| EFL verdict in full 17:18 - Oct 20 with 22489 views | 442Dale |
|  |
| |  |
| EFL verdict in full on 22:16 - Oct 20 with 3392 views | wozzrafc |
| EFL verdict in full on 21:14 - Oct 20 by James1980 |
The EFL seriously believe DB had the best of intentions. What's that phrase about the road to hell? |
I’m not going to go into a rant on here about the findings. But needless to say points 144 to 147 show the EFL are not fit for purpose |  | | |
| EFL verdict in full on 22:26 - Oct 20 with 3330 views | judd |
| EFL verdict in full on 22:16 - Oct 20 by wozzrafc |
I’m not going to go into a rant on here about the findings. But needless to say points 144 to 147 show the EFL are not fit for purpose |
Or that they are just a regulatory body covering their backsides when mental health is mentioned.
The 2 year ban is severe. The breach of regulation is serious. The insulting defence of forgetfulness was treated with disdain by the EFL. Read para 71, reference his activities referenced in club submissions and complimented without being published.
The EFL have issued a severe ban, 1 year less than Bassini got. I dare say it would have been more had the so called fans not posted reprehensible comments on social media sites.
Much to take out of that report in terms of unacceptable management of the club before our current new board members took their places. |  |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 23:09 - Oct 20 with 3190 views | 49thseason |
A sorry tale of mismanagement, malpractice and underhandedness. The outcome of the report is about what I expected, the EFL really only has jurisdiction over its member clubs and RAFC was always on a sticky wicket simply because it trusted someone to do his job properly and yet, if he had done his job and ensured the relevant documents arrived at the EFL on time the club could very possibly be much worse off than we are now. In fact the lack of diligence probably gave us the time to build the defense against the take over.. hoist by his own petard.. ironic really.
Clearly the clubs former directors had no oversight, you wonder what else was going on that has yet to be revealed... too cosy, lax and largely disinterested until the silly money arrived
Something else that the report implies is that the EFL's attitude to supporters is less than affectionate, in fact it would seem we are more of an embarrassment, strange considering that without fans there would be no game, no TV and no sponsorship. The "so called fans" comment is unworthy and unneccessary and only serves to increase the mistrust of the EFL by fans at large. They dare not name names and therefore they are using heresay to blacken the reputation of many completely innocent supporters and now possibly shareholders. Poor form, very poor. |  | | |
| EFL verdict in full on 23:14 - Oct 20 with 3173 views | wozzrafc |
| EFL verdict in full on 22:26 - Oct 20 by judd |
Or that they are just a regulatory body covering their backsides when mental health is mentioned.
The 2 year ban is severe. The breach of regulation is serious. The insulting defence of forgetfulness was treated with disdain by the EFL. Read para 71, reference his activities referenced in club submissions and complimented without being published.
The EFL have issued a severe ban, 1 year less than Bassini got. I dare say it would have been more had the so called fans not posted reprehensible comments on social media sites.
Much to take out of that report in terms of unacceptable management of the club before our current new board members took their places. |
I agree with almost everything you say judd but point 145 and 146 I just can’t agree with.
Other board members we’re heavily criticised in these finding and if you take those two points at face value you end up asking yourself why weren’t other board members charged? | | | |
| EFL verdict in full on 23:17 - Oct 20 with 3169 views | judd |
| EFL verdict in full on 23:09 - Oct 20 by 49thseason |
A sorry tale of mismanagement, malpractice and underhandedness. The outcome of the report is about what I expected, the EFL really only has jurisdiction over its member clubs and RAFC was always on a sticky wicket simply because it trusted someone to do his job properly and yet, if he had done his job and ensured the relevant documents arrived at the EFL on time the club could very possibly be much worse off than we are now. In fact the lack of diligence probably gave us the time to build the defense against the take over.. hoist by his own petard.. ironic really.
Clearly the clubs former directors had no oversight, you wonder what else was going on that has yet to be revealed... too cosy, lax and largely disinterested until the silly money arrived
Something else that the report implies is that the EFL's attitude to supporters is less than affectionate, in fact it would seem we are more of an embarrassment, strange considering that without fans there would be no game, no TV and no sponsorship. The "so called fans" comment is unworthy and unneccessary and only serves to increase the mistrust of the EFL by fans at large. They dare not name names and therefore they are using heresay to blacken the reputation of many completely innocent supporters and now possibly shareholders. Poor form, very poor. |
I'd be embarrassed if I had to rely on an anonymous character reference.
Embarrassed. | |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 23:29 - Oct 20 with 3124 views | judd |
| EFL verdict in full on 23:14 - Oct 20 by wozzrafc |
I agree with almost everything you say judd but point 145 and 146 I just can’t agree with.
Other board members we’re heavily criticised in these finding and if you take those two points at face value you end up asking yourself why weren’t other board members charged? |
I would suggest timing of original charges being issued.
I would reiterate that the punishment meted out, despite the unwarranted published mitigation is very, very severe.
Just think about it. | |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 23:49 - Oct 20 with 3112 views | Sandyman |
If the EFL report is exclusively about the OADT regulations, why is the brown-nosing guff about just one individuals alleged "character" included? It is irrelevant. No other individual involved is allowed to produce or has had published such glowing, unsubstantiated comments and character references. Why just the one?
"148. Nevertheless, DB was very much aware of the requirements of the rules and
particularly the OADT, not least because he was a member of the EFL Working Party
Group that considered the Rules’ form and content."
Has "DB" got mates in the EFL as a consequence? Not affording others charged the same opportunity to glow positively with character references is a serious and questionable inconsistency in this report. Why?
Hundreds of "so-called" fans have proved they really do love the club by their deeds and actions to save it over the past 18 months or so. The ones that never sold out, unlike those so-called fans who did. [Post edited 21 Oct 2022 0:08]
|  | | |
| EFL verdict in full on 00:08 - Oct 21 with 3096 views | D_Alien |
| EFL verdict in full on 23:49 - Oct 20 by Sandyman |
If the EFL report is exclusively about the OADT regulations, why is the brown-nosing guff about just one individuals alleged "character" included? It is irrelevant. No other individual involved is allowed to produce or has had published such glowing, unsubstantiated comments and character references. Why just the one?
"148. Nevertheless, DB was very much aware of the requirements of the rules and
particularly the OADT, not least because he was a member of the EFL Working Party
Group that considered the Rules’ form and content."
Has "DB" got mates in the EFL as a consequence? Not affording others charged the same opportunity to glow positively with character references is a serious and questionable inconsistency in this report. Why?
Hundreds of "so-called" fans have proved they really do love the club by their deeds and actions to save it over the past 18 months or so. The ones that never sold out, unlike those so-called fans who did. [Post edited 21 Oct 2022 0:08]
|
The answer is staring us all in the face
Bottomley was part of the EFL, a member of a Working Party
The EFL are simply trying to cover their own backsides
I don't believe for one micro-second that Bottomley simply "forgot" to send OADT documentation to the EFL either. Just think about it - how would such a monumental oversight even be considered as a possibility? Answer: because it wasn't an oversight. If we had the real reason why it didn't happen, imo the scandal would be even bigger
The "good character" reference is a smoking gun that doesn't stand scrutiny, especially in the context of Bottomley already being involved with EFL procedures |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| EFL verdict in full on 06:27 - Oct 21 with 2903 views | pioneer |
| EFL verdict in full on 00:08 - Oct 21 by D_Alien |
The answer is staring us all in the face
Bottomley was part of the EFL, a member of a Working Party
The EFL are simply trying to cover their own backsides
I don't believe for one micro-second that Bottomley simply "forgot" to send OADT documentation to the EFL either. Just think about it - how would such a monumental oversight even be considered as a possibility? Answer: because it wasn't an oversight. If we had the real reason why it didn't happen, imo the scandal would be even bigger
The "good character" reference is a smoking gun that doesn't stand scrutiny, especially in the context of Bottomley already being involved with EFL procedures |
There does seem to be a lack of transparency in the report. Anonymous character reference? In what other legal process would anonymous submissions be accepted? Are the EfL incapable of protecting the identity of a individual providing a submission?
The ‘so called supporters’ term is used only in relation to alleged death threats and personal abuse. I hope our ‘friend ‘ was required to submit evidence of this. If there is evidence then I have no problem withthe use of the term. Anyone who engaged in such actions was not supporting the club by doing so.
Elsewhere in the report there are several references to “supporters” without the prefix of ‘so called’ when referring to the supporters activities in the EGM and related matters. | | | |
| EFL verdict in full on 08:07 - Oct 21 with 2799 views | judd |
| EFL verdict in full on 23:49 - Oct 20 by Sandyman |
If the EFL report is exclusively about the OADT regulations, why is the brown-nosing guff about just one individuals alleged "character" included? It is irrelevant. No other individual involved is allowed to produce or has had published such glowing, unsubstantiated comments and character references. Why just the one?
"148. Nevertheless, DB was very much aware of the requirements of the rules and
particularly the OADT, not least because he was a member of the EFL Working Party
Group that considered the Rules’ form and content."
Has "DB" got mates in the EFL as a consequence? Not affording others charged the same opportunity to glow positively with character references is a serious and questionable inconsistency in this report. Why?
Hundreds of "so-called" fans have proved they really do love the club by their deeds and actions to save it over the past 18 months or so. The ones that never sold out, unlike those so-called fans who did. [Post edited 21 Oct 2022 0:08]
|
The irrelevant character references, including the one from Anon, are included because of the mention of effects on mental health and (probably) unsubstantiated death threats. There were no histrionics from other parties.
Social media abuse is not a direct message to an individual, who would have to go looking for what had been posted.
But as I have posted previously, focus on the dismissal of the pathetic and wholly unprofessional defence, the seriousness the EFL state the breach was by an experienced chief executive, and the severity of the punishment - a 2 year ban.
You could also argue that for someone scared to go out, going to watch football with friends is a bit of a contradiction? | |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 08:11 - Oct 21 with 2789 views | 100notout |
| EFL verdict in full on 19:17 - Oct 20 by kel |
“Something percent (can’t remember the exact figure”) is a small number of a small number”
Apparently. |
But he took a 50% pay cut during Covid dontcha know | |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 08:19 - Oct 21 with 2773 views | judd |
| EFL verdict in full on 08:11 - Oct 21 by 100notout |
But he took a 50% pay cut during Covid dontcha know |
Did he benefit from the furlough scheme? | |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 09:14 - Oct 21 with 2663 views | James1980 |
If in DB's opinion, the MH crew were such fantastic people to take control of the club. Why was their identity kept top secret until AJ's leak. Why didn't they give a presentation for all shareholders to peruse. Detailing there vision for the club what funding had been secured and what was in the process of being obtained. What was the exit strategy, including what happens if their goals were met. If you're genuine why the lack of transparency? | |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 09:32 - Oct 21 with 2634 views | judd |
| EFL verdict in full on 09:14 - Oct 21 by James1980 |
If in DB's opinion, the MH crew were such fantastic people to take control of the club. Why was their identity kept top secret until AJ's leak. Why didn't they give a presentation for all shareholders to peruse. Detailing there vision for the club what funding had been secured and what was in the process of being obtained. What was the exit strategy, including what happens if their goals were met. If you're genuine why the lack of transparency? |
It's called due diligence. Not for the EFL to rule on with regard this charge. | |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 09:41 - Oct 21 with 2621 views | James1980 |
| EFL verdict in full on 09:32 - Oct 21 by judd |
It's called due diligence. Not for the EFL to rule on with regard this charge. |
How anyone could say with a straight face he had the best of intentions is beyond me. | |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 11:36 - Oct 21 with 2436 views | DorkingDale |
| EFL verdict in full on 18:56 - Oct 20 by kel |
I reckon I’ve a good idea who the anonymous character reference provider is.
As for Pockney, I think this makes his position untenable and nothing but his resignation will do. |
I wouldn't hold your breath with regard to Tony Pockney - he & his wife are longstanding very close friends of the Chairman & his wife. I would go as far as to say that he was probably responsible for bringing him to the club. Puts the current Chairman in a very difficult situation. | | | |
| EFL verdict in full on 11:52 - Oct 21 with 2379 views | TomRAFC |
| EFL verdict in full on 11:36 - Oct 21 by DorkingDale |
I wouldn't hold your breath with regard to Tony Pockney - he & his wife are longstanding very close friends of the Chairman & his wife. I would go as far as to say that he was probably responsible for bringing him to the club. Puts the current Chairman in a very difficult situation. |
In that instance, I would personally support an EGM to remove Pockney from the board. He cannot mislead the EFL and remain in post.
I sincerely hope Simon Gauge wouldn't use his influence in a way that does not prioritise the interests of the club. That would be very out of character given his excellent performance as chairman in difficult times.
Mr Pockney can make this easy for everyone by resigning. [Post edited 21 Oct 2022 11:56]
| |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 12:11 - Oct 21 with 2303 views | kel |
| EFL verdict in full on 11:36 - Oct 21 by DorkingDale |
I wouldn't hold your breath with regard to Tony Pockney - he & his wife are longstanding very close friends of the Chairman & his wife. I would go as far as to say that he was probably responsible for bringing him to the club. Puts the current Chairman in a very difficult situation. |
He was/is also best mates with Roger, regularly being pictured on Facebook together rinsing more hospitality at various places. Last time I looked Grindrod was also the accountant of his company and many of us know what he is like.
If he had anything about him he’d resign but I won’t hold my breath. |  | | |
| EFL verdict in full on 12:38 - Oct 21 with 2245 views | HullDale |
There is a LOT to dissect in that document, and it'll probably take weeks before its been combed through and fully understood by the collective fanbase.
It definitely feels like Bottomley has friends at the EFL, as the tone of any comments about him is clearly different to the rest of the document. Interestingly, with the outcome suggesting (wrongly in my opinion) that he had no nefarious intentions and his role on the saga boiled down to incompetence, that has probably done him more harm in the long run with regards to future football employment.
On the Pockney point - I'd hope he quietly resigns, shakes hands with the board and goes back to supporting from the stands as a fan. Unlike with Bottomley, I believe that Pockney was and is actually a Dale fan, but the findings from the EFL make his position untenable. The new board have built serious credibility, and have (rightly) been backed to the hilt by the majority of supporters. Even when some fan segments are unhappy, or there have been situations that people feel could've been handled differently, the majority of fans have seen that the board's intentions are correct and they are in it for the long haul. They simply can't risk undermining that goodwill by allowing Pockney to stay in position - it'd call their judgement into account, and they could end up facing into serious public criticism for the first time.
Nobody is bigger than the club, & nobody is indispensable. Its probably best for all parties that he moves on. |  | | |
| EFL verdict in full on 12:55 - Oct 21 with 2202 views | judd |
| EFL verdict in full on 12:38 - Oct 21 by HullDale |
There is a LOT to dissect in that document, and it'll probably take weeks before its been combed through and fully understood by the collective fanbase.
It definitely feels like Bottomley has friends at the EFL, as the tone of any comments about him is clearly different to the rest of the document. Interestingly, with the outcome suggesting (wrongly in my opinion) that he had no nefarious intentions and his role on the saga boiled down to incompetence, that has probably done him more harm in the long run with regards to future football employment.
On the Pockney point - I'd hope he quietly resigns, shakes hands with the board and goes back to supporting from the stands as a fan. Unlike with Bottomley, I believe that Pockney was and is actually a Dale fan, but the findings from the EFL make his position untenable. The new board have built serious credibility, and have (rightly) been backed to the hilt by the majority of supporters. Even when some fan segments are unhappy, or there have been situations that people feel could've been handled differently, the majority of fans have seen that the board's intentions are correct and they are in it for the long haul. They simply can't risk undermining that goodwill by allowing Pockney to stay in position - it'd call their judgement into account, and they could end up facing into serious public criticism for the first time.
Nobody is bigger than the club, & nobody is indispensable. Its probably best for all parties that he moves on. |
As a good friend of mine messaged me last night, it seems the EFL were not willing to lynch "one of their own" but have ex-communicated him.
The mention of mental health issues and death threats have seriously spooked the EFL into kid glove treatment of a serious offence.
They clearly have no understanding of the whole of the events outside of the charge, or have been unwilling to take them into account - see 71 - " The Club's mitigation gives a helpful and fairly detailed account of the period May to November 2021, including some very specific details of DB's activities and communications, especially during his paid leave in June 2021. We have examined all that history but do not need to go through it all here."
Serious breach. Severe ban. | |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 13:22 - Oct 21 with 2116 views | D_Alien |
| EFL verdict in full on 12:38 - Oct 21 by HullDale |
There is a LOT to dissect in that document, and it'll probably take weeks before its been combed through and fully understood by the collective fanbase.
It definitely feels like Bottomley has friends at the EFL, as the tone of any comments about him is clearly different to the rest of the document. Interestingly, with the outcome suggesting (wrongly in my opinion) that he had no nefarious intentions and his role on the saga boiled down to incompetence, that has probably done him more harm in the long run with regards to future football employment.
On the Pockney point - I'd hope he quietly resigns, shakes hands with the board and goes back to supporting from the stands as a fan. Unlike with Bottomley, I believe that Pockney was and is actually a Dale fan, but the findings from the EFL make his position untenable. The new board have built serious credibility, and have (rightly) been backed to the hilt by the majority of supporters. Even when some fan segments are unhappy, or there have been situations that people feel could've been handled differently, the majority of fans have seen that the board's intentions are correct and they are in it for the long haul. They simply can't risk undermining that goodwill by allowing Pockney to stay in position - it'd call their judgement into account, and they could end up facing into serious public criticism for the first time.
Nobody is bigger than the club, & nobody is indispensable. Its probably best for all parties that he moves on. |
Pretty much my own thoughts about the wider perception of our new-ish board (bar one) and Chairman. They have the respect of us all, which won't be overridden by the everyday events that can occur in football
But if Pockney has ANY respect for his friend, he won't hang about waiting to see what happens next
And perhaps even more importantly - if he has ANY respect for the fans, the one's who've ultimately saved the Dale from the worst possible fate, he'll go NOW
[Post edited 21 Oct 2022 13:23]
| |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 13:24 - Oct 21 with 2100 views | wozzrafc |
| EFL verdict in full on 12:55 - Oct 21 by judd |
As a good friend of mine messaged me last night, it seems the EFL were not willing to lynch "one of their own" but have ex-communicated him.
The mention of mental health issues and death threats have seriously spooked the EFL into kid glove treatment of a serious offence.
They clearly have no understanding of the whole of the events outside of the charge, or have been unwilling to take them into account - see 71 - " The Club's mitigation gives a helpful and fairly detailed account of the period May to November 2021, including some very specific details of DB's activities and communications, especially during his paid leave in June 2021. We have examined all that history but do not need to go through it all here."
Serious breach. Severe ban. |
Point 29 states the events around the EGM had little or no bearing on the case, however I can’t see how they can reach the conclusions in points 144 to 147 and ignore everything else.
However the EFL will say they were only interested in the OADT.
In the end as judd says the final result is correct roger gets a lengthy ban and the club get a suspended sentence. | | | |
| EFL verdict in full on 13:42 - Oct 21 with 2031 views | judd |
| EFL verdict in full on 13:24 - Oct 21 by wozzrafc |
Point 29 states the events around the EGM had little or no bearing on the case, however I can’t see how they can reach the conclusions in points 144 to 147 and ignore everything else.
However the EFL will say they were only interested in the OADT.
In the end as judd says the final result is correct roger gets a lengthy ban and the club get a suspended sentence. |
Well it makes mention of the resultant EGM at the end being a consequence of "a group of shareholders from the Rochdale Supporters Trust gave notice of a resolution...and that resolution was passed at an EGM on 1 June 2021." It was actually the Supporters Trust, having had advice on the law of the land, perhaps the detail does not matter.
Had it referenced the Dan Altman statement as a significant shareholders' major concerns about "serious internal issues" which "had not been resolved", then there would have been a more accurate picture painted, one which would add to the running of the club at that time.
https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/4/sport-news/140334/altman-and-ma
I wonder if an independent body would seek character references from Hasbro, Trends UK, Asobi, or an egg-throwing woman in a Wiltshire branch of Tesco?
Serious breach. Severe punishment. | |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 14:29 - Oct 21 with 1914 views | D_Alien |
| EFL verdict in full on 13:42 - Oct 21 by judd |
Well it makes mention of the resultant EGM at the end being a consequence of "a group of shareholders from the Rochdale Supporters Trust gave notice of a resolution...and that resolution was passed at an EGM on 1 June 2021." It was actually the Supporters Trust, having had advice on the law of the land, perhaps the detail does not matter.
Had it referenced the Dan Altman statement as a significant shareholders' major concerns about "serious internal issues" which "had not been resolved", then there would have been a more accurate picture painted, one which would add to the running of the club at that time.
https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/4/sport-news/140334/altman-and-ma
I wonder if an independent body would seek character references from Hasbro, Trends UK, Asobi, or an egg-throwing woman in a Wiltshire branch of Tesco?
Serious breach. Severe punishment. |
Agree with all of that, except about the punishment
It's one thing to attempt a hostile takeover from without, another thing altogether to try to engineer it from within, knowing full well what the consequences might be
It would, under any other circumstances, have been an opportunity for the EFL to point this up and impose an even longer ban (whatever the maximum is, and if that's just two years it's pathetic). A lifetime ban from involvement in football wouldn't have been too severe
But we now know why that didn't happen, and the "mental health" line by the EFL is also pathetic. What about the mental health of Dale fans who might well have been deprived of their town team?
EFL - STILL NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE
[Post edited 21 Oct 2022 14:30]
| |
| |
| EFL verdict in full on 14:45 - Oct 21 with 1864 views | judd |
| EFL verdict in full on 14:29 - Oct 21 by D_Alien |
Agree with all of that, except about the punishment
It's one thing to attempt a hostile takeover from without, another thing altogether to try to engineer it from within, knowing full well what the consequences might be
It would, under any other circumstances, have been an opportunity for the EFL to point this up and impose an even longer ban (whatever the maximum is, and if that's just two years it's pathetic). A lifetime ban from involvement in football wouldn't have been too severe
But we now know why that didn't happen, and the "mental health" line by the EFL is also pathetic. What about the mental health of Dale fans who might well have been deprived of their town team?
EFL - STILL NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE
[Post edited 21 Oct 2022 14:30]
|
I do take your point about the length of the punishment ban.
I am just pointing out that among all the soft-soaping emotive obfuscation are the facts that the regulatory body has deemed his actions as a SERIOUS breach and that they consider it requires a SUBSTANTIAL ban.
Do not lose sight of the dim view taken amidst all that dewy-eyed narcissism.
Now, regulatory bodies and heavy sanctions do tend to feature prominently on some CVs, do they not? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
