Author/sports journalist and Dale fan Mark Hodkinson has written for The Times for more than 20 years. During that period he has spent full seasons at Manchester City and Barnsley as a ‘fly-on-the-wall’ reporter for the paper. He has written five books about Dale and mixed with many of the protagonists in and around the Crown Oil Arena, on a professional and personal basis. We couldn’t think of anyone better qualified to offer a personal insight on all that has happened at the club in recent years. It’s a (very!) long interview but a fascinating read for Dale fans

Q: How have you responded to this season?

A: I’ve struggled. It has felt similar to a hangover but one that won’t go away. It’s probably difficult for fans of other clubs to grasp, but remaining in the Football League has been our badge of honour. Our continuous membership has meant everything in the face of so little success, allied to us being prudent and living within our means — those songs about us paying our bills etc. It’s all gone now and I’m left disappointed, frustrated and angry. I can’t help thinking this could have been avoided.

Q: How far back do you trace the malaise?

A: All the way to Fred Ratcliffe, probably. In corporate-speak, we have probably clung too
steadfastly to an out-dated business model. We’ve always survived on the generosity of a few locally-based directors to introduce ‘directors’ loans’ and mop up the debts each season. Basically, they kept the club afloat by putting in money they knew they wouldn’t get back. Most other clubs were run this way, with finances bolstered by the sale of players or the occasional cup run. I think what happened in the late-1970s, when the ground was reportedly about to be sold and earmarked for housing [see Mark’s book, The Overcoat Men)], has made us incredibly sceptical of outsiders, to the point of neurosis. Aside from Frank Rothwell at Oldham Athletic, I’m not sure there are modern equivalents of Fred Ratcliffe and his ilk anymore, so this means clubs have had to compromise and come to an understanding with outside financiers, to varying
outcomes.

Q: When did you start to become concerned about the club?

A: I sensed that all was not well early in 2021. Under Brian Barry-Murphy, ball-possession and passing patterns was favoured ahead of scoring goals and winning matches. It was pretty but pathetic, a complete inversion of all that is football. The performances worsened and towards the end of 2020/21 we had won the fewest number of home league games in the entire football pyramid. I was wondering who at the club was sanctioning this non-football. Chris Fitzgerald, another journalist and Dale fan, was already on the case with this, and, after offering him professional solidarity, I also began to mine information from various sources about how the club was being administered.

Q: What did you discover?

A: It felt to be rudderless and I was alarmed by the lack of football acumen. Andrew Kilpatrick, the chairman at the time, was largely peripheral but liable to make fateful decisions on his own accord, as we all soon discovered. Of the other directors, the long-serving Andrew Kelly was reportedly weary of the battle and set to resign — several said he spoke more of his love of amateur club, Sacred Heart FC, than he did Rochdale AFC — and, either way, his focus was mainly the club’s academy, which, almost everyone agreed, had been a job well done. Tony Pockney was ensconced in the accounts but was said to draw maximum pleasure from the status afforded him by the directorship, and Graham Rawlinson, another stalwart, was a benign if marginal figure. The vacuum appeared to be filled by director/chief executive David Bottomley who, we soon discovered, was a man on the edge of a nervous breakdown.

Q: What do you mean?

A: Well, Wednesday 10 March 2021 is surely one of the most bizarre, unsettling and doleful days in the club’s history. That was the day of the fans’ forum, streamed live on YouTube because of covid regulations. You’ll recall that Bottomley announced that he had been ‘walking through hell’ before breaking down in tears. Later, in the most bungling and amateurish way possible, Rawlinson revealed that Barry-Murphy had been awarded a year’s contract extension, until May 2022.

Q: In retrospect, was that so bad?

A: Although we were dispersed, watching on our laptops and televisions, we all groaned at the prospect of another season of BBM-ball. And then became angry. Seemingly, the only people enthralled with his playing style were board members. I was told afterwards that Andrew Kilpatrick had made the contract decision single-handedly. On his travels, Southend to Sunderland, he had been told repeatedly that Rochdale played ‘great football’, despite — and here’s the all-important caveat: constantly losing.

Q: Did you personally do anything about the situation?

A: I like to keep Dale and my working life separate but I’ve now realised my personal happiness depends largely on the well-being of the club. As a sports reporter, I have spent a lot of time in and around dressing rooms and boardrooms and have occasionally offered my ‘services’ — free, of course — to Rochdale, from checking on the availability of potential managers to talking up the club.

So, yes, I did do something! I organised a meeting with the Overcoat Men — former chairman, the-late David Kilpatrick and former vice-chairman, Graham Morris, along with serving board member [and later acting chairman], Andrew Kelly: men of great football experience. My intuition had been correct. Both Barry-Murphy and Bottomley were working almost autonomously because of an errant chairman and a shortage of guiding hands in the boardroom.

There was also, of course, no match day ‘summit’ with fans at the COA. This is a very
significant factor because the interaction of supporters between a club’s playing/management staff and directors is vital to nurture a healthy environment. This was lost during lockdown and the wider world of football has suffered. In fact, again looking back, football should have been mothballed because the eventual payments from the EFL did not cover the debts incurred. Clubs fell outside the furlough scheme because players were still working, so they had to cover wage bills with no income via the turnstiles. It’s no surprise that Rochdale and many other clubs took a monumental hit to their finances.

Q: What happened after your meeting with the Overcoat Men?

A: I became part of a small lobby of dedicated Dale fans aiming to either reassemble a new board mainly of ex-directors, or form a completely new one. Within a few weeks, we realised there were too many internecine issues to resolve between ex-directors. Without naming names, one agreed to join but only on the proviso someone else he nominated was invited, but this someone else was disliked by another over a personal issue dating back years. And so on. They each had their deeply held reasons and it quickly became vexatious and hopeless.

Q: What was happening back at the club at this time?

A: There seemed to be three people at the helm, each with disproportionate influence: Andrew Kilpatrick, Tony Pockney and David Bottomley. They had accepted that outside funding was essential and were ‘auditioning’ interested parties. In fact, I learned that the club had been seeking outside finance since 2015.

Q: Did you meet David Bottomley?

A: I heard about him before I actually met him. A good mate of mine lives in Henley-on-Thames [where Bottomley used to live] and he told me about this bloke he’d sometimes meet in his local pub who never stopped talking about Rochdale AFC. I found Bottomley to be friendly and responsive. I also know that he was popular among some of the players and agents, and this was a factor in bringing, for example, Stephen Humphrys to the club and securing the brilliant deal for Luke Matheson. He’s been portrayed as the devil incarnate but it’s my journalistic instincts kicking in here, wanting to present it from both sides and in a wider context. Everyone deserves a right of reply. I’m aware, of course, that he has been charged by the EFL for failing to comply with regulations and banned from operating as a "relevant person" for two years. All the same, I struggle to reconcile that a man so obsessed with the club would purposely want to do it grievous harm. He’s definitely someone who ‘crawls to the light’, making the most of every opportunity and with a fair degree of self-interest at play, but there are many others very similar in and around football clubs.

Q: The club was clearly in a vulnerable position.

A: Well, until that point, our shares had been regarded as quasi-souvenirs or tokens of
philanthropic support but, now, if a significant number was bought from just a few people, 51 per cent of the total could be wrested and an individual or consortium take control. In plain terms, this meant a spend of, say, £500,000, could secure a football club and sate someone’s ego or long-held ambition, or, more disturbingly, a piece of land [on which it stood] with a sell-on value to housing developers of an estimated £5 million — albeit this would depend on what historical covenants are in place, which is another byzantine issue in itself.

Q: How had the club ended up in this situation?

A: I’ve been told by several people that the two promotions secured by Keith Hill came at too high a price. The budgets were more than the club could afford, exacerbated by the fact that Hill had negotiated himself both a generous wage and a proportion of transfer fees received. This view has to be countered by the fact that to secure those promotions, at whatever cost at the time, the club acquired playing assets that were sold later for substantial sums. Generally, though, if you want to find the source of a club’s demise, you must look first at how it was administered in the eye of its greatest, most recent ‘success’.

Chris [Fitzgerald] had first broken the story that, on leaving the board in December 2020, former chairman, Chris Dunphy and director, Bill Goodwin, along with the widow of the deceased former director, Paul Hazlehurst, had sold their shares to Dan Altman and Emre Marcelli, two American businessmen who wanted to use the club to showcase their sports analytics company, smarterscout.

This was probably the first time Rochdale AFC shares had been sold to a third party for
personal gain. Other directors were displeased but, considering the many hours put in by the various parties and how they felt treated by the club at the time of their resignation, the retiring directors viewed it as a fair exchange. Besides, the number of shares sold at that time did not leave the club in any imminent danger of a take-over; that was to come later.

Q: Presumably, you’re referring to Morton House MGT?

A: Yes. They were hunting down shares, paying considerably in excess of their previous value. Altman and Marcelli, no doubt delighted at their good fortune and having no sentimental attachment to the club, sold their tranche, as did — at a later date and probably viewed, again, as either recompense for their time and effort or sheer disgruntlement: Andrew Kilpatrick, David Bottomley and Graham Rawlinson.

By far the largest number of these shares was sold by Andrew Kilpatrick — public school-
educated, house in Chelsea etc — netting him in excess of £500,000. He was said to be a
‘reluctant chairman’, apparently invited on to the board as a mediator between different factions already in situ. He had inherited the shares from his late-father, Brian Kilpatrick, who had been a regular benefactor over many years. By virtue of living such a distance from the club and turning down interview requests, Kilpatrick was able to make a stealthy exit from the messy aftermath. I suppose we must remember that the club was in a peculiar situation at the time — just a handful of directors, effectively on shut-down because of covid and haemorrhaging money.

Q: Did you form an opinion of Morton House?

A: The term ‘hostile’ was applied early in the process and became the prevailing narrative, prompted initially, no doubt, by how the shares had been procured and that the group comprised individuals from out of town, without any previous connection to the club. They were also widely portrayed, with ample apparent evidence, in an extremely negative light. I spoke to journalist pals in the south with a little inside knowledge. They thought it likely that they would buy the club, invest heavily in it initially and later sell it on at a handsome profit, when it was much higher up the football pyramid. At the time the club had a paltry debt, certainly in football terms. So, an attractive, easily acquired proposition. They may have had other plans, of course.

Q: Did you have any involvement with Martin Halsall, the ‘entrepreneur’ from Bolton, who was also said to be interested in buying the club?

A: I met Halsall and his business partner, Ian Bridge. They were both likeable. Halsall was quiet but listened. Bridge was switched-on and informed — he’s now a leading light in Fairgame, the fans’ pressure group with the motif, ‘we believe in sustainability, integrity and community’.

Q: What happened after that meeting?

A: I passed on my feelings about the pair to the group and left it to others better qualified to enquire further on the financial situation, particularly the caveats Halsall might request before committing his money. This was where the deal fell down. I was later to hear both sides. Halsall, they said, was ambiguous about his sources of finance and requested collateral: the ground, possibly. The club’s representatives [leading Trust members, mainly] were, according to Halsall and Bridge, and I paraphrase…, unrealistic, out-of-touch and paranoid. They said they had come with a good heart but felt chased out of town. A source told me that a parallel was drawn between the Dale representatives and the intransigence of union reps of the 1970s.

Q: Do you now feel this was a missed opportunity?

A: In hindsight, it probably was. I understand, however, why people responded as they did and why they thought they were acting in the club’s best long-term interests. In the case of a football club, ‘long-term’ means a decade or so — so we’ll find out later, for better or worse.

Q: Did you play any part in assembling the current board?

A. I suppose I did, indirectly. Our little group realised that a new board of local, decent,
reasonably well-off people had to be put together quickly to fill the void. I didn’t know any of the new directors personally but trusted that they’d be friends of friends, and therefore well-intentioned. If I’m being really honest, there was an air of desperation and a feeling that anyone willing and of substance would be an improvement on most of those that had gone before.

I was delighted that they stepped forward and admired their courage and commitment, though I don’t think they had any real idea of the magnitude of their decision. I must disclose here that I was also asked to join the board. The ‘signing on’ fee was an initial £20,000 [as a share purchase]. I could have begged and borrowed to cover this but, in truth, I did know what was involved in the role and didn’t feel I could cope. I’m willing to argue and fall out with people about most things but the club is so close to my heart, it would break me to disappoint or potentially let-down fellow fans, or for the club to become a burden rather than a source of joy. I’ll admit, I have sometimes regretted my decision and viewed myself as cowardly for not
stepping forward when others did. As it happens, almost all the joy of supporting Dale has evaporated anyway.

Q: Did you eventually meet the new board members?

A: I asked for a meeting with Simon Gauge, the new chairman, and he kindly obliged. I wanted to make him aware of my willingness to help the club, albeit from the sidelines. He was low-key and more difficult to read than, say, Chris Dunphy, David Kilpatrick or, indeed, David Bottomley, who were each effusive, heart-on-the-sleeve personalities. Still, I imagined that Gauge would serve us well after all the drama and histrionics that had beset the club.

Q: Did that impression of Simon Gauge remain?

A. This felt a small point at the time, hardly relevant, but it has nagged at me since. Although I had put down my contacts book on his kitchen table and offered him carte blanche to peruse it or pick my brains about who and what I knew about football, he barely asked a question. I didn’t feel slighted, and assumed he had already found a coterie of ‘football people’ who would steer him through what was to follow, so all seemed well.

Q: How did you think the board ‘performed’ initially on taking over?

A: I’m not privy to how it was achieved and whether it was a push or a voluntary jump but I was extremely happy when Barry-Murphy left the club and this reflected well on the board. They were also dealing with the complex admin in relation to the takeover attempt and addressing long-standing personnel issues at the club. I imagined Gauge would be strong on these points, thorough and well-connected with people in the relevant fields. I had a few breezy text exchanges with director James Sarsfield and he seemed an enthusiastic and friendly sort. All told, it appeared a great start.

Q: What did you feel about the appointment of Robbie Stockdale?

A: I had no prior knowledge of Stockdale, apart from being told that he was the proverbial ‘good lad’. I heard afterwards that the board had also interviewed Pete Wild who had done well at Halifax Town and would later do so at Barrow. Clearly he would have been the better choice but, once more, this is with hindsight. I can see that Stockdale might have appeared a better candidate. He had lots of coaching experience and had been an international and Premier League player. Wild’s CV, in contrast, had much less colour.

Q: What was your opinion of Stockdale’s management?

A: I was concerned almost immediately about the standard of his signings. They seemed poor and the football was barely an improvement on Barry-Murphy’s, even though we were in a lower division after being relegated. I became privy to a piece of information that, once again, stuck with me. I was told that Stockdale was staying over in Rochdale for a few days each week and dining out regularly with directors and club affiliates. On the surface, this seems of little significance but I remembered the times that directors of other clubs had passed on what they considered a golden rule: don’t get too friendly with the manager.

Q: Did you pass on this ‘golden rule’ to the board?

A: I didn’t. I hoped that, come the time, it wouldn’t have any bearing on any decision they might have to make. I did contact the board on another matter, though. I heard from a couple of agents that they had been surprised at the wages and length of contracts offered to players by the club. This, coupled with the poor quality of the signings, concerned me. By March 2022 it had become obvious that Stockdale was failing. I texted the directors the information I had gleaned, in as polite and considerate way as possible, and suggested it might be in the club’s best interests to change managers. I was disappointed by the response from one of the directors, Richard Knight. He wrote, and I’ve kept the message: ‘No point you texting all the Directors as your opinion is no more valid than any other fan. Please stop sending messages as
we have enough going on without having to reply to every fan that (quite rightly) has an opinion, good bad or indifferent.’

Q: Did that text upset you?

A: I put it in context and accepted that there was a lot going on which was probably very taxing at the time. We’ve all sent texts on the spur-of-the-moment that we later regret. I’ll be honest, though: it did leave me with conflicted emotions. It was a genuine offer of help but was viewed as evidence of an out-sized ego. I was told later that other fans had made similar well- intentioned offers but these had been knocked back, too. Sadly, at that point I had a good idea where we were heading.

They should have sacked Stockdale much sooner. Last season, every other club in the bottom half of the table changed their manager apart from Rochdale. A football club board has to show how much it cares, and that means not accepting consistently poor performances and a low league position. To make matters worse in our case, Stockdale was given the close season of 2022/23 and a budget to sign more players, almost all of whom have disappointed.

Generally, at Rochdale, I think there has been a concerted effort over the years not to be
viewed as a ‘sacking’ club. While it’s good in theory to show patience, in reality you can usually tell within a few months or even weeks whether you’ve got a good manager or not, so there’s no point in prolonging the situation — as long as you can afford to buy out his contract and those of his backroom staff. It’s often a false economy to maintain a failing manager because it costs more in the long run, as attendances fall and other income drains away.

Q: The board was decisive eventually, sacking Stockdale a handful of games into the new season.

A: But, by then, it meant that the squad was loaded with Stockdale’s players on long-ish
contracts. I texted Simon Gauge and offered to help find a new manager. He rang back and we had a pleasant and positive exchange. Unfortunately, because of the timing, the club was picking a new manager from a field of just two or three because everyone else had been fixed up over the close season. I had no real involvement after that phone call and, true to football clubs working on a pendulum basis, after employing a managerial novice [Stockdale], they went for someone with experience, even though his last job had been with a club two divisions below our standing.

Q: What did you think of Jim Bentley?

A: I thought he’d at least get them motivated. It worried me that even with someone who is well- known through football as an enthusiastic and honest man, the players often seemed so listless and without fight, with one or two exceptions. Apart from Orient, there haven’t been any outstanding teams in League Two this season. If you get the basics right of putting together a fit, strong, organised team playing with discipline and heart, mid-table is achievable.

Q: This time, the board did change managers during the season.

A: They left it far too late again. We were as good as relegated when Bentley was sacked. He should have gone a month or two earlier and a new manager put in place to give us a fighting chance.

Q: Do you think the board has been too ‘nice’?

A: Football is a ruthless, dog-eat-dog business and you’ve got to recognise this and get properly stuck in. The old-school approach is not to interfere and leave ‘managers to manage’. This doesn’t happen anymore across football. If directors don’t have a word with managers themselves, they employ a ‘sporting director’ to make sure the message gets across. Someone should have told Bentley to abandon his 3-5-1-1 formation, for example, because it clearly wasn’t working. In the long run, it’s a disservice for directors not to have the occasional word because it can ultimately help a manager stay in a job for longer.

I sense at Dale that they have been too trusting and respectful, possibly in awe of ‘football people’ too, and when this has backfired — as it has so catastrophically — a siege mentality has set in. I imagine this has been why there has been no real rallying of the fans and wider public of Rochdale to support the club in a crisis — this always happened under previous boards. We all respect that directors have to be discreet at times but when there is such a lack of general communication, it leads to speculation and, ultimately, suspicion: everyone starts thinking the worst. Clearly there is now an entrenched schism between the board and most supporters.

I must say, though, the board has had very little luck. Football is cyclical and, every so often, a squad of players or a particular manager is successful, almost by chance, but that hasn’t happened over the past five seasons at Dale. I remember chatting with Chris Dunphy when Steve Parkin left in December 2006. At the time, the choice of Keith Hill [then our youth team manager] seemed very unlikely and an unpopular choice among fans who would assume the club was cost-cutting by promoting from within. I was asked by Dunphy to sound out potential managers but when I reported back he kept saying he had this hunch that, given the job, Hill would do well — and he obviously did! Some might say this was astute leadership, others would say he got lucky. I must add that I’ve heard from several sources that, at one point, Andy Preece [ex-Bury player and manager] almost got the job ahead of Hill.

Q: The directors have put in their own personal money to buy back shares from Morton House and probably to cover day-to-day running costs.

A: They have and they deserve enormous credit for doing so, but — and I know this might seem a bit mean-spirited — the ultimate measure of commitment is how much is put in as a proportion of total wealth. For an average Rochdale fan, £50,000, say, is a huge sum but to a multi- millionaire, especially one in a business that is successful on an on-going basis, it is much more easily donated. I’m speaking here in general terms; I have no idea of the wealth or otherwise of board members.

Q: Bringing us right up to date, do you think the club should retain Jim McNulty as manager as we consider life in the National League?

A: I feel we need a complete overhaul of the managerial and playing staff. Jim McNulty’s tactics and the performances against Bradford City, Tranmere Rovers and Stockport County were woeful. I can’t understand why he has us playing out from the back when we have such a dreadful defence. They were each must-win games and the players showed so little fight or desire. Even when we were bloody hopeless in the 1970s and 1980s, you sensed everyone was giving their best and having a go.

Q: What about the board’s future?

A: Sadly, at every turn, they’ve had the anti-Midas touch, at least on the footballing side. There is an argument that they have been learning on the job and are unlikely to make the same mistakes again. Alternatively, I could fully understand if they decided to pack in and move on. I’m sure it’s been a lot for them to bear.

Q: Next season they will be supported by MRKT, the football consultancy firm, which has to be a positive development, don’t you think?

A. It feels to be another move typical of this board and will cost a tidy sum, of course. I know a little bit about MRKT and it stresses its hi-tech credentials, mentioning how it scouts players on the basis of ‘data and analysis-informed decisions’ and talks of ‘squad modelling’ and ‘player pathways’ etc. Its services are perceived as progressive and it will work for the top clubs, but I believe this is because they can pay the highest fees and wages, so they get the best players, even if they were sourced originally by MRKT. The model of ‘football operations’ at most lower- league clubs is to have experienced, shrewd, savvy, dedicated people in the boardroom, mirrored by the same among the playing and admin staff. Oh, and a decent sum of money helps, too.

Q: What do you feel about Chris Dunphy’s announcement that he plans to mount a takeover?

A: I want the best for the club, as we all do, and I don’t care how this comes about, so I don’t want to appear to be canvassing for any particular ‘side’. If we look at it dispassionately, Dunphy was the chairman who brought the club the most success it has ever had, whereas the current board has overseen our relegation from the Football League. Unless we hear over the next few days truly mitigating reasons why this has happened, I think it’s obvious what is in the club’s best interests, and the varying factions should do their best to let up on the antagonism, trust to reconciliation and bring it about.

Generally there is a feeling that the board has gone into hiding these past few weeks, which I can’t imagine Dunphy ever doing, should he become chairman. He’s made a few decisions in the past which have irritated some fans but no one can doubt that he has personality. It’s amazing how a club can be shaped and driven by a strong personality.

Q: It’s been noted that the board has responded positively to Dunphy’s offer.

A: It has on superficial level but I’m not sure why the board felt it necessary in its statement to list at great length all the financial and legal regulations that any interested party has to fulfil. It’s already in the public domain anyway. I might be being cynical but it seemed designed almost to put people off rather than welcome them.

Q: Finally, will you renew your season card next season?

A: I’m not sure. I’m absolutely wiped out by it. Almost always, I leave the ground uptight and frustrated, feeling that the players don’t deserve my support. I suppose they can’t help their lack of ability, but the negative body-language and the cautious approach have been difficult to endure. I’ve had nearly 50 years as a Dale fan. I started out helping Jack Hammill when I was 15, contributing to the match programme. Falling out of the League is a line in the sand. My feelings my change over the summer, of course, but I think I’d need to see reasons to believe in the sign once more. Football is supposed to be fun.

Photo: Action Images

Yorkshire_Dale added 20:19 - Apr 27 Great stuff....tells us more about the running of the Club in a few questions than we have heard over many seasons. Hope you stay with us Mark......we need folk like you to keep an avuncular eye on the Rascals at the Dale.
1

joannaylor added 10:15 - Apr 26 Mark's sentiment of believing that relegation could have been avoided speaks to the sense of missed opportunities or decisions that may have led to the club's downfall. It's natural for fans to question what could have been done differently or where things went wrong. https://strandspuzzle.com
0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Swansea City Polls