| EGM on 20:44 - Aug 2 with 3207 views | 442Dale |
| EGM on 20:41 - Aug 2 by Rodingdale |
In which case both lenders and directors would have been exposed if things had unraveled. We are where we are and as you say fans are now much more in tune with some of these things.
Out of interest- what’s your view on the way the club is being run at the moment. As a customer forum of sorts, the consensus is the club is being mismanaged at all levels, but the board remain resolutely impervious to feedback. Why do you think that is? [Post edited 2 Aug 2023 20:43]
|
It’ll be a combination of those seven words. Or none at all. |  |
|  |
| EGM on 20:51 - Aug 2 with 3193 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 20:29 - Aug 2 by D_Alien |
That's all old information, already known and understood
SG & RK have presented their offer of a loan as a means of buying time to find a suitable external investor, or await the outcome of the Supporters Trust community asset fund bid
The facts and figures required by shareholders involve the loan, not our long-standing financial difficulties. Of course the two are very much linked but it's uptodate figures we need, and the EGM is too late to present those figures for many shareholders to be able to make a considered decision on the night, or advise their proxy beforehand
And of course, you know this
[Post edited 2 Aug 2023 20:33]
|
How does the value of the loan matter to your decision making when the question being asked is whether it is allowed to be secured or not?
The EGM question is do you as a shareholder support the loan facility being secured on the ground, as has happened on 8 separate occasions between 1994 and 2016, all previous occasions were all done without the then Board of time calling the appropriate EGM.
If the value of the loan moves from £5,000 to £55,000 why does that change your view about it being secured? What about £200,000? Or £255,000?
If shareholders are not happy with the principle of secured loans being placed on the ground then they should simply vote against it.
It's probably why various boards (not this one) from 1994 to 2016 ignored supporters completely and charged loans to the ground regardless! |  |
| |
| EGM on 20:59 - Aug 2 with 3156 views | D_Alien |
| EGM on 20:51 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
How does the value of the loan matter to your decision making when the question being asked is whether it is allowed to be secured or not?
The EGM question is do you as a shareholder support the loan facility being secured on the ground, as has happened on 8 separate occasions between 1994 and 2016, all previous occasions were all done without the then Board of time calling the appropriate EGM.
If the value of the loan moves from £5,000 to £55,000 why does that change your view about it being secured? What about £200,000? Or £255,000?
If shareholders are not happy with the principle of secured loans being placed on the ground then they should simply vote against it.
It's probably why various boards (not this one) from 1994 to 2016 ignored supporters completely and charged loans to the ground regardless! |
"How does the value of the loan matter to your decision making when the question being asked is whether it is allowed to be secured or not?"
You're asking entirely the wrong question. The question you should be asking - as many of us are, is: why are those proposing to make the loan unwilling to make clear the details of the financial position that requires it?
Even if that were a question that only 'financial illiterates' would ask, those financial illiterates also happen to be shareholders
[Post edited 2 Aug 2023 21:00]
|  |
| |
| EGM on 21:11 - Aug 2 with 3072 views | pioneer |
| EGM on 20:59 - Aug 2 by D_Alien |
"How does the value of the loan matter to your decision making when the question being asked is whether it is allowed to be secured or not?"
You're asking entirely the wrong question. The question you should be asking - as many of us are, is: why are those proposing to make the loan unwilling to make clear the details of the financial position that requires it?
Even if that were a question that only 'financial illiterates' would ask, those financial illiterates also happen to be shareholders
[Post edited 2 Aug 2023 21:00]
|
Some of them are on the board apparently😊 |  | | |
| EGM on 21:18 - Aug 2 with 3040 views | wozzrafc |
| EGM on 20:51 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
How does the value of the loan matter to your decision making when the question being asked is whether it is allowed to be secured or not?
The EGM question is do you as a shareholder support the loan facility being secured on the ground, as has happened on 8 separate occasions between 1994 and 2016, all previous occasions were all done without the then Board of time calling the appropriate EGM.
If the value of the loan moves from £5,000 to £55,000 why does that change your view about it being secured? What about £200,000? Or £255,000?
If shareholders are not happy with the principle of secured loans being placed on the ground then they should simply vote against it.
It's probably why various boards (not this one) from 1994 to 2016 ignored supporters completely and charged loans to the ground regardless! |
For me the value of the loan matters for the following reason.
The loan is meant to provide working capital while either a buyer is found or the trust get notified if they are successful with their grant.
But what timescale does this entail, will this provide breathing space for 6,12, 18 months? What is the financial position if either a buyer can’t be found or the trusts bid is unccessful?
If it’s a nominal figure then chances are it’s not going to plunge the club into turmoil, but if it’s a sizeable amount and 18 months later we still haven’t moved on what then?
We don’t know the true situation, is the loan to add additional funds or is it absolutely necessary to keep the club solvent?
I’ve not problem in principle in securing the loan on the ground, upto 12 months ago there was already a loan against the ground.
I just want to understand what their plan is and the current situation. I think some of the hesitation was after the last EGM and the change in direction shortly afterwards. [Post edited 2 Aug 2023 21:33]
| | | |
| EGM on 21:24 - Aug 2 with 3013 views | TomRAFC |
| EGM on 20:51 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
How does the value of the loan matter to your decision making when the question being asked is whether it is allowed to be secured or not?
The EGM question is do you as a shareholder support the loan facility being secured on the ground, as has happened on 8 separate occasions between 1994 and 2016, all previous occasions were all done without the then Board of time calling the appropriate EGM.
If the value of the loan moves from £5,000 to £55,000 why does that change your view about it being secured? What about £200,000? Or £255,000?
If shareholders are not happy with the principle of secured loans being placed on the ground then they should simply vote against it.
It's probably why various boards (not this one) from 1994 to 2016 ignored supporters completely and charged loans to the ground regardless! |
This thread isn't a personal Q&A with you, but since your reappearance that is exactly what you're trying to turn it into. It's cringeworthy, and causes a flood of very long posts, which dilute the visibility of the many well expressed and diverse opinions already on here. To be honest, that seems like your exact intention. | |
| |
| EGM on 21:26 - Aug 2 with 3005 views | kel |
| EGM on 21:18 - Aug 2 by wozzrafc |
For me the value of the loan matters for the following reason.
The loan is meant to provide working capital while either a buyer is found or the trust get notified if they are successful with their grant.
But what timescale does this entail, will this provide breathing space for 6,12, 18 months? What is the financial position if either a buyer can’t be found or the trusts bid is unccessful?
If it’s a nominal figure then chances are it’s not going to plunge the club into turmoil, but if it’s a sizeable amount and 18 months later we still haven’t moved on what then?
We don’t know the true situation, is the loan to add additional funds or is it absolutely necessary to keep the club solvent?
I’ve not problem in principle in securing the loan on the ground, upto 12 months ago there was already a loan against the ground.
I just want to understand what their plan is and the current situation. I think some of the hesitation was after the last EGM and the change in direction shortly afterwards. [Post edited 2 Aug 2023 21:33]
|
Good post and I’d say that’s what most of us want to know.
I’ve mentioned before that there’s an attitude from this board (one in particular) that if you don’t stump up the money to join the board then, frankly, your opinion means fook all. It was said in more or less those terms on a podcast so I’ve no reason to believe that’s changed and it doesn’t apply to the lot of them.
People going into bat for them won’t change my decision to vote unless I hear different from the board themselves. |  | | |
| EGM on 21:57 - Aug 2 with 2895 views | wozzrafc |
| EGM on 21:26 - Aug 2 by kel |
Good post and I’d say that’s what most of us want to know.
I’ve mentioned before that there’s an attitude from this board (one in particular) that if you don’t stump up the money to join the board then, frankly, your opinion means fook all. It was said in more or less those terms on a podcast so I’ve no reason to believe that’s changed and it doesn’t apply to the lot of them.
People going into bat for them won’t change my decision to vote unless I hear different from the board themselves. |
I’d hope that there’s an open and honest discussion at the forum tomorrow and at the subsequent EGM. That’s all I think the majority of fans want.
A club like ours is too small to have people pulling in different directions. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| EGM on 22:24 - Aug 2 with 2806 views | R17ALE |
| EGM on 20:51 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
How does the value of the loan matter to your decision making when the question being asked is whether it is allowed to be secured or not?
The EGM question is do you as a shareholder support the loan facility being secured on the ground, as has happened on 8 separate occasions between 1994 and 2016, all previous occasions were all done without the then Board of time calling the appropriate EGM.
If the value of the loan moves from £5,000 to £55,000 why does that change your view about it being secured? What about £200,000? Or £255,000?
If shareholders are not happy with the principle of secured loans being placed on the ground then they should simply vote against it.
It's probably why various boards (not this one) from 1994 to 2016 ignored supporters completely and charged loans to the ground regardless! |
I think from 1994 through till relatively recently, Dale owned 45% of the Stadium Company which owned the ground. Therefore, I'm not sure how loans were given out 8 times by former Directors to Dale who also put a charge on something they didn't own. I suspect had that been the case, some of us older fans would have been aware of it at the time, especially shareholders, for whom this will be a surprise to hear your allegations in 2023. I'm not saying you're wrong though.
In any case, loans from previous Board members were usually recouped from Cup runs, or were converted into shares, or were simply written off.
There is an anecdote from the early 2000's when following the cup run that ended at Wolves, the then Chairman was seen treating himself to a takeaway in the confines of a Littleborough takeaway having earlier enjoyed a few pints at The Sun. When questioned about his lavish speculation on a takeaway, he remarked, "I'm feeling flush. I've got the fooking money the fooking club owes me after our fooking cup run!"
I doubt the current Chairman would embrace that style about doing things in such a way. He might wish to reconsider. He might also think we won't have another Dawson or a cup run. |  |
| |
| EGM on 23:07 - Aug 2 with 2681 views | Sandyman |
| EGM on 22:24 - Aug 2 by R17ALE |
I think from 1994 through till relatively recently, Dale owned 45% of the Stadium Company which owned the ground. Therefore, I'm not sure how loans were given out 8 times by former Directors to Dale who also put a charge on something they didn't own. I suspect had that been the case, some of us older fans would have been aware of it at the time, especially shareholders, for whom this will be a surprise to hear your allegations in 2023. I'm not saying you're wrong though.
In any case, loans from previous Board members were usually recouped from Cup runs, or were converted into shares, or were simply written off.
There is an anecdote from the early 2000's when following the cup run that ended at Wolves, the then Chairman was seen treating himself to a takeaway in the confines of a Littleborough takeaway having earlier enjoyed a few pints at The Sun. When questioned about his lavish speculation on a takeaway, he remarked, "I'm feeling flush. I've got the fooking money the fooking club owes me after our fooking cup run!"
I doubt the current Chairman would embrace that style about doing things in such a way. He might wish to reconsider. He might also think we won't have another Dawson or a cup run. |
Very interesting. One wonders if RAFC Article 79(a) was therefore rendered null and void during the days of Denehurst Park Stadium Company when loans were seemingly taken out against the ground 8 times without recourse to the required Special Resolution? How does that affect the validity of Article 79(a) now?
Should the forthcoming EGM resolution pass, it would be interesting in a liquidation scenario where those seeking to use the ground as security against a loan, encountered some smart ass lawyer saying that due to actions occurring during the shared ownership stadium company days that Article 79(a) was kyboshed because of the 8 Stadium Company loans. Hmmm... this needs the eye of a specialist lawyer IMHO.
[Post edited 2 Aug 2023 23:13]
|  | | |
| EGM on 23:11 - Aug 2 with 2670 views | mikehunt |
So, if we default on the loan repayment for what ever reason. What happens to the ground? Who will own it? |  |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| EGM on 23:20 - Aug 2 with 2645 views | Clivert |
| EGM on 23:11 - Aug 2 by mikehunt |
So, if we default on the loan repayment for what ever reason. What happens to the ground? Who will own it? |
I wouldn't trust Gauge and Knight with a fiver let alone Spotland. |  | | |
| EGM on 08:38 - Aug 3 with 2315 views | TomRAFC |
| EGM on 23:11 - Aug 2 by mikehunt |
So, if we default on the loan repayment for what ever reason. What happens to the ground? Who will own it? |
No timescale or figure has been presented, but here's what's been said so far.
The loan would be repaid if the club receives investment/sells the remaining shares/the trust application for funds to buy the pitch is successful etc
If these never happen and the club is liquidated, then Gauge and Knight would be front of the queue to be repayed with the money made on the sale of the ground.
Nothing has been mentioned about them potentially owning the ground, if they aren't repaid.
Hopefully all questions will be answered tonight, and the answers will be made publicly available, to ensure those who can't attend the forum/wish to cast a proxy vote at the EGM will be equally informed. | |
| |
| EGM on 08:45 - Aug 3 with 2281 views | kel |
I feel sorry for McNulty in that he was probably expecting lots of football questions tonight but the forum is likely to be taken up with a lot of time spent on this. Yet again the board have cast a shadow over the club and it’s all of their own making.
They should be embarrassed about how they’ve handled this but I suspect their arrogance won’t allow them to be. | | | |
| EGM on 08:45 - Aug 3 with 2280 views | HullDale |
| EGM on 23:11 - Aug 2 by mikehunt |
So, if we default on the loan repayment for what ever reason. What happens to the ground? Who will own it? |
This is one of my outstanding questions with it all.
The football club will owe Simon Gauge & Richard Knight money (potentially with interest, we don't know) secured against the ground. If that money isn't repaid, its my understanding those 2 will then have first dibs on the ground in the event of non-payment / admin / liquidation.
Who is responsible for ensuring the football club operates and makes enough money to keep going and make these repayments? Simon Gauge, Richard Knight & the rest of the board.
Based on their track record, I'm not confident they have the ability to keep us going now, let alone with the burden of an additional loan to repay. If this is voted through, they literally hold all the cards, & that becomes a scary thought. |  | | |
| EGM on 09:05 - Aug 3 with 2209 views | TalkingSutty |
| EGM on 08:45 - Aug 3 by HullDale |
This is one of my outstanding questions with it all.
The football club will owe Simon Gauge & Richard Knight money (potentially with interest, we don't know) secured against the ground. If that money isn't repaid, its my understanding those 2 will then have first dibs on the ground in the event of non-payment / admin / liquidation.
Who is responsible for ensuring the football club operates and makes enough money to keep going and make these repayments? Simon Gauge, Richard Knight & the rest of the board.
Based on their track record, I'm not confident they have the ability to keep us going now, let alone with the burden of an additional loan to repay. If this is voted through, they literally hold all the cards, & that becomes a scary thought. |
That's it in a nutshell. It's not difficult to see what's happening here and what motivation would they have to progress the club, if suitable investors aren't found? None. Why can't they go down the other route and start running the club properly? I don't see many other clubs in such a desperate predicament, they don't all have wealthy backers neither.
I contacted the Trust via email a few weeks ago outlining my concerns regarding the way the club is being run and asked for a EGM to be called to remove Simon Gauge. The reply I received supported the Chairman and insinuated that we are now seeing improvement in certain aspects of the club. As a individual supporter what else can i do when the Supporters Trust are supportive of the Chairman? They also pointed out that the Trust Director had no reasons for concern.
Not only do questions need asking of those running the club but also the apparent impotence of the supporters trust who are conspicuous by their absence when it comes to the concerns being outlined in this thread, i suspect the majority of posters are also members of the trust. As the major shareholder, the members are entitled to feel very disappointed about the lack of direction and representation in respect of this EGM.
I can't be the only member of the Trust who has emailed them to voice my concerns? [Post edited 3 Aug 2023 9:45]
|  | | |
| EGM on 09:31 - Aug 3 with 2140 views | judd |
Steaming live on Dale YouTube channel tonight |  |
| |
| EGM on 09:42 - Aug 3 with 2111 views | mikehunt |
So, they are, effectively, lending money to themselves. If they were confident of the money being paid back, why would they need the ground as collateral? I can’t see past this or am I being thick? | |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| EGM on 09:47 - Aug 3 with 2084 views | kel |
| EGM on 09:31 - Aug 3 by judd |
Steaming live on Dale YouTube channel tonight |
I’ll put the kettle on then | | | |
| EGM on 09:52 - Aug 3 with 2071 views | EllDale |
| EGM on 22:24 - Aug 2 by R17ALE |
I think from 1994 through till relatively recently, Dale owned 45% of the Stadium Company which owned the ground. Therefore, I'm not sure how loans were given out 8 times by former Directors to Dale who also put a charge on something they didn't own. I suspect had that been the case, some of us older fans would have been aware of it at the time, especially shareholders, for whom this will be a surprise to hear your allegations in 2023. I'm not saying you're wrong though.
In any case, loans from previous Board members were usually recouped from Cup runs, or were converted into shares, or were simply written off.
There is an anecdote from the early 2000's when following the cup run that ended at Wolves, the then Chairman was seen treating himself to a takeaway in the confines of a Littleborough takeaway having earlier enjoyed a few pints at The Sun. When questioned about his lavish speculation on a takeaway, he remarked, "I'm feeling flush. I've got the fooking money the fooking club owes me after our fooking cup run!"
I doubt the current Chairman would embrace that style about doing things in such a way. He might wish to reconsider. He might also think we won't have another Dawson or a cup run. |
From memory didn’t Hornets get a big loan from the Rugby League around 2008 which was secured against their 45% of the stadium? So something must have been allowed.
When they went bust the RFL effectively owned their share of the stadium company.
When the Dale board bought the ground outright in 2016 they negotiated with the RFL for their shares in the stadium company which probably made things a lot easier. | | | |
| EGM on 10:00 - Aug 3 with 2035 views | Dalenet |
| EGM on 23:11 - Aug 2 by mikehunt |
So, if we default on the loan repayment for what ever reason. What happens to the ground? Who will own it? |
We don't know whether repayments are required or whether it is a zero interest rate loan that only gets repaid when further share capital is raised. We don't know how much either - so is it £100k using £3m of collateral? Or is it more than that? And more importantly this is the second season where shares had to be issued or a loan procured to cover short term operating losses. What happens in 2024 when we lose the parachute payment and income falls. We don't appear to have cut our costs to a sustainable position. And there has been very little effort to increase income but that story has been done to death.
Finally is the EGM legal given that the club has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that all shareholders have been notified? I suspect not | | | |
| EGM on 10:49 - Aug 3 with 1890 views | samueloneils |
NERO AND ROME BURNING.
The message from SG and RK said it all.
"Immediate cash flow pressures" Note the IMMEDIATE.
I`ve been in business long enough to recognise choice of words.
All the talk of what might happen down the line is fascinating but this is emergency, hence the way the EGM was called.
We are being offered a solution, short-term or not. These people are offering more of their money. Too many conspiracy theorists about.
Get a grip.
UP THE DALE. | | | |
| EGM on 10:53 - Aug 3 with 1879 views | SteTsGoldenBoot |
| EGM on 09:42 - Aug 3 by mikehunt |
So, they are, effectively, lending money to themselves. If they were confident of the money being paid back, why would they need the ground as collateral? I can’t see past this or am I being thick? |
I would imagine that they are following the Glazers model at United.
Use the loan to get back any money that they have put into the club, then the club has to repay the loan or lose the ground.
I feel this is the exit plan they have been seeking for a while now. |  |
| Everything thats been, has past. The answers in the looking glass! |
| |
| EGM on 11:04 - Aug 3 with 1854 views | Rodingdale |
To state the obvious- debt is not a problem- inability to repay debt is the problem- which is the central point about the way the club is or isn’t being run. Basically if we don’t get an investor soon the damage will be irreversible if it isn’t already. It’s the board who need to get a grip. | | | |
| EGM on 11:07 - Aug 3 with 1838 views | pioneer |
I submitted my proxy form asking for confirmation of receipt…just a simple e mail reply saying ‘received’. press reply, press received, press send…thats all it takes. My proxy will be travelling from out of town so he doesnt want any surprises at the door.
48 hours later and no confirmation.
If I dont receive confirmation I will reluctantly tell my proxy not to bother travelling. The club has quickly become something I no longer have pride in. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
