| Sporting director 15:44 - Feb 17 with 28142 views | fitzochris |
|  |
| |  |
| Sporting director on 12:05 - Feb 18 with 3150 views | JimmyRustler |
This will presumably be a pretty lucrative role. Where is this money coming from? |  | | |
| Sporting director on 12:16 - Feb 18 with 3081 views | James1980 |
| Sporting director on 11:58 - Feb 18 by YouTubeDale |
We need clarity on the appointment of a Sporting Director. David Bottomley needs to communicate clearly the reasoning behind this move especially as it's a departure from the way Dale have worked so far in our history. This appointment raises too many questions and because the fans/shareholders cannot have a say in the matter because of covid that is even more reason to gain clarity and more importantly trust in the people making vital decisions for the club that impact directly on fans.
Fans are massive stakeholders and therefore deserve and indeed demand accountabilty. |
We are just moving with the times, other clubs in lower leagues have them.
Our current CEO has seen our former CEO has employed one at Port Vale and doesn't want to be out done
BBM has discusssed this with the board and all parties agree it is an important appointment to be made.
The board have advertised this with out discussing with BBM to undermine him and hope he quits out of a sense of pride thus saving them paying him off
The board is hoping Mr Altman and co might re consider and make another more attractive offer to gain a controlling share of the club. [Post edited 18 Feb 2021 12:19]
|  |
| |
| Sporting director on 12:18 - Feb 18 with 3074 views | dawlishdale |
I'm no expert on the legalities of running a football club, but there are some very serious questions to be asked of the Board, and the CEO especially, who does not have the best track record in business decision making. I wonder if the club employees and other Board members are even aware of this? I suspect not.
Appointing a Director of Football, on top of all the other off field appointments, would suggest that we have plenty of money available. So why have we not got a left back?
All these changes suggest that
a) The CEO can't do his job and needs help
b) BBM can't do his job and needs help.
The Trust has been ever so quiet recently. Wonder if they have been silenced by the club?
All I know is that we are not the friendly, approachable, family orientated club that we all know and love (d). We are turning into a faceless heartless unapproachable corporate entity, and all on a vastly reduced income that does not need or require such measures.
This all seems to coincide with the date a certain "businessman" was appointed as a Director. | | | |
| Sporting director on 12:25 - Feb 18 with 3057 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sporting director on 11:26 - Feb 18 by judd |
Not sure if you have allowed for the last years' acquisition of shares by Mr Kelly?
I make it 208,273 including Mr Smallwood, plus 100 for Mrs Fielding I think. |
thanks Judd, that's it; there's also Shareholding 321: 453 shares held by Rochdale AFC Secretary - could also be seen as ''Board' support? | |
| |
| Sporting director on 13:49 - Feb 18 with 2906 views | JPSDale |
| Sporting director on 09:34 - Feb 18 by Suggers |
Anyone who knows anything about the comings and goings of our club off the pitch, in particular in the Boardroom, knows only too well how manipulative the CEO of OUR club is.
Since arriving as an independent Non Exec (with a chequered corporate history at that) he has been party to a Boardroom revolt resulting in the acrimonious and extremely sad exit of one of the finest champions of OUR club in our history, to a self serving appointment as CEO with no experience accompanied by hand picked Board appointments to serve his agenda - two of who reported to him.
Where are the overcoat men when you need them??? |
I'm no supporter of our CEO, and I see how he rubs people up the wrong way - BUT ... Boardroom Revolt was nothing to do with him as he carries so little weight with the shareholders.
A Kilpatrick, D Kilpatrick and G Morris were more likely candidates for CD leaving and the unnecessary acrimony. During the later stages of of CD Chairmanship Mr Morris was sat in the mainstand exec seats - once CD was ejected Mr Morris was back in the comfort of the Boardroom along with D Kilpatrick who watched occasionally. A Kilpatrick not really seen ( nothing new)
Ive never really bought into "the overcoat" men thing - any money introduced was loans which have been paid back, time given- yes, but they got free seat ( best in the house), food and drink. But now if these men really care about the club they either need to dust off the overcoat, or actively find the next custodian of their shares ( bought at £0.50, so to the right buyer, selling at £0.50 so as not to profit i would hope ) | | | |
| Sporting director on 14:33 - Feb 18 with 2800 views | Dalenet |
| Sporting director on 11:03 - Feb 18 by Hopwoodblue |
We all know this board is looked at by the board.
You would like to think under the current circumstances of what’s going on off the field and on it our Chairman would make some sort of statement even if just to stop any talk of sacking BBM and why so many off the field employees are now necessary.
With us staring relegation in the face and to be honest the way things are going I think its inevitable looking how other clubs around us have been proactive over the last few weeks,
I would like to think the board would be looking to trim costs where ever possible looking at our current league position. They don’t seem to have a problem doing it when recruiting players.
Is adding more office / back room staff putting value on the club if they wish to sell it ?
The silence from the club on what really matters is deafening! [Post edited 18 Feb 2021 11:05]
|
Something doesn't add up. The windfalls the club has received from player sales and cup runs in the recent past has cushioned us from the real threats of the pandemic - for now. During the first lock downs we furloughed most of the staff and players. We knew we were in a better position that many clubs. But the CEO and Chair were keen to suggest that this was a tightrope. As Accrington Chairman said recently - clubs need to assume that fans won't be allowed in for the 2021/22 season in the way we all hope and must prepare for that possibility. That would point to cutting costs and managing risk. Indeed a bunker mentality to prepare for survival.
Our actions off the pitch seem to suggest we are building a bigger capability for the future. The CEO reminds us regularly that the fans provide just 15% of the clubs income and I understand that their focus is on trying to harness and build the other 85%. But it isn't clear whether investment in the back office does that or whether we are following another ideology. If we are serious about building a stronger sporting capability that would result in progress on the field we would get it. But the club needs to look at both its purpose and its values and remind itself what we are about. Professionalising the club to create sustainability is one thing. Focussing on that and forgetting about why we exist (and the damage that would be caused by relegation) would be a horrible legacy for the Board and Executive team.
I for one won't feel encouraged to throw another £355 into the pot come summer unless there is greater clarity on where we are going. I don't want the inevitable cost increase to be paying for a bigger and bigger back office as small as my personal contribution will be viewed | | | |
| Sporting director on 14:37 - Feb 18 with 2779 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 14:33 - Feb 18 by Dalenet |
Something doesn't add up. The windfalls the club has received from player sales and cup runs in the recent past has cushioned us from the real threats of the pandemic - for now. During the first lock downs we furloughed most of the staff and players. We knew we were in a better position that many clubs. But the CEO and Chair were keen to suggest that this was a tightrope. As Accrington Chairman said recently - clubs need to assume that fans won't be allowed in for the 2021/22 season in the way we all hope and must prepare for that possibility. That would point to cutting costs and managing risk. Indeed a bunker mentality to prepare for survival.
Our actions off the pitch seem to suggest we are building a bigger capability for the future. The CEO reminds us regularly that the fans provide just 15% of the clubs income and I understand that their focus is on trying to harness and build the other 85%. But it isn't clear whether investment in the back office does that or whether we are following another ideology. If we are serious about building a stronger sporting capability that would result in progress on the field we would get it. But the club needs to look at both its purpose and its values and remind itself what we are about. Professionalising the club to create sustainability is one thing. Focussing on that and forgetting about why we exist (and the damage that would be caused by relegation) would be a horrible legacy for the Board and Executive team.
I for one won't feel encouraged to throw another £355 into the pot come summer unless there is greater clarity on where we are going. I don't want the inevitable cost increase to be paying for a bigger and bigger back office as small as my personal contribution will be viewed |
To be slightly pedantic, the 15% is from gate receipts.
I think far more is generated by fans via other revenue streams. |  |
| |
| Sporting director on 14:48 - Feb 18 with 2751 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sporting director on 14:37 - Feb 18 by judd |
To be slightly pedantic, the 15% is from gate receipts.
I think far more is generated by fans via other revenue streams. |
I'd estimate circa £400K which is roughly half the gate receipts | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sporting director on 14:55 - Feb 18 with 2728 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 14:48 - Feb 18 by tony_roch975 |
I'd estimate circa £400K which is roughly half the gate receipts |
Yeah, and then depends were fandom and corporate expenditure is split from the £260k sponsorship and donations (2019 accounts) | |
| |
| Sporting director on 14:56 - Feb 18 with 2730 views | Dalenet |
| Sporting director on 14:37 - Feb 18 by judd |
To be slightly pedantic, the 15% is from gate receipts.
I think far more is generated by fans via other revenue streams. |
Oh yes I agree. I certainly put more in than my ticket money. But that isn't the message painted. the "customers" as we are now known have become less relevant in the big picture. They forget that without fans there is no passion, no purpose, no club and no wages. | | | |
| Sporting director on 17:00 - Feb 18 with 2543 views | Suggers |
| Sporting director on 13:49 - Feb 18 by JPSDale |
I'm no supporter of our CEO, and I see how he rubs people up the wrong way - BUT ... Boardroom Revolt was nothing to do with him as he carries so little weight with the shareholders.
A Kilpatrick, D Kilpatrick and G Morris were more likely candidates for CD leaving and the unnecessary acrimony. During the later stages of of CD Chairmanship Mr Morris was sat in the mainstand exec seats - once CD was ejected Mr Morris was back in the comfort of the Boardroom along with D Kilpatrick who watched occasionally. A Kilpatrick not really seen ( nothing new)
Ive never really bought into "the overcoat" men thing - any money introduced was loans which have been paid back, time given- yes, but they got free seat ( best in the house), food and drink. But now if these men really care about the club they either need to dust off the overcoat, or actively find the next custodian of their shares ( bought at £0.50, so to the right buyer, selling at £0.50 so as not to profit i would hope ) |
Who ended up winning after the dust had settled? |  | | |
| Sporting director on 17:14 - Feb 18 with 2490 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 13:49 - Feb 18 by JPSDale |
I'm no supporter of our CEO, and I see how he rubs people up the wrong way - BUT ... Boardroom Revolt was nothing to do with him as he carries so little weight with the shareholders.
A Kilpatrick, D Kilpatrick and G Morris were more likely candidates for CD leaving and the unnecessary acrimony. During the later stages of of CD Chairmanship Mr Morris was sat in the mainstand exec seats - once CD was ejected Mr Morris was back in the comfort of the Boardroom along with D Kilpatrick who watched occasionally. A Kilpatrick not really seen ( nothing new)
Ive never really bought into "the overcoat" men thing - any money introduced was loans which have been paid back, time given- yes, but they got free seat ( best in the house), food and drink. But now if these men really care about the club they either need to dust off the overcoat, or actively find the next custodian of their shares ( bought at £0.50, so to the right buyer, selling at £0.50 so as not to profit i would hope ) |
Perhaps you should investigate who instigated the removal of Life VP privileges when CD was away on business.
The fact that loans (sometimes 6 figures) were repaid in full is testimony to how well run the finances were? | |
| |
| Sporting director on 18:06 - Feb 18 with 2347 views | JPSDale |
| Sporting director on 17:14 - Feb 18 by judd |
Perhaps you should investigate who instigated the removal of Life VP privileges when CD was away on business.
The fact that loans (sometimes 6 figures) were repaid in full is testimony to how well run the finances were? |
The "removal of the VP Privileges" was presumably done by Goodwin or Dunphy, as when they left, DK and GM returned. Goodwin and Dunphy were and still are close ( as has been commented on this board - looking to buy into other clubs together) so one may have said / done it, but the other was fully aware, so CD on business not really the line, and as Chairman he could have overturned it as soon as he found out, but he didn't. The question is why would they do this if they felt these people were supportive and positive ? They would not have had the privilege removed had there not been issues. Chairman removed, VPs return to the comfy seats, influencing & controlling when they wish, but not responsible... nice work if you can get it.
If the club was well run and within budget, then how did it get into a 6 figure debt ? which is more like 7 figures today which CD got heaps of abuse / blame for
The Bywater money - spread over a number of years, was unexpected and got the club out of jail while VPs ran the club, just as the Murray to Matherson etc has done since
Having secured the ground for the club ( good effort, but would even Rochdale Council approve planning on the ground - probably not), the Directors loans were always pretty safe when the clubs accountant is owed the money... | | | |
| Sporting director on 18:28 - Feb 18 with 2280 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 18:06 - Feb 18 by JPSDale |
The "removal of the VP Privileges" was presumably done by Goodwin or Dunphy, as when they left, DK and GM returned. Goodwin and Dunphy were and still are close ( as has been commented on this board - looking to buy into other clubs together) so one may have said / done it, but the other was fully aware, so CD on business not really the line, and as Chairman he could have overturned it as soon as he found out, but he didn't. The question is why would they do this if they felt these people were supportive and positive ? They would not have had the privilege removed had there not been issues. Chairman removed, VPs return to the comfy seats, influencing & controlling when they wish, but not responsible... nice work if you can get it.
If the club was well run and within budget, then how did it get into a 6 figure debt ? which is more like 7 figures today which CD got heaps of abuse / blame for
The Bywater money - spread over a number of years, was unexpected and got the club out of jail while VPs ran the club, just as the Murray to Matherson etc has done since
Having secured the ground for the club ( good effort, but would even Rochdale Council approve planning on the ground - probably not), the Directors loans were always pretty safe when the clubs accountant is owed the money... |
The result of your investigation is presumption and supposition?
That "6 figure debt" was repaid answers your financially well run question. It is not unusual for businesses to owe directors loans.
Not sure what you refer to as "7 figures" - the last year Dunphy was at the club he left half way through a season, so his last full year of chairman responsibility saw a trading loss of £306k with £1,177k cash at bank. | |
| |
| Sporting director on 20:35 - Feb 18 with 2024 views | TVOS1907 |
| Sporting director on 04:22 - Feb 18 by Sandyman |
Not much smaller shareholders can do, sadly. The AGM / EGM from last March can't be held for Covid reasons. And even if our angst at the board for some of the bewildering decisions that we get to know about went to a vote, the big shareholders in the board room with their thousands of shares would be able to out-vote the those with a hundred or two.
It's a mess. The recruitment drive off the pitch being the opposite of the will to recruit on the pitch is ridiculous. bury had a crazy number of backroom staff on the books before the inevitable demise. Dale are going the same way (apart from player recruitment on big wages of course)
Retaining a poor manager and (hope it doesn't happen) relegation on the horizon... who is going to buy season cards? Who will pay the Chief Ego Officer's wages?
£6 a share the board wanted from a prospective buyer(s) of available shares 12 months ago, with a rider that current shareholders couldn't invest. They'd be lucky to get 6p a share now, given the rubbish on the pitch and the questionable level of recruitment off it.
Oooh look, Accrington Stanley, smallest fanbase, smallest income in this division. In a play-off place today. Not heard any "poor little Accrington" bleating from up the road. They should be applauded for getting on with what matters and doing it a far sight better than what RAFC are. Perhaps the custodians of their club have the interests of the club and its supporters foremost in their minds? Ours used to. |
What I like about what Accrington do is that their loan signings seem to contribute an awful lot to their success.
They seem to get good loan additions in areas of the pitch that can make a difference - that being in the opponents' penalty area!
Paul Smyth, on loan from QPR, scored their winner last night and this isn't his first spell with Stanley.
They have also recruited very well from non-league.
Will they keep it up season after season? Who knows, but Coleman deserves plenty of praise for what he is doing at the moment. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Sporting director on 21:08 - Feb 18 with 1938 views | AtThePeake |
What I don't like about the Accrington comparison is that Accrington are a pretty isolated case. They deserve praise for what they are doing and we could learn a few things from them, but for every club like them with smaller resources doing better than us, there are several with larger resources that are one and in some cases even two leagues below us. I do think that is worth remembering. |  |
| |
| Sporting director on 21:08 - Feb 18 with 1932 views | TVOS1907 |
| Sporting director on 21:08 - Feb 18 by AtThePeake |
What I don't like about the Accrington comparison is that Accrington are a pretty isolated case. They deserve praise for what they are doing and we could learn a few things from them, but for every club like them with smaller resources doing better than us, there are several with larger resources that are one and in some cases even two leagues below us. I do think that is worth remembering. |
Absolutely, but Accrington were the only ones mentioned by Sandyman. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Sporting director on 21:14 - Feb 18 with 1903 views | AtThePeake |
| Sporting director on 21:08 - Feb 18 by TVOS1907 |
Absolutely, but Accrington were the only ones mentioned by Sandyman. |
I know and my post is not aimed at you or Sandyman in particular, but it's something I've seen mentioned quite a few times both here and on Twitter. | |
| |
| Sporting director on 21:15 - Feb 18 with 1894 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 21:08 - Feb 18 by TVOS1907 |
Absolutely, but Accrington were the only ones mentioned by Sandyman. |
He should change his user name to Stanleyman, ffs | |
| |
| Sporting director on 21:35 - Feb 18 with 1836 views | Sandyman |
| Sporting director on 21:15 - Feb 18 by judd |
He should change his user name to Stanleyman, ffs |
Throwing your TOYS out the pram again? |  | | |
| Sporting director on 21:39 - Feb 18 with 1827 views | TVOS1907 |
| Sporting director on 21:35 - Feb 18 by Sandyman |
Throwing your TOYS out the pram again? |
Thought that was a misspelling of TVOS at first glance, Stanley. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Sporting director on 21:44 - Feb 18 with 1815 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 21:35 - Feb 18 by Sandyman |
Throwing your TOYS out the pram again? |
Not at them prices | |
| |
| Sporting director on 21:54 - Feb 18 with 1790 views | DaleiLama |
| Sporting director on 21:44 - Feb 18 by judd |
Not at them prices |
Someone's already used the get out of jail free card I believe? |  |
| |
| Sporting director on 21:56 - Feb 18 with 1781 views | JPSDale |
| Sporting director on 17:00 - Feb 18 by Suggers |
Who ended up winning after the dust had settled? |
The Club lost, we lost - Dunphy was brought during DK and GM years as he was younger and a potential successor to them. They ejected him after many years and have yet to replace him, there has been enough time, they are signing off on all the off field expenditure as if they weren't it would stop.
Successful business needs a succession plan, ultimately the shareholders responsibility to appoint the management, they appoint Chairman, They appoint CEO etc...
No local business person has been able to attain a serious stake in the club, introduce some new ideas and drive from the Boardroom since Andy Kelly joined umpteen years ago ( great job - thank you )
With DK, GM and now chairman all inactive our major shareholders are sat on shares which control the club, but they don't wish to have a say on which direction by being Directors.... just sit in the background and muttering what they don't want, please ask the overcoat men to tell us what the do want...
As they like to say, they are custodians of the club, they should be actively looking for those successors, sell them the shares at the same price they paid ie no profit for the right successor, remain a VP and then there is a future for the club. A void in the Boardroom is a very dangerous thing
Looking at the current board, with the exception of Andy Kelly, they own very few shares. The VPs and recently stood down Chair control the club, when will we hear or see their plans for the future...
I dont care for Boardroom politics - I care for the club..... The Board sets the whole tone, its the leadership, we currently have an empty space which needs filling
The American came knocking not just because of the Youth, The Balance Sheet, but because in their experience of the corporate world, a shareholder register with the current age profile represents a massive opportunity. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
