By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Council loan to Stadium Co on 20:51 - May 20 by smaclad1
We're all Ok thanks - the lad's officially shielding and we're obviously taking great care of daughter so we've been pretty cautious. All well with you and family?
Climbing walls. I've been in full time so can't complain
On tomorrow's @POF_POD with @kevinhunterday ⚽️Rochdae's council loan ⚽️Manchester United's Football Manager dispute & new stadium cost ⚽️Poch's £19m #NUFC deal ⚽️EPL v NFL money split ⚽️Euro Superleague ⚽️Sheff Utd Saudi Prince ⚽️Hudderfield's £10 new owners... and much more
Council loan to Stadium Co on 13:48 - May 24 by BartRowou
This was posted today for tomorrow.
On tomorrow's @POF_POD with @kevinhunterday ⚽️Rochdae's council loan ⚽️Manchester United's Football Manager dispute & new stadium cost ⚽️Poch's £19m #NUFC deal ⚽️EPL v NFL money split ⚽️Euro Superleague ⚽️Sheff Utd Saudi Prince ⚽️Hudderfield's £10 new owners... and much more
You can listen for yourselves, but all they knew about the deal was what had been in the MEN and the detail in the Council's decision notice about the value of the Club to the Borough. It was agreed that good relations between the Club and the Council are a good thing.
If that was worthy of top billing, the remaining hour must be a bit thin on journalistic investigation and insight!
0
Council loan to Stadium Co on 15:34 - May 27 with 1968 views
Denehurst Park company Limited has received the loan from the council. Rochdale AFC has furloughed its players.
These are two separate legal companies although part of a group. Why they did not go to the bank is a timing issue. Banks don't want to give out business continuity loans, as they know they aren't getting a good 50% of them back, and so are slow in approving them. Why we need it right now when everything is on hold may become apparent later.
The Council have done this as it fits in with their principles and objectives and from a council perspective the amount of the loan will be negligible in comparison to the amount of money that flows through the council annually.
The council also has £52m in the bank and an investment of £52m in Manchester airport and so the risk is very low to them. Given that they have so much in investments makes you wonder why they keep increasing the council tax by the maximum.
I did notice that this was secured on the assets and also by guarantee from the football club. The assets may be valued at £1.7m but that is only for its use as a stadium, if that changes to open market value then the value will drop by a least £1m+. It becomes a piece of land only. That why, I assume, why the Council requested a guarantee from RAFC. If that is guaranteed on future transfer fees then fair play to the council contract negotiators but that requires the Dawson budget gap to be bridged at a later date.
I reckon they have taken about a £400k loan **
** estimated amount derived from the terms of the loan outlined in the council decision document based on the fact it was a restricted decision and access to the complete documentation was unavailable at the time of estimate.
0
Council loan to Stadium Co on 15:48 - May 27 with 1930 views
Council loan to Stadium Co on 15:34 - May 27 by watford_dale
Denehurst Park company Limited has received the loan from the council. Rochdale AFC has furloughed its players.
These are two separate legal companies although part of a group. Why they did not go to the bank is a timing issue. Banks don't want to give out business continuity loans, as they know they aren't getting a good 50% of them back, and so are slow in approving them. Why we need it right now when everything is on hold may become apparent later.
The Council have done this as it fits in with their principles and objectives and from a council perspective the amount of the loan will be negligible in comparison to the amount of money that flows through the council annually.
The council also has £52m in the bank and an investment of £52m in Manchester airport and so the risk is very low to them. Given that they have so much in investments makes you wonder why they keep increasing the council tax by the maximum.
I did notice that this was secured on the assets and also by guarantee from the football club. The assets may be valued at £1.7m but that is only for its use as a stadium, if that changes to open market value then the value will drop by a least £1m+. It becomes a piece of land only. That why, I assume, why the Council requested a guarantee from RAFC. If that is guaranteed on future transfer fees then fair play to the council contract negotiators but that requires the Dawson budget gap to be bridged at a later date.
I reckon they have taken about a £400k loan **
** estimated amount derived from the terms of the loan outlined in the council decision document based on the fact it was a restricted decision and access to the complete documentation was unavailable at the time of estimate.
They did go to the bank and were turned down.
The company was told that " we are unable to qualify for a loan"
That was as of 25th March.
I would imagine that a chunk if not all of this loan will be covered by Dawson transfer and next season's ST sales.
Council loan to Stadium Co on 15:34 - May 27 by watford_dale
Denehurst Park company Limited has received the loan from the council. Rochdale AFC has furloughed its players.
These are two separate legal companies although part of a group. Why they did not go to the bank is a timing issue. Banks don't want to give out business continuity loans, as they know they aren't getting a good 50% of them back, and so are slow in approving them. Why we need it right now when everything is on hold may become apparent later.
The Council have done this as it fits in with their principles and objectives and from a council perspective the amount of the loan will be negligible in comparison to the amount of money that flows through the council annually.
The council also has £52m in the bank and an investment of £52m in Manchester airport and so the risk is very low to them. Given that they have so much in investments makes you wonder why they keep increasing the council tax by the maximum.
I did notice that this was secured on the assets and also by guarantee from the football club. The assets may be valued at £1.7m but that is only for its use as a stadium, if that changes to open market value then the value will drop by a least £1m+. It becomes a piece of land only. That why, I assume, why the Council requested a guarantee from RAFC. If that is guaranteed on future transfer fees then fair play to the council contract negotiators but that requires the Dawson budget gap to be bridged at a later date.
I reckon they have taken about a £400k loan **
** estimated amount derived from the terms of the loan outlined in the council decision document based on the fact it was a restricted decision and access to the complete documentation was unavailable at the time of estimate.
I was interested by the "£52m in the bank". Having looked at the Council's budget setting papers I think this sum is made up of general reserves of £17m and a 'Budget Carry Forward Reserve' of £34.6m. General reserves or balances are held as contingency or emergency funding against known risks in the Council's budget. The Council's statutory 'Chief Finance Officer' has a legal responsibility to report to the Council on the adequacy of these reserves which are also subject to comment and review by the District Auditor. Yes it is money in the bank, but it is an emergency fund that the Council is obliged to hold. The remaining £34.6m is accounted for in the 2020/21 Council budget, the submitted papers showing an anticipated balance of zero in the Reserve on 31st March 2021 - this is money that may have been in the bank on 1st April 2020 but which was set against planned expenditure in 2020/21. So the £52m in the bank is a something of a misrepresentation. It's all in here - no clues, you can find it yourselves - I had to. http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/documents/g5149/Public%20reports%20pack%2026th-
The Council's investment in the Manchester Airport Group is just that, an investment that produces an annual dividend - this can be used to keep Council Tax low or can be invested in local services. Given Covid, this years anticipated dividend will probably have been hammered.
Why does Council Tax keep going up - unless you've been living under a stone you would have noticed that for the last few years Council Tax increases have included a government sanctioned 2% increase ring fenced for social care support where the costs are spiralling as a result of our ageing population and the lack of a coherent national approach to the care of the elderly which has been so sadly exposed in recent weeks. And talking of the last few weeks, Council finances have been hammered - despite some additional funding from government, local authority income has been hammered and additional costs incurred due to additional social care requirements, additional public health responsibilities etc leading to warnings of Council bankruptcies appearing in the media. The government backtracked on saying everything would be paid for, saying that the pain needed to be shared - so wait for next years Council Tax increases and reductions in services.
In terms of security on the loan, the loan was to the Stadium Company and so could only be secured against the ground which is the only asset of the Company. I would assume that the loan is relatively insignificant against the value of the ground and the football club's guarantee was sought, or maybe offered, in order to protect the principal asset. In reality, forcing the sale of the ground for a modest sum would have been in no-ones interest and counter to the stated purpose of granting the loan - the protection of an important asset to the Borough.
1
Council loan to Stadium Co on 18:13 - May 27 with 1821 views
Council loan to Stadium Co on 18:06 - May 27 by smaclad1
I was interested by the "£52m in the bank". Having looked at the Council's budget setting papers I think this sum is made up of general reserves of £17m and a 'Budget Carry Forward Reserve' of £34.6m. General reserves or balances are held as contingency or emergency funding against known risks in the Council's budget. The Council's statutory 'Chief Finance Officer' has a legal responsibility to report to the Council on the adequacy of these reserves which are also subject to comment and review by the District Auditor. Yes it is money in the bank, but it is an emergency fund that the Council is obliged to hold. The remaining £34.6m is accounted for in the 2020/21 Council budget, the submitted papers showing an anticipated balance of zero in the Reserve on 31st March 2021 - this is money that may have been in the bank on 1st April 2020 but which was set against planned expenditure in 2020/21. So the £52m in the bank is a something of a misrepresentation. It's all in here - no clues, you can find it yourselves - I had to. http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/documents/g5149/Public%20reports%20pack%2026th-
The Council's investment in the Manchester Airport Group is just that, an investment that produces an annual dividend - this can be used to keep Council Tax low or can be invested in local services. Given Covid, this years anticipated dividend will probably have been hammered.
Why does Council Tax keep going up - unless you've been living under a stone you would have noticed that for the last few years Council Tax increases have included a government sanctioned 2% increase ring fenced for social care support where the costs are spiralling as a result of our ageing population and the lack of a coherent national approach to the care of the elderly which has been so sadly exposed in recent weeks. And talking of the last few weeks, Council finances have been hammered - despite some additional funding from government, local authority income has been hammered and additional costs incurred due to additional social care requirements, additional public health responsibilities etc leading to warnings of Council bankruptcies appearing in the media. The government backtracked on saying everything would be paid for, saying that the pain needed to be shared - so wait for next years Council Tax increases and reductions in services.
In terms of security on the loan, the loan was to the Stadium Company and so could only be secured against the ground which is the only asset of the Company. I would assume that the loan is relatively insignificant against the value of the ground and the football club's guarantee was sought, or maybe offered, in order to protect the principal asset. In reality, forcing the sale of the ground for a modest sum would have been in no-ones interest and counter to the stated purpose of granting the loan - the protection of an important asset to the Borough.
Interestingly the loan is described as "an initial loan...repayable over a 12 month period" and the note also states the intention to "earmark provision for further loan on similar terms "
Council loan to Stadium Co on 18:13 - May 27 by judd
Interestingly the loan is described as "an initial loan...repayable over a 12 month period" and the note also states the intention to "earmark provision for further loan on similar terms "
We're an important asset to the Borough. It sez so. And tbh, there's been times over the last decade or so when it felt like we were the only bit of good news in the Borough.
Council loan to Stadium Co on 18:25 - May 27 by smaclad1
We're an important asset to the Borough. It sez so. And tbh, there's been times over the last decade or so when it felt like we were the only bit of good news in the Borough.
Perhaps it's a belated apology for that fookin singing mayor!!!
Council loan to Stadium Co on 18:06 - May 27 by smaclad1
I was interested by the "£52m in the bank". Having looked at the Council's budget setting papers I think this sum is made up of general reserves of £17m and a 'Budget Carry Forward Reserve' of £34.6m. General reserves or balances are held as contingency or emergency funding against known risks in the Council's budget. The Council's statutory 'Chief Finance Officer' has a legal responsibility to report to the Council on the adequacy of these reserves which are also subject to comment and review by the District Auditor. Yes it is money in the bank, but it is an emergency fund that the Council is obliged to hold. The remaining £34.6m is accounted for in the 2020/21 Council budget, the submitted papers showing an anticipated balance of zero in the Reserve on 31st March 2021 - this is money that may have been in the bank on 1st April 2020 but which was set against planned expenditure in 2020/21. So the £52m in the bank is a something of a misrepresentation. It's all in here - no clues, you can find it yourselves - I had to. http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/documents/g5149/Public%20reports%20pack%2026th-
The Council's investment in the Manchester Airport Group is just that, an investment that produces an annual dividend - this can be used to keep Council Tax low or can be invested in local services. Given Covid, this years anticipated dividend will probably have been hammered.
Why does Council Tax keep going up - unless you've been living under a stone you would have noticed that for the last few years Council Tax increases have included a government sanctioned 2% increase ring fenced for social care support where the costs are spiralling as a result of our ageing population and the lack of a coherent national approach to the care of the elderly which has been so sadly exposed in recent weeks. And talking of the last few weeks, Council finances have been hammered - despite some additional funding from government, local authority income has been hammered and additional costs incurred due to additional social care requirements, additional public health responsibilities etc leading to warnings of Council bankruptcies appearing in the media. The government backtracked on saying everything would be paid for, saying that the pain needed to be shared - so wait for next years Council Tax increases and reductions in services.
In terms of security on the loan, the loan was to the Stadium Company and so could only be secured against the ground which is the only asset of the Company. I would assume that the loan is relatively insignificant against the value of the ground and the football club's guarantee was sought, or maybe offered, in order to protect the principal asset. In reality, forcing the sale of the ground for a modest sum would have been in no-ones interest and counter to the stated purpose of granting the loan - the protection of an important asset to the Borough.
The £52m in the bank, I was merely making the point that the loan provided by the Council to RAFC was not going to have any impact upon Council finances.
The point regarding the £52m cash comprising of the general fund and the budget carry forward reserve. The reserves you have identified form part of the total liabilities, which is matched to the total assets figure but you don’t separately match the reserves to the assets. The £52m is not a misrepresentation.
Reserves, which you identified the budget carry forward reserve forms part of, are reserves that have been set aside for a supposedly specific purpose. All the Council must do to comply with accounting requirements is for the DoF to perform an annual assessment of the reserves that are required and for that assessment to be presented and accepted by the audit committee. From experience of auditing Council accounts and also being in audit committees is that they never ever get challenged and all that matters is have you performed the assessment and have you shoved it through the audit committee, job done.
The Budget carry forward reserve totalling £34.6m was created to cover projects or expenditure carried forward to the following financial year. If you look at note 7 of the accounts, you will see that the balance of this reserve as at the year-end is always spent the following year and has been for the prior 3 years. This is not worrying, it is planned.
If you go through the 2018/19 statement of accounts, note 21 useable reserves note, the amount of reserves I calculate that are available for general use and not for a specific ring fenced/legal requirement are general fund balance £17m and of the earmarked reserves I calculate that £99,916,000 are general reserves in disguise.
If I can turn your attention to page 184 of the 26/2/20 pack, you can see that the Council is planning to make positive net contributions to general reserves from 20/21 to 22/23. The earmarked reserves you referred to are just a part of the general reserves.
District Audit as an organisation ceased to exist from 31/10/12 with all operational audit staff being TUPE’d over to the firms from 1/11/12. They are referred to as the Appointed Auditor.
Manchester airport investment, I agree you should never sell. In the late 80’s at Luton BC the local tory councillors wanted to sell Luton airport for £3m, the dividend received in 1999 from the airport was £5.5m. This should never be sold but it is an investment that can be converted to cash, was the point.
Council tax has primarily increased because of the reduction of the Revenue Support Grant, an annual grant in the millions each council would receive at the commencement of the financial year to support expenditure. This has reduced dramatically since 2012 central government austerity programme. Council tax will always increase as it’s the only major income stream that the Council has local control in setting, up to 3.99% local precept and 1% adult care precept for 2019/20 and any increase beyond that requires a local referendum of which there has only been one to date which was voted down by 2/3 of the local population. Business rates are nationally set by the government.
The point of whether RMBC always must increase the local element (and not the adult social care element) of council tax to the max was a valid one given their financial position.
The issue of bankruptcy, in these circumstances the Council issue a section 714 certificate which is notification to the government that the Council is unable to meet budget. Most notable one is Northampton CC, does not help when you loan/give Northampton Town FC £xm.
Lots of Councils are facing these issues and examining how the services are delivered needs to be severely looked at, shared services not only between Councils but amongst the wider public sector would be a way forward and not just a few minor functions but the major functions. One payroll department could easily administer the payroll for the Council, NHS and the wider public sector.
This is far more palatable than the measure of outsourcing, one business rates department could easily administer the rates for all 10 Manchester Mets why do we need one per Council. From experience Watford BC, population 97,500 saved £650k p.a by outsourcing refuse collection, parks and open spaces maintenance and street sweeping to Veolia.
Your point regarding the security of the asset, I would strongly think that this was sought and would be a showstopper if it were not received. It is in no-ones interest to force a ground sale and utilising the Dawson money suits all parties. I believe the accessibility to the facility by the Council will be available for the next 2 — 3 years, after all they have ALL THAT MONEY IN RESERVES
0
Council loan to Stadium Co on 19:10 - May 28 with 1427 views
Update from the Trust via their newsletter inc. info on this subject, lotto and other issues:
<< Meeting with the club We met (digitally) with Dale CEO David Bottomley on Wednesday afternoon to discuss a range of matters:
When will the League One vote to continue / curtail the season take place?
There is no current planned meeting for EFL 1. The information from the EFL Board regarding a potential end is now in the public domain, and it is hoped that a meeting is called soon for clubs to discuss and a vote taken. Realistically it has to end , we are past the point of no-return now to allow 3 weeks “mini pre-season“ and sufficient time to play 10 games and play offs by the all-important date of 31st July (Player Contract reasons). As things stand, there is no meeting planned to allow a vote to take place.
There has been talk of costs up to £500,000 for continuing the season behind closed doors. What would these costs be?
The costs on playing behind closed doors are made up of a multitude of things, from EFL publicised testing costs of £140,000 , to having to bring back the entire squad, to having to bring many of our furloughed staff back, and to having medical presence at matches.
It was revealed last week that club have taken out a loan from the Council. Is this loan for a specific purpose and is this something that we as supporters should be concerned about?
Regards the loan it is absolutely nothing that supporters should be worried about. The loan is to assist in temporarily funding a number of essential major projects at the club such as the planned pitch work, a new fire alarm system, and changing facilities amongst others at a time when the club is deriving no income and to ensure full compliance with EFL regulations. It will not be used for the general running of the club/players’ wages, and repayment of the loan will be met from future revenue sources. The underlying financial planning being planned by the Directors covers all eventualities and including the pessimistic judgement of not being able to benefit from any income for the next twelve months.
When will the proposed pitch work start? It had been discussed that the scale of the work meant a longer time period for the work to take place. With it now being four weeks since what would have been our last home game, will there be sufficient time for the planned work?
Regards the pitch, we are starting as soon as we receive confirmation from the EFL of the season end, with the contractors involved ready to start immediately. We do have sufficient time to complete the work. The Covid-19 crisis has had no impact regarding the plans for the work taking place that we shared with supporters earlier this year.
Has there been any suggestions for a possible start date for the 2021-22 season?
We have no likely date for the 2020-21 Season start and no indication either from the EFL .
What was the thinking behind the decision to end Lotto agents?
The situation is that the lottery due to lack of members funds coming in, could not continue to operate as it was not legal to do so, and we are taking the professional steps required to address the situation and bring it right up to date in a competitive modern world. As things stood, we were one of just two clubs that still operated a doorstep collection. The agents have been absolutely brilliant over the years. Unfortunately, there has been a decline in profitability to the extent where the scheme was in danger of folding.
It was disappointing that a number of long-standing agents have not received any communication from the club, and discovered via the club’s social media that their services were no longer required after many years’ service. The Trust itself was a Lotto agent and have not been contacted by the club. Why is that?
Every effort was taken to contact all 92 Agents. A letter has gone out with a cheque for any commission owing (some agents have received this using BACS payments), but we are not able to control the postal delivery (especially currently) which may have led to some delays. What I can tell you is that a small number of people operating on a 50 % salary cut, are regularly working 12-14 hour days to keep the club running and we don’t live in a perfect world at times regarding contact. We are doing what is the absolute best for the club, and we have only the best intentions on all matters. Any agent who has not received their letter and/or commission should contact the club.
As of November, less than 50 out of 5500 members had converted over to standing orders/direct debits. Is there a risk that members will not convert over and the club loses much needed income at a time when it is needed most?
Since announcing this last week, we have been encouraged by the number of supporters who have made the switch to paying by direct debit. However, if we are unable to resume the lottery - we will evaluate weekly the response to Direct Debit applications - all members will receive refunds.
Will agents still receive their commission on Lotto members they have converted to standing order / direct debit members?
No, agents will not receive commission, but we have offered a gesture for all their wonderful loyalty over the years and we will be contacting them with regards to this in the next few weeks.
Those who have previously signed up via direct debits have seen up to three payments taken since Lotto was put “on hold”. What is the situation with regards to these payments?
Members who have paid in — I am one of them — will have greater chances of winning when we do our first draws. Again, should it not proceed, all payments made will be refunded.
We finished the meeting with a discussion regarding season tickets. Those discussions will continue after there is a resolution to the EFL regarding the current season and we will publish more details when it is available.>>
Council loan to Stadium Co on 19:10 - May 28 by 442Dale
Update from the Trust via their newsletter inc. info on this subject, lotto and other issues:
<< Meeting with the club We met (digitally) with Dale CEO David Bottomley on Wednesday afternoon to discuss a range of matters:
When will the League One vote to continue / curtail the season take place?
There is no current planned meeting for EFL 1. The information from the EFL Board regarding a potential end is now in the public domain, and it is hoped that a meeting is called soon for clubs to discuss and a vote taken. Realistically it has to end , we are past the point of no-return now to allow 3 weeks “mini pre-season“ and sufficient time to play 10 games and play offs by the all-important date of 31st July (Player Contract reasons). As things stand, there is no meeting planned to allow a vote to take place.
There has been talk of costs up to £500,000 for continuing the season behind closed doors. What would these costs be?
The costs on playing behind closed doors are made up of a multitude of things, from EFL publicised testing costs of £140,000 , to having to bring back the entire squad, to having to bring many of our furloughed staff back, and to having medical presence at matches.
It was revealed last week that club have taken out a loan from the Council. Is this loan for a specific purpose and is this something that we as supporters should be concerned about?
Regards the loan it is absolutely nothing that supporters should be worried about. The loan is to assist in temporarily funding a number of essential major projects at the club such as the planned pitch work, a new fire alarm system, and changing facilities amongst others at a time when the club is deriving no income and to ensure full compliance with EFL regulations. It will not be used for the general running of the club/players’ wages, and repayment of the loan will be met from future revenue sources. The underlying financial planning being planned by the Directors covers all eventualities and including the pessimistic judgement of not being able to benefit from any income for the next twelve months.
When will the proposed pitch work start? It had been discussed that the scale of the work meant a longer time period for the work to take place. With it now being four weeks since what would have been our last home game, will there be sufficient time for the planned work?
Regards the pitch, we are starting as soon as we receive confirmation from the EFL of the season end, with the contractors involved ready to start immediately. We do have sufficient time to complete the work. The Covid-19 crisis has had no impact regarding the plans for the work taking place that we shared with supporters earlier this year.
Has there been any suggestions for a possible start date for the 2021-22 season?
We have no likely date for the 2020-21 Season start and no indication either from the EFL .
What was the thinking behind the decision to end Lotto agents?
The situation is that the lottery due to lack of members funds coming in, could not continue to operate as it was not legal to do so, and we are taking the professional steps required to address the situation and bring it right up to date in a competitive modern world. As things stood, we were one of just two clubs that still operated a doorstep collection. The agents have been absolutely brilliant over the years. Unfortunately, there has been a decline in profitability to the extent where the scheme was in danger of folding.
It was disappointing that a number of long-standing agents have not received any communication from the club, and discovered via the club’s social media that their services were no longer required after many years’ service. The Trust itself was a Lotto agent and have not been contacted by the club. Why is that?
Every effort was taken to contact all 92 Agents. A letter has gone out with a cheque for any commission owing (some agents have received this using BACS payments), but we are not able to control the postal delivery (especially currently) which may have led to some delays. What I can tell you is that a small number of people operating on a 50 % salary cut, are regularly working 12-14 hour days to keep the club running and we don’t live in a perfect world at times regarding contact. We are doing what is the absolute best for the club, and we have only the best intentions on all matters. Any agent who has not received their letter and/or commission should contact the club.
As of November, less than 50 out of 5500 members had converted over to standing orders/direct debits. Is there a risk that members will not convert over and the club loses much needed income at a time when it is needed most?
Since announcing this last week, we have been encouraged by the number of supporters who have made the switch to paying by direct debit. However, if we are unable to resume the lottery - we will evaluate weekly the response to Direct Debit applications - all members will receive refunds.
Will agents still receive their commission on Lotto members they have converted to standing order / direct debit members?
No, agents will not receive commission, but we have offered a gesture for all their wonderful loyalty over the years and we will be contacting them with regards to this in the next few weeks.
Those who have previously signed up via direct debits have seen up to three payments taken since Lotto was put “on hold”. What is the situation with regards to these payments?
Members who have paid in — I am one of them — will have greater chances of winning when we do our first draws. Again, should it not proceed, all payments made will be refunded.
We finished the meeting with a discussion regarding season tickets. Those discussions will continue after there is a resolution to the EFL regarding the current season and we will publish more details when it is available.>>
Thanks for sharing that.
Is that all the questions the members asked, especially re: agents and Goldbond?
Council loan to Stadium Co on 20:37 - May 28 by judd
Thanks for sharing that.
Is that all the questions the members asked, especially re: agents and Goldbond?
I enquired in advance of the meeting when it was announced on the Trust site whether it was a Trust board meeting or one with the club. If it was the latter, I asked whether questions would be collated from supporters in advance. The response was that it was a meeting with the club to follow up questions they’d sent over the weekend and that they’d look to do the “questions for the board” (where fans can send on questions) in a few weeks. When that’s announced, would say to anyone who’s in the Trust to give them your questions, also happy to take any posted on here and collate to be sent in.
Council loan to Stadium Co on 20:51 - May 28 by 442Dale
I enquired in advance of the meeting when it was announced on the Trust site whether it was a Trust board meeting or one with the club. If it was the latter, I asked whether questions would be collated from supporters in advance. The response was that it was a meeting with the club to follow up questions they’d sent over the weekend and that they’d look to do the “questions for the board” (where fans can send on questions) in a few weeks. When that’s announced, would say to anyone who’s in the Trust to give them your questions, also happy to take any posted on here and collate to be sent in.
Ah, a sort of strike whilst the irons sort of freezing cold sort of strategy?
I wonder what those put out of work think about the opportunity of working at all, never mind self-afflicted 12-14 hour days.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
