 | Forum
Reply | The Bigger Picture
at 17:47 17 Nov 2024
There was a Trust board meeting with the club, irrespective of what happened at any club board meeting. The Trust reported the following in their last newsletter:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/november-2024-news-letter/
“Simon opened the meeting by providing an update on future changes to the format of AGM’s. This will comprise a corporate/business agenda only to meet the essential requirements of an AGM, rather than in the past, incorporating a fans forum element, available to shareholders only. A Fans Forum will take place, at a date following the AGM, attendance to which will be open to a wider audience than shareholders only.”
This was raised at the Trust AGM last weekend, and reported as follows:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2024/11/trust-2024-agm/
“ Reference was made to the statement made by the Club regarding the new format of future AGMs, without the opportunity of a forum taking place once AGM business is concluded. A date for a Fans Forum will closely follow the AGM to allow participation to include all fans, and not limited to shareholders.”
It was specifically asked whether the decision to change the AGM format was challenged when the Trust had their meeting with the club. |
| Forum
Reply | The Bigger Picture
at 13:58 17 Nov 2024
While agreeing with a lot of points around the club’s direction, there’s a certain amount of revisionist history based on reminiscing about great players. Taylor, Lambert and Holt all played in very average sides. And Kairo Mitchell was reaching ‘we can’t let him be sold in January’ status amongst some a few weeks ago. |
| Forum
Reply | The Bigger Picture
at 13:49 17 Nov 2024
With particular reference to the thread title, concerns have appeared over the last week that illustrate the importance of looking at the whole club.
- the rumour and uncertainty around Burton’s approach, something not addressed by the club until CO’s interview with Radio Manchester. If we couldn’t say anything as part of any agreement with Burton, he wouldn’t have said anything. Similarly, McNulty wouldn’t have made the comments he did if that was the case.
- the total lack of challenge or understandable explanation from the Trust/club around the AGM changes.
Individually or together some may not see any great issues here but it speaks of that bigger picture where communication and respect for supporters interest doesn’t appear to be regarded as important.
On the football side, McNulty has a big task ahead of him because the inconsistencies in results are matching those on selection. A headache created by, in my opinion, too many options and players.
The Halifax game illustrated how we can get results when it’s a battle, but where is that on a regular basis when we don’t play the football the squad is capable of?
We’re still doing ok, but there’s a definite correlation between on and off the pitch doubts. |
| Forum
Reply | Mcnulty
at 20:08 16 Nov 2024
I was only commenting on the Burton link as it was in this thread. Didn’t see the game today but yeah, not a fan of listing excuses ahead of looking at where we’ve fallen short.
The comments towards the end were interesting. |
| Forum
Reply | Mcnulty
at 19:24 16 Nov 2024
Good that McNulty covered the situation in his interview after the match. Credits Cameron Ogden for his interview too.
Communication isn’t hard if it’s considered important enough. |
| Forum
Reply | Wealdstone match thread
at 19:11 16 Nov 2024
He has and it’s not saying the players he’s brought in have been useless or not needed, but there’s a obviously a lack of football knowledge in the rest of the club to help assess what we have and what else is required. |
| Forum
Reply | Wealdstone match thread
at 18:51 16 Nov 2024
You may be right on the first point, but if he’s fit and playing well dropping him doesn’t make sense.
Could be wrong but wasn’t his last absence illness? And he’d only have been a sub at Barnet anyway.
Back to the squad list, the one from a couple of weeks ago has changed but it’s still way too big for me and is adding to the problems:
GK
McNicholas, Waller, Kelly
Defenders
EEL, Gordon, Beckwith, Armstrong, Hogan, Ferguson
Midfielders
East, Gilmour, Henry, Burger
Wide players inc. wing backs
TAR, Allarakhia, Buyabu, McBride, Senior, Alfa, Barlow, Okeke, Penney, Ayinde
Forwards
Mitchell, Rodney, Henderson, Dennis |
| Forum
Reply | Wealdstone match thread
at 18:29 16 Nov 2024
Ferguson was dropped after the Ebbsfleet game when he wasn’t blame for either goal conceded. He might not be a late sub, that’s down to the manager for those changes, however when he’s started games he’s been good all season - even in the recent NLC game against Blackburn u21s.
Not trying to go after Hogan, but we haven’t kept a clean sheet since he’s been a starter, conceding 11 goals in 6 games. |
| Forum
Reply | Mcnulty
at 17:27 16 Nov 2024
This last week has been another example of how out of touch the club still are with the fans, new owners or not.
Agree on this next few weeks being massive. |
| Forum
Reply | Wealdstone match thread
at 17:22 16 Nov 2024
There’s a real concern that we’ve got too many players leading to too many changes and no consistency in selection. It was understandable to get people in to cover injuries but looking at that line-up today it looks way too muddled.
Do not understand why Henderson isn’t playing a bigger role because his performances have been good whenever he’s been on the pitch. With no Mitchell, it’s the perfect opportunity to play someone who knows how to play as a central striker.
Pressure to get a result next week is ramping up and a non-performance is not acceptable. Clarity of thinking required but it’s a worry if that is possible with so many in the squad. |
| Forum
Reply | tomorrow can't come quick enough
at 22:37 15 Nov 2024
And some Bury fans still wonder why the likes of Day and Dale were able to get away with what they did.
One look at the attitude of the majority of the fanbase and they knew it’d be easy. |
| Forum
Reply | tomorrow can't come quick enough
at 21:50 15 Nov 2024
Why would he go for old times sake when the same mistakes and the same divisions are still being made? Some fans have principles, some don’t.
As seen in your next post to this one. |
| Forum
Reply | AGM change
at 19:12 14 Nov 2024
What is a struggle to understand is WHY the Trust have not established why the change has been made.
The bit about there being a normal fans forum to follow not long after is quite irrelevant, because we’ve always had those. The two are not connected. [Post edited 14 Nov 19:15]
|
| Forum
Reply | Mcnulty
at 19:01 14 Nov 2024
I’ve done my best to support the manager’s way of playing, even if aspects of it frustrate, and can see how well he’s done constructing a good squad with an excellent team spirit. I also have no issue with a manager talking to another club if it’s been approved by our own. It’s happened before and it’ll happen again.
Edit: anyway, remember when Burton(s) sponsored Leeds? [Post edited 14 Nov 19:02]
|
| Forum
Thread | AGM change
at 20:28 13 Nov 2024
As reported in the latest Trust newsletter, the following came up during the last meeting between the club and the Trust:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/november-2024-news-letter/
“Simon opened the meeting by providing an update on future changes to the format of AGM’s. This will comprise a corporate/business agenda only to meet the essential requirements of an AGM, rather than in the past, incorporating a fans forum element, available to shareholders only. A Fans Forum will take place, at a date following the AGM, attendance to which will be open to a wider audience than shareholders only.”
This was raised at the Trust AGM last weekend, and reported as follows:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2024/11/trust-2024-agm/
“ Reference was made to the statement made by the Club regarding the new format of future AGMs, without the opportunity of a forum taking place once AGM business is concluded. A date for a Fans Forum will closely follow the AGM to allow participation to include all fans, and not limited to shareholders.”
That appears to re-report what we already knew. It was raised to establish with a concern that removing the forum part of the AGM may discourage the attendance of shareholders on the night, who may believe they wouldn’t get a chance to raise questions.
It was also noted that any AGM with an ‘AOB’ section (like the Trust one) would allow those questions to be asked anyway, so it just needed establishing why there was a need to remove the “forum element” of an AGM for the shareholders who have, in the past, played a massive role in securing the future of the club. [Post edited 13 Nov 20:34]
|
| Forum
Reply | Mcnulty
at 13:40 13 Nov 2024
Fully support that everyone feels differently on any given situation. It’s more when posting on here we can only go off the facts that are available to give reasons for how we feel.
Without substantiating opinion/feeling with detail, no one else would be able to reassess their own thoughts accordingly.
At the moment, my opinion is similar to how it was for the Hill scenario above, a manager who might have moved to another club hasn’t. As then, we are challenging for promotion with a good squad, so it would be a bad time to be losing the manager. |
| Forum
Reply | Mcnulty
at 13:25 13 Nov 2024
For reference, Keith Hill was in contention for the Tranmere job during November of our first promotion season under him. It was a situation that went on for a few days (we drew 3-3 at Luton in the cup after being 3 down during that period), he stayed at the club.
As per Chris Dunphy’s book. |
| Forum
Reply | Mcnulty
at 22:09 11 Nov 2024
What would you know about financially stable football clubs? |
| Forum
Reply | Mcnulty
at 10:36 11 Nov 2024
Spot on.
It’s all hypothetical for the moment, but my only concern would be the size of the current squad for any incoming manager. McNulty has signed them all and they’ll know where they stand, that would be a change that requires managing well. Actually, it’s not the only concern, because obviously the choice of any new manager would be the most important thing and it would require footballing insight to get that right, do we have that at the club? If not, what process can be utilised to get it right?
It could all lead to nothing of course, in which case the club should ensure McNulty is given the opportunity to make it clear about future direction to remove some of the issues TS mentions. |
| | 442Dale
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 7582 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 7582 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.