| Share sale 11:34 - Jun 3 with 67179 views | fitzochris |
I understand the shares owned by Chris Dunphy, Bill Goodwin and Paul Hazelhurst have been sold to a US-based concern.
Keep an eye on Companies House over the coming weeks. |  |
| |  |
| Share sale on 11:14 - Jun 6 with 2245 views | Reedy |
| Share sale on 06:26 - Jun 6 by BartRowou |
Need to get my head round this.
Let's say there were 10 shares in the club.
If one person has 6 shares, they have over half and can make decisions by themselves.
Chris Dunphy sold his 3 of the 10 shares to the Americans.
So they need 3 more to have control of the club (6 being over half).
The club then issues 10 more shares (the EGM scenario)
Now the 3 shares the Americans have aren't as important because 3 out of 20 is not as near to over half as 3 out of 10 is.
Is this how it works? |
Your not far wrong.
The key is the unissued shares, if these are bought by Altman, it would not only increase his stake and control in the club, it would dilute the other shareholders in percentage terms.
If Altman was to get to 51% and a controlling stake, he could then (in theory) issue the remaining shares and buy them himself, but he can’t do that before he has a controlling stake (unless the rest of the board approve it)
I would be very interested to see how much he has paid per share, as this would give us a rough valuation of his value of the club as a whole. |  |
| |
| Share sale on 11:14 - Jun 6 with 2238 views | judd |
| Share sale on 09:13 - Jun 6 by VivaDonaldo |
Or I suppose you could see it as, if you want to take a controlling interest in the club your money can buy shares where it goes directly into the club rather than to a private shareholders pockets.
It also probably reads as, we want investment but dint want to lose our board position or element of influence we have.
As I said previously, i think this now pushes this argument front and centre and an interesting new dynamic develops where it seems that Altman has already gone on the charm offensive via the trust.
I'd love Chris Dunphy to comment to get his perspective, but I imagine he'll stay quiet for now. Could you speak to him Fitzo, see if he's willing to comment publicly? |
It would appear that the club turned down the offer of direct investment via the purchase of unissued shares and are making an issue of the share transfer not benefiting the club financially.
A real issue.
Let's see if there have been any other share transfers and where those funds went.
Fitzo has already said he's stepping away from this now that his diligent work has been picked up by the Trust.
I cannot see why Chris Dunphy should be asked to make a public statement on a private transaction. |  |
| |
| Share sale on 11:15 - Jun 6 with 2235 views | dawlishdale |
| Share sale on 06:26 - Jun 6 by BartRowou |
Need to get my head round this.
Let's say there were 10 shares in the club.
If one person has 6 shares, they have over half and can make decisions by themselves.
Chris Dunphy sold his 3 of the 10 shares to the Americans.
So they need 3 more to have control of the club (6 being over half).
The club then issues 10 more shares (the EGM scenario)
Now the 3 shares the Americans have aren't as important because 3 out of 20 is not as near to over half as 3 out of 10 is.
Is this how it works? |
Not sure I understand where you have CD owning 3 of the 10 shares (i.e 30%)
My understanding is that he held much less than this... indeed all 3 of the people who have recently sold don't add up to 20% of the shareholding currently issued.
I'd also add that it looks very much like this is a hostile takeover bid...the Board of the club appear (from comments and the announcement of the EGM) to be very much opposed to it.
I don't fully understand why the Board would be opposed to this...unless they know something that we don't. In the meantime, I'm very much reserving judgement on whether it's a good or bad thing for us.
The Trust now have a vital role to play, and it is important that they do not align with either the views of one Director or the new investment team. They must represent their members. | | | |
| Share sale on 11:24 - Jun 6 with 2191 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Share sale on 11:14 - Jun 6 by judd |
It would appear that the club turned down the offer of direct investment via the purchase of unissued shares and are making an issue of the share transfer not benefiting the club financially.
A real issue.
Let's see if there have been any other share transfers and where those funds went.
Fitzo has already said he's stepping away from this now that his diligent work has been picked up by the Trust.
I cannot see why Chris Dunphy should be asked to make a public statement on a private transaction. |
Yes it’s a private sale, but I would be interested to know why he sold to this group, if we accept he only has the interests of the club at heart, is he trying to force the current mob out? And if so why?. I appreciate he’s has no obligation to answer any questions |  |
| |
| Share sale on 11:27 - Jun 6 with 2172 views | judd |
| Share sale on 11:24 - Jun 6 by rochdaleriddler |
Yes it’s a private sale, but I would be interested to know why he sold to this group, if we accept he only has the interests of the club at heart, is he trying to force the current mob out? And if so why?. I appreciate he’s has no obligation to answer any questions |
I guess we'll just have to speculate. | |
| |
| Share sale on 11:31 - Jun 6 with 2165 views | BartRowou |
| Share sale on 11:15 - Jun 6 by dawlishdale |
Not sure I understand where you have CD owning 3 of the 10 shares (i.e 30%)
My understanding is that he held much less than this... indeed all 3 of the people who have recently sold don't add up to 20% of the shareholding currently issued.
I'd also add that it looks very much like this is a hostile takeover bid...the Board of the club appear (from comments and the announcement of the EGM) to be very much opposed to it.
I don't fully understand why the Board would be opposed to this...unless they know something that we don't. In the meantime, I'm very much reserving judgement on whether it's a good or bad thing for us.
The Trust now have a vital role to play, and it is important that they do not align with either the views of one Director or the new investment team. They must represent their members. |
The 3 out of 10 was just a way of me trying to understand the situation.
I have no knowledge of how many shares he has/had although I know it was less than half. |  |
| |
| Share sale on 11:53 - Jun 6 with 2110 views | D_Alien |
| Share sale on 11:15 - Jun 6 by dawlishdale |
Not sure I understand where you have CD owning 3 of the 10 shares (i.e 30%)
My understanding is that he held much less than this... indeed all 3 of the people who have recently sold don't add up to 20% of the shareholding currently issued.
I'd also add that it looks very much like this is a hostile takeover bid...the Board of the club appear (from comments and the announcement of the EGM) to be very much opposed to it.
I don't fully understand why the Board would be opposed to this...unless they know something that we don't. In the meantime, I'm very much reserving judgement on whether it's a good or bad thing for us.
The Trust now have a vital role to play, and it is important that they do not align with either the views of one Director or the new investment team. They must represent their members. |
Your last point puts the Trust in a delicate position, but i very much agree with it. At this stage, neutrality isn't the best option, but the only option - in fact it should always be the only option!
But i'd extend your point that they must represent their members further. Yes, they should, but also the wider Dale fanbase. It's just possible that some within the wider fanbase chose not to join the Trust, or discontinued their membership, due to a perceived lack of neutrality. By demonstrating that quality, and given the current circumstances, more fans might well feel inclined to join up to allow the Trust to have greater weight when in contact with those with vested interests
[Post edited 6 Jun 2020 11:55]
|  |
| |
| Share sale on 11:55 - Jun 6 with 2098 views | judd |
| Share sale on 11:53 - Jun 6 by D_Alien |
Your last point puts the Trust in a delicate position, but i very much agree with it. At this stage, neutrality isn't the best option, but the only option - in fact it should always be the only option!
But i'd extend your point that they must represent their members further. Yes, they should, but also the wider Dale fanbase. It's just possible that some within the wider fanbase chose not to join the Trust, or discontinued their membership, due to a perceived lack of neutrality. By demonstrating that quality, and given the current circumstances, more fans might well feel inclined to join up to allow the Trust to have greater weight when in contact with those with vested interests
[Post edited 6 Jun 2020 11:55]
|
Very good post. Sums up my position to a tee. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Share sale on 11:58 - Jun 6 with 2090 views | aleanddale |
| Share sale on 15:43 - Jun 5 by SuddenLad |
It's all very well issuing statements in response to the emerging story and it's obviously the right thing to do.
I'd like to know from the Board, is if they deem this proposal 'unsuitable' then tell us why AND - what are their proposals that are 'better' for the future of the club?
Opportunities such as this don't come along every week, so there need to be very good and convincing reasons to deny the club the chance to advance both on and off the field.
Let's hear them. |
Agreed.
This could be the start of something quite brilliant or quite sinister.
As long as there is open and transparent communication and the ground is ringfenced against collateral for cash. We don’t want what our dear white chocolate smeared faces neighbours had!. | | | |
| Share sale on 12:09 - Jun 6 with 2047 views | 442Dale |
| Share sale on 11:53 - Jun 6 by D_Alien |
Your last point puts the Trust in a delicate position, but i very much agree with it. At this stage, neutrality isn't the best option, but the only option - in fact it should always be the only option!
But i'd extend your point that they must represent their members further. Yes, they should, but also the wider Dale fanbase. It's just possible that some within the wider fanbase chose not to join the Trust, or discontinued their membership, due to a perceived lack of neutrality. By demonstrating that quality, and given the current circumstances, more fans might well feel inclined to join up to allow the Trust to have greater weight when in contact with those with vested interests
[Post edited 6 Jun 2020 11:55]
|
Since this story broke the information and communication from the Trust has been good. A precedent has been set and will illustrate how they can represent all supporters going forward.
The expectation is there now from fans and it also illustrates to other parties, that their actions will be questioned and that their responses will be put to those same fans at all times. |  |
| |
| Share sale on 12:09 - Jun 6 with 2050 views | AtThePeake |
| Share sale on 11:12 - Jun 6 by NorthernDale |
I agree in that some clarity needs to presented to the fans, but as many fans have indicated we fear for the future of the club. I suspect Altman are not football fans, but speculators or to use the term somebody else used carpetbaggers out for a quick buck.
Bury when under the ownership of Steward Day took out loans and left the club bankrupt, because the debt far exceeded their ability to pay it back. The new owners could use the potential loans to speculate at no cost to themselves on Rochdale future, if they succeed and get us promoted they benefit, but if the don't , they can walk and leave Rochdale holding the debt. That is what happened at Bury they speculated on going up with loans and spending money on wages they did not have, but got relegated instead and the rest is history.
Some fans seem excited about the potential of us having the money to fight for promotion to the championship, and the same fans no doubt mocked Bury fans have showing the same behaviour and giddiness. Please look at other clubs who have speculated on promotion and failed, I want success, but success that is achievable without putting the future of the Dale at risk. |
Yes, although given that Altman's other business interests lie in football, it would prove to be a serious blow to his company's ambitions if things were to go belly up at Dale. That's not something that Day would have been considering when 'investing' in Bury. |  |
| |
| Share sale on 12:12 - Jun 6 with 2039 views | SuddenLad |
I've pondered this scenario for a while now and there are a few obvious unknowns and grey areas. I'd like to ask a couple of direct questions to the Trust, as a member, as they are themselves (as a body and in our name) significant shareholders in the club.
Has the trust been given (or sought) any kind of apology from the club/Board, as it now seems that they (and we) were misled regarding the circumstances outlined at the Fans Forum? If not, why not?
Do the Trust feel in any way let down, or deceived, by not being kept abreast of the developing story, prior to the excellent piece of work carried out by Fitzochris?
During the Q&A session with Dan Altman, was it asked, or established whether or not anyone currently connected with the club had offered to sell him their shares, or whether any offer had been made to buy personally held shares from them?
As significant shareholders, are the Trust confident that they will now be 'kept in the loop' as far as developments go from now on and can they seek such assurances on behalf of members.
Thank you. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Share sale on 12:14 - Jun 6 with 2034 views | electricblue |
| Share sale on 11:53 - Jun 6 by D_Alien |
Your last point puts the Trust in a delicate position, but i very much agree with it. At this stage, neutrality isn't the best option, but the only option - in fact it should always be the only option!
But i'd extend your point that they must represent their members further. Yes, they should, but also the wider Dale fanbase. It's just possible that some within the wider fanbase chose not to join the Trust, or discontinued their membership, due to a perceived lack of neutrality. By demonstrating that quality, and given the current circumstances, more fans might well feel inclined to join up to allow the Trust to have greater weight when in contact with those with vested interests
[Post edited 6 Jun 2020 11:55]
|
It would be interesting to see if the trust membership increases because of this.. [Post edited 6 Jun 2020 12:16]
|  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Share sale on 12:34 - Jun 6 with 1978 views | 442Dale |
| Share sale on 12:12 - Jun 6 by SuddenLad |
I've pondered this scenario for a while now and there are a few obvious unknowns and grey areas. I'd like to ask a couple of direct questions to the Trust, as a member, as they are themselves (as a body and in our name) significant shareholders in the club.
Has the trust been given (or sought) any kind of apology from the club/Board, as it now seems that they (and we) were misled regarding the circumstances outlined at the Fans Forum? If not, why not?
Do the Trust feel in any way let down, or deceived, by not being kept abreast of the developing story, prior to the excellent piece of work carried out by Fitzochris?
During the Q&A session with Dan Altman, was it asked, or established whether or not anyone currently connected with the club had offered to sell him their shares, or whether any offer had been made to buy personally held shares from them?
As significant shareholders, are the Trust confident that they will now be 'kept in the loop' as far as developments go from now on and can they seek such assurances on behalf of members.
Thank you. |
Some good questions. Out of interest, have you emailed these to the Trust as it’s been said that’s the process for questions to them previously?
Obviously your choice, but could request that answers to the questions are put on their website. | |
| |
| Share sale on 12:43 - Jun 6 with 1955 views | SuddenLad |
| Share sale on 12:34 - Jun 6 by 442Dale |
Some good questions. Out of interest, have you emailed these to the Trust as it’s been said that’s the process for questions to them previously?
Obviously your choice, but could request that answers to the questions are put on their website. |
No, I haven't, but if someone is collating questions I am happy for them to go forward for inclusion. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Share sale on 12:51 - Jun 6 with 1917 views | TalkingSutty |
| Share sale on 12:34 - Jun 6 by 442Dale |
Some good questions. Out of interest, have you emailed these to the Trust as it’s been said that’s the process for questions to them previously?
Obviously your choice, but could request that answers to the questions are put on their website. |
The Trust are utilising the forum to keep the fans updated though, they have supplied a Q&A session to the forum also. Are you suggesting they shouldn't respond to the questions posed on the forum and just revert to their own Trust page? Apologies if I've misinterpreted your post👠[Post edited 6 Jun 2020 12:53]
|  | | |
| Share sale on 12:53 - Jun 6 with 1909 views | 442Dale |
| Share sale on 12:43 - Jun 6 by SuddenLad |
No, I haven't, but if someone is collating questions I am happy for them to go forward for inclusion. |
Happy to do so. Also worth noting that the Trust has mentioned previously that they were looking at doing a “questions for the board” meeting in the next few weeks where members could send in questions. This was prior to this situation developing.
Any questions people want sending in, please post on here by 3pm tomorrow and will send them in. Start your post with ‘Questions for the Trust’ so it’s easier to pinpoint them. [Post edited 6 Jun 2020 13:04]
| |
| |
| Share sale on 12:59 - Jun 6 with 1883 views | 442Dale |
| Share sale on 12:51 - Jun 6 by TalkingSutty |
The Trust are utilising the forum to keep the fans updated though, they have supplied a Q&A session to the forum also. Are you suggesting they shouldn't respond to the questions posed on the forum and just revert to their own Trust page? Apologies if I've misinterpreted your post👠[Post edited 6 Jun 2020 12:53]
|
Not my suggestion, following their previously agreed process.
They haven’t posted on the forum, their statements have appeared on their website and reproduced on this site as stories, they’ve not posted under the Trust banner on the messageboard, unless I missed it. Doing this going forward (statements/answers to questions on their website) will make for a better resource as such information will have been produced in the public domain via an organisation’s own site, not only a comment in a discussion.
Of course, would welcome Trust input on here too! | |
| |
| Share sale on 13:06 - Jun 6 with 1858 views | VivaDonaldo |
| Share sale on 11:14 - Jun 6 by judd |
It would appear that the club turned down the offer of direct investment via the purchase of unissued shares and are making an issue of the share transfer not benefiting the club financially.
A real issue.
Let's see if there have been any other share transfers and where those funds went.
Fitzo has already said he's stepping away from this now that his diligent work has been picked up by the Trust.
I cannot see why Chris Dunphy should be asked to make a public statement on a private transaction. |
Riddlers reply illustrates why I think it would be good to hear from CD.
A good amount of fans will infer his blessing to Altman for the sale when it could well be something else that has driven this and perhaps Altman was the only party with the level of offer and immediate liquidity he was looking for.
Understand if he wants to retain his privacy but if he does then Dale fans should probably refrain from attaching too much CD endorsement to the new party. | | | |
| Share sale on 13:18 - Jun 6 with 1814 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Share sale on 11:15 - Jun 6 by dawlishdale |
Not sure I understand where you have CD owning 3 of the 10 shares (i.e 30%)
My understanding is that he held much less than this... indeed all 3 of the people who have recently sold don't add up to 20% of the shareholding currently issued.
I'd also add that it looks very much like this is a hostile takeover bid...the Board of the club appear (from comments and the announcement of the EGM) to be very much opposed to it.
I don't fully understand why the Board would be opposed to this...unless they know something that we don't. In the meantime, I'm very much reserving judgement on whether it's a good or bad thing for us.
The Trust now have a vital role to play, and it is important that they do not align with either the views of one Director or the new investment team. They must represent their members. |
The Trust have ALWAYS had a vital role to play at our club whether they were labelled the Supporters Club or the Dale Trust in more recent years.
IMO the last two weeks have shown what blatant disdain the club has for the Dale Trust.
First, there was the Dale Lotto communication debacle and now we find that the MOU is worthless; the Trust had no idea that the transfer of these shares had taken place despite (1) regular meetings with the CEO. (2) a fans forum, (3) a meeting on the Dale Lotto debacle.
That can only indicate one of two things to me. At best, a rather forgetful attitude of the CEO when meeting with the trust. At worst, a blatant a flagrant undermining of the bond of trust between the club and its main supporters board.
All football club Board members are in existence to broker deals. Be that deals for players, deals for sponsors, deals for media rights.
Here the Board did not get the deal done but Altman and the people and who he bought from have.
It would be in every Dale fans interest to align themselves with the Trust. Pay the subscription and show that everyone has a voice.
The Trust need to start holding Bottomley to account as CEO and if he is any good, he will welcome the scrutiny and challenge and rise to it. |  |
| |
| Share sale on 13:20 - Jun 6 with 1801 views | nordenblue |
| Share sale on 13:06 - Jun 6 by VivaDonaldo |
Riddlers reply illustrates why I think it would be good to hear from CD.
A good amount of fans will infer his blessing to Altman for the sale when it could well be something else that has driven this and perhaps Altman was the only party with the level of offer and immediate liquidity he was looking for.
Understand if he wants to retain his privacy but if he does then Dale fans should probably refrain from attaching too much CD endorsement to the new party. |
I'm not sure why everyone is so certain that CD would only do business if its deemed good for the club, this is the very same club/board that previously shafted him royal and went behind his back to bring him down if rumours are to be believed, he just may have played this card as a direct repercussion to his previous treatment by certain members of our current boardroom, while at the same time cashing in,its a win win for him? | | | |
| Share sale on 13:21 - Jun 6 with 1796 views | D_Alien |
| Share sale on 13:06 - Jun 6 by VivaDonaldo |
Riddlers reply illustrates why I think it would be good to hear from CD.
A good amount of fans will infer his blessing to Altman for the sale when it could well be something else that has driven this and perhaps Altman was the only party with the level of offer and immediate liquidity he was looking for.
Understand if he wants to retain his privacy but if he does then Dale fans should probably refrain from attaching too much CD endorsement to the new party. |
That's a view i have some sympathy with, and it might be good at some stage to hear from CD, but i wonder if now would be a good time?
With a great deal up in the air, a statement from any of the major players (or former players) could take on greater significance than might be the intention. Hence the terse statement from the club yesterday, but the terseness itself then takes on significance!
In short, it's currently a minefield. The only reason for stepping into it would be if one wanted a bomb to go off | |
| |
| Share sale on 13:25 - Jun 6 with 1776 views | judd |
| Share sale on 13:06 - Jun 6 by VivaDonaldo |
Riddlers reply illustrates why I think it would be good to hear from CD.
A good amount of fans will infer his blessing to Altman for the sale when it could well be something else that has driven this and perhaps Altman was the only party with the level of offer and immediate liquidity he was looking for.
Understand if he wants to retain his privacy but if he does then Dale fans should probably refrain from attaching too much CD endorsement to the new party. |
Why should his actions be so conditional?
He was never one to court publicity whilst at the club, he let actions speak louder than words.
He owes us nothing and I, for one, will not question his integrity. | |
| |
| Share sale on 13:33 - Jun 6 with 1738 views | DaleiLama |
| Share sale on 11:53 - Jun 6 by D_Alien |
Your last point puts the Trust in a delicate position, but i very much agree with it. At this stage, neutrality isn't the best option, but the only option - in fact it should always be the only option!
But i'd extend your point that they must represent their members further. Yes, they should, but also the wider Dale fanbase. It's just possible that some within the wider fanbase chose not to join the Trust, or discontinued their membership, due to a perceived lack of neutrality. By demonstrating that quality, and given the current circumstances, more fans might well feel inclined to join up to allow the Trust to have greater weight when in contact with those with vested interests
[Post edited 6 Jun 2020 11:55]
|
If you can't trust the trust, who can you trust? They will certainly be scrutinised like never before in the coming weeks/months and it's only fair to judge them on how they represent the best interests of the fans and club. Which we will. |  |
| |
| Share sale on 13:36 - Jun 6 with 1726 views | tony_roch975 |
| Share sale on 12:12 - Jun 6 by SuddenLad |
I've pondered this scenario for a while now and there are a few obvious unknowns and grey areas. I'd like to ask a couple of direct questions to the Trust, as a member, as they are themselves (as a body and in our name) significant shareholders in the club.
Has the trust been given (or sought) any kind of apology from the club/Board, as it now seems that they (and we) were misled regarding the circumstances outlined at the Fans Forum? If not, why not?
Do the Trust feel in any way let down, or deceived, by not being kept abreast of the developing story, prior to the excellent piece of work carried out by Fitzochris?
During the Q&A session with Dan Altman, was it asked, or established whether or not anyone currently connected with the club had offered to sell him their shares, or whether any offer had been made to buy personally held shares from them?
As significant shareholders, are the Trust confident that they will now be 'kept in the loop' as far as developments go from now on and can they seek such assurances on behalf of members.
Thank you. |
How misled? There are parallels with the coronavirus situation - doing nothing isn't an option but it'll be a risk/reward judgement and for me that's still in the balance. At the Fans Forum the Board said that lower league football is financially challenged - even more true now; that Dale can't survive either without investment so the Board are in discussions with possible investors - we now know one of those is Dan Altman (we don't know if there are others); we now know from fitzochris that Dunphy had begun the discussions with Altman which he didn't announce so did he mislead us?; we know the Board wanted to expand capital so increasing investment up to £4.2M (which might be the sticking block with Dan Altman who it appears was only offering to buy a part of that capital); we know that increase would dilute existing holdings - we don't know if that was to stop any future hostile takeover or Altman's but it isn't misleading; we know no further discussions are planned but in the current climate that's hardly surprising. As to whether Altman's offer is the best available (most investment at least risk, protects the club's ownership of the stadium etc) - the jury's out on that till there's been more debate. We also can't know what would have been said at the EGM about any of these issues but that's not the board's fault.
So there may have well been occasions when the Board has acted or communicated less well than we would want and undoubtedly there will be battles ahead for us fans but let's not fight the ones we don't need to. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
