it.
I think I read somewhere a new MOU for 2023 is being sought by the Trust. |
I don't think you are getting my drift. At the point that the MOU was not honoured by those in the club that drafted it, the Trust should be reporting that back to its members, they have enough meetings with Chairman, Directors, CEO to surely be able to recognise that. No point having a Trust if they can't identify and speak up about any obvious red flags. There was a recognition at the time of the Bottomley/ MH saga by those on the Trust Committee that there had been failings on their part and also a promise that there would be major changes to the Trust and how they operate going forward. I distinctly rememember that conversation taking place. Those on the Trust Committee will know if that radical shake up took place and if lessons learned during that period have now resulted in a more robust approach when it comes to communicating and challenging those in the Boardroom and in particular reporting back the full facts to the Trust members...warts and all. Is that now happening? Members of the Trust Committee will know the answer to that question.
Keeping quiet about things in order not to rock the boat doesn't work, we nearly lost the club last time and the ones who caused the damage were allowed to do as they please with little or no challenge. I think we are seeing the same thing happening again and the Trust have allowed themselves to be compromised, having a Fan in the boardroom has done nothing to help that situation unfortunately. If we do arrive at the point where we can start again with new owners and a clean slate then i think the Trust does need looking at, if it's subservient to those in the Boardroom and not capable of properly challenging the Chairman and Directors then it's not really fit for purpose. That would mean people stepping forward to volunteer their services and I'm sure they would. A professional working relationship needs to be fostered with any new owners, a healthy distance also needs to be maintained because striking up friendships and joshing about with each other/ getting too cosy, makes it difficult when you then have to properly challenge and maybe upset that same person. You are working on behalf of the Trust members and answerable to them. Nobody needs to fall out about this because we are all fans together and the Chairman of the Trust in particular did a fantastic job during the MH saga. [Post edited 7 Nov 2023 7:49]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 08:29 - Nov 7 with 2229 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 06:31 - Nov 7 by TalkingSutty |
I don't think you are getting my drift. At the point that the MOU was not honoured by those in the club that drafted it, the Trust should be reporting that back to its members, they have enough meetings with Chairman, Directors, CEO to surely be able to recognise that. No point having a Trust if they can't identify and speak up about any obvious red flags. There was a recognition at the time of the Bottomley/ MH saga by those on the Trust Committee that there had been failings on their part and also a promise that there would be major changes to the Trust and how they operate going forward. I distinctly rememember that conversation taking place. Those on the Trust Committee will know if that radical shake up took place and if lessons learned during that period have now resulted in a more robust approach when it comes to communicating and challenging those in the Boardroom and in particular reporting back the full facts to the Trust members...warts and all. Is that now happening? Members of the Trust Committee will know the answer to that question.
Keeping quiet about things in order not to rock the boat doesn't work, we nearly lost the club last time and the ones who caused the damage were allowed to do as they please with little or no challenge. I think we are seeing the same thing happening again and the Trust have allowed themselves to be compromised, having a Fan in the boardroom has done nothing to help that situation unfortunately. If we do arrive at the point where we can start again with new owners and a clean slate then i think the Trust does need looking at, if it's subservient to those in the Boardroom and not capable of properly challenging the Chairman and Directors then it's not really fit for purpose. That would mean people stepping forward to volunteer their services and I'm sure they would. A professional working relationship needs to be fostered with any new owners, a healthy distance also needs to be maintained because striking up friendships and joshing about with each other/ getting too cosy, makes it difficult when you then have to properly challenge and maybe upset that same person. You are working on behalf of the Trust members and answerable to them. Nobody needs to fall out about this because we are all fans together and the Chairman of the Trust in particular did a fantastic job during the MH saga. [Post edited 7 Nov 2023 7:49]
|
You've laid it on a plate there, TS
The only remaining question should be whether or not the Trust committee even needs to hold a vote; there's nothing to stop it withdrawing the Trust rep from the boardroom pending further action
It doesn't take much imagination to consider that as an act of mercy to the Trust rep | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 09:09 - Nov 7 with 2176 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 08:29 - Nov 7 by D_Alien |
You've laid it on a plate there, TS
The only remaining question should be whether or not the Trust committee even needs to hold a vote; there's nothing to stop it withdrawing the Trust rep from the boardroom pending further action
It doesn't take much imagination to consider that as an act of mercy to the Trust rep |
It's a shame because any Chairman and Directors worth their salt would be falling over themselves to include the Trust and the supporters in as many projects as they could. They would actually be setting the dates of meetings and agenda themselves. It's not a one way street this, those in the Boardroom should be embracing the Trust and treating it as a vital component of the club and not as a hinderence. The fact that this isn't happening at a fan owned club reflects badly on everybody, it's the type of thing that happened down the road and we were quick to ridicule them for it. I'm criticising the Trust but the real problem stems from the Chairman and the Directors of the club. [Post edited 7 Nov 2023 9:17]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 10:42 - Nov 7 with 1997 views | 49thseason |
Some interesting reforms coming up in the Kings Speech this afternoon...a football regulator is on the cards..
"It would operate a licensing system and clubs would need to obtain a licence to operate as a professional football club.
Financial regulation would be the regulator’s core focus. Clubs would need to demonstrate good financial management, including appropriate “buffers” to deal with financial uncertainty, and protect core assets (such as the club stadium).
It would introduce a compulsory ‘football club corporate governance code’. Clubs would need to show how they applied the code, but this would be applied “proportionally”, bearing in mind the club’s size and complexity.
It would establish new owner and director tests. These would test integrity and propriety, and—for potential owners—require enhanced due diligence of finances and that financial plans for the club were “robust”.
It would ensure clubs have a framework to meet a “minimum standard of fan engagement”.
Clubs would only be able to compete in approved competitions." |  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 11:49 - Nov 7 with 1912 views | Dale69er |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:13 - Nov 6 by DorkingDale |
Unlikely - why would they? If you have 53% there is no advantage in having any more..... |
Normally no advantage once you have over 50%, however, unless in our case you have cronies to back you up, you need 75% to overcome the Morris amendment. |  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:20 - Nov 7 with 1755 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 10:42 - Nov 7 by 49thseason |
Some interesting reforms coming up in the Kings Speech this afternoon...a football regulator is on the cards..
"It would operate a licensing system and clubs would need to obtain a licence to operate as a professional football club.
Financial regulation would be the regulator’s core focus. Clubs would need to demonstrate good financial management, including appropriate “buffers” to deal with financial uncertainty, and protect core assets (such as the club stadium).
It would introduce a compulsory ‘football club corporate governance code’. Clubs would need to show how they applied the code, but this would be applied “proportionally”, bearing in mind the club’s size and complexity.
It would establish new owner and director tests. These would test integrity and propriety, and—for potential owners—require enhanced due diligence of finances and that financial plans for the club were “robust”.
It would ensure clubs have a framework to meet a “minimum standard of fan engagement”.
Clubs would only be able to compete in approved competitions." |
Yes, and a lot of credit must go to this organisation (to which Dale are signed up):
https://www.fairgameuk.org/
They've been working tirelessly to ensure the reforms put forward by the Tracey Crouch review of football governance weren't just brushed under the carpet
This is just the first step though, and there's always the possibility it could get crowded out due to events requiring what might be seen as more "urgent" attention in parliament
Covering the top five tiers of English football, it makes it even more essential that we remain viable within that structure. It's also something that any new potential owners will have to reckon with
[Post edited 7 Nov 2023 13:22]
| |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:12 - Nov 7 with 1496 views | tony_roch975 |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 06:31 - Nov 7 by TalkingSutty |
I don't think you are getting my drift. At the point that the MOU was not honoured by those in the club that drafted it, the Trust should be reporting that back to its members, they have enough meetings with Chairman, Directors, CEO to surely be able to recognise that. No point having a Trust if they can't identify and speak up about any obvious red flags. There was a recognition at the time of the Bottomley/ MH saga by those on the Trust Committee that there had been failings on their part and also a promise that there would be major changes to the Trust and how they operate going forward. I distinctly rememember that conversation taking place. Those on the Trust Committee will know if that radical shake up took place and if lessons learned during that period have now resulted in a more robust approach when it comes to communicating and challenging those in the Boardroom and in particular reporting back the full facts to the Trust members...warts and all. Is that now happening? Members of the Trust Committee will know the answer to that question.
Keeping quiet about things in order not to rock the boat doesn't work, we nearly lost the club last time and the ones who caused the damage were allowed to do as they please with little or no challenge. I think we are seeing the same thing happening again and the Trust have allowed themselves to be compromised, having a Fan in the boardroom has done nothing to help that situation unfortunately. If we do arrive at the point where we can start again with new owners and a clean slate then i think the Trust does need looking at, if it's subservient to those in the Boardroom and not capable of properly challenging the Chairman and Directors then it's not really fit for purpose. That would mean people stepping forward to volunteer their services and I'm sure they would. A professional working relationship needs to be fostered with any new owners, a healthy distance also needs to be maintained because striking up friendships and joshing about with each other/ getting too cosy, makes it difficult when you then have to properly challenge and maybe upset that same person. You are working on behalf of the Trust members and answerable to them. Nobody needs to fall out about this because we are all fans together and the Chairman of the Trust in particular did a fantastic job during the MH saga. [Post edited 7 Nov 2023 7:49]
|
Another consistently passionate argument TS. Key is your comment "That would mean people stepping forward to volunteer their services and I'm sure they would."
Isn't that the answer - those who share your views get themselves nominated to the Trust Board at the upcoming AGM and put their case to the meeting and if the Trust members agree they'll vote them in.
As many have noted, this Forum is full of passion but rarely gives any reflection of the vast majority of fans' opinions (the site claims hundreds and thousands of 'views' but for example the thread on 'which model do you choose for Dale' has currently 28 votes) - a Trust AGM vote might solve that democratic deficit? | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:51 - Nov 7 with 1404 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:12 - Nov 7 by tony_roch975 |
Another consistently passionate argument TS. Key is your comment "That would mean people stepping forward to volunteer their services and I'm sure they would."
Isn't that the answer - those who share your views get themselves nominated to the Trust Board at the upcoming AGM and put their case to the meeting and if the Trust members agree they'll vote them in.
As many have noted, this Forum is full of passion but rarely gives any reflection of the vast majority of fans' opinions (the site claims hundreds and thousands of 'views' but for example the thread on 'which model do you choose for Dale' has currently 28 votes) - a Trust AGM vote might solve that democratic deficit? |
I’d agree with that too.
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/07/members-back-supporters-director/
In the relatively recent re-election of the Trust’s Rep on the Board in July 2023 - 79% voted in favour of having the position.
The person standing as the incumbent was re-elected unopposed at election time out of nearly 1,000 members.
I’d imagine that if the polling was done today a majority would still want a Trust Board member.
Murray apparently can’t stand after this term so in 2025 it will need to be someone else anyway. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 17:20 - Nov 7 with 1339 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 16:12 - Nov 7 by tony_roch975 |
Another consistently passionate argument TS. Key is your comment "That would mean people stepping forward to volunteer their services and I'm sure they would."
Isn't that the answer - those who share your views get themselves nominated to the Trust Board at the upcoming AGM and put their case to the meeting and if the Trust members agree they'll vote them in.
As many have noted, this Forum is full of passion but rarely gives any reflection of the vast majority of fans' opinions (the site claims hundreds and thousands of 'views' but for example the thread on 'which model do you choose for Dale' has currently 28 votes) - a Trust AGM vote might solve that democratic deficit? |
The answer is to have a boardroom that goes the extra mile to accommodate the Trust and the supporters, a Chairman that seeks to make the club a inclusive one and shows real leadership. I'm willing to put myself forward to help the Trust in anyway i can and have informed them of that on several occasions, and i know of others who would also get on board. If the Chairman and Directors are making things difficult for the Trust they need to call them out and inform their members. I'm hoping that in the near future we will have new leadership in the club, people with a passion and desire to progress the club, people who are more than willing to work with the Trust and the fans. Maybe that would then be the time to do what was promised last year and restructure the Trust, bring in a bit of new blood to assist. At the moment i don't think me representing the Trust in any meeting with the Chairman would be what the committee would want. I did write to the Trust requesting a EGM be called several months ago and outlined my reasons why but the reply I received disagreed with my views, which is fair enough. I asked for a EGM at the time the Chairman suddenly announced out of the blue that the club was up for sale after buying back the MH shares. Since then the club has regressed to the point that the Chairman has mentioned liquidation and we have lost our League status. There are plenty of fans who are willing to speak up but it has to be done via the Trust to have any impact and that also means everybody on the committee singing off the same hymn sheet. The news that the Trust have been introduced to potential investors means now is not the time to start introducing new committee members into the equation anyway. [Post edited 7 Nov 2023 17:44]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 17:50 - Nov 7 with 1264 views | 442Dale |
All of it, having a Trust rep on the board or not, is rendered pointless unless there is an agreed process and commitment to communication with the Trust and supporters.
For anyone to try and throw other factors into the equation is merely an attempt to avoid that particular elephant in the room that has existed for years.
The disappointing thing about the current era is that we were all told about, proudly boasted and promoted a ‘fan owned and fan led’ club. Yet it’s one where people are fully aware of how frustrated and affected fans are and either refuse to address it or try and shift the argument and conversation elsewhere.
It is not good enough. People know this and by not even admitting it, it’s a damning reflection of where we are at present. This has to change. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
