| EGM + statement on 16:30 - Feb 20 with 17698 views | scooby |
So either go with this or lose your shares in administration. Needed and the only way to do it. Fan owned was never going to be attractive for an owner.
However, finally, clarity on the situation and some of the debt even if SG focused and not an overall view |  | |  |
| EGM + statement on 16:30 - Feb 20 with 17696 views | SuddenLad |
Hobson's choice. Vote for the motions as proposed or kiss RAFC goodbye.
6 weeks to save our club. š |  |
| Ć¢ā¬ÅIt is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooledĆ¢ā¬Ā |
| |
| EGM + statement on 16:37 - Feb 20 with 17610 views | Duckegg |
Lets face it this as been coming and now the reality is coming sooner than we would like...
No amount of fund raising by the trust will save the club not even what SG isasking unless there is somebody willing to come in and open their chq book.. |  | | |
| EGM + statement on 16:43 - Feb 20 with 17508 views | 442Dale |
And this is why we needed lots more clarity when we were setting off from Southampton. Time and again that was requested, time and again that can was kicked down the road.
Itās ok though, because fans can still help sign players.
History remembers. |  |
| |
| EGM + statement on 16:47 - Feb 20 with 17467 views | DaleiLama |
| EGM + statement on 16:30 - Feb 20 by scooby |
So either go with this or lose your shares in administration. Needed and the only way to do it. Fan owned was never going to be attractive for an owner.
However, finally, clarity on the situation and some of the debt even if SG focused and not an overall view |
The value of shares is extremely fluid. The 50p shares were sold at Ā£2 then Ā£2.35/share to fans and the board recently. Any current shares privately held would seem to be "lost" in either eventuality. Even with a new investor buying 9M "A" shares @ Ā£2M (= just over 20p/share) the new owner of the club surely wouldn't need to mop up the last 10% of shares, and certainly not at any of the above prices after paying pence for his/her shares (or whatever other pronoun is appropriate).
As SL said, Hobson's choice. But it never looked like going any other way?
Edit .............. and now in the public domain
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rochdale-af
[Post edited 20 Feb 16:54]
|  |
| |
| EGM + statement on 16:53 - Feb 20 with 17385 views | DaleFan7 |
Baffling that it's taken this long to reach this stage when the seeming lack of action to cut costs has had us in a downward spiral for a while now.
Does this mean we've got 6 weeks to pass this resolution, find an investor and get them onbaord with FA/NL? Or is there someone waiting in the wings to jump in if the conditions are met? If so, is this something the Trust knows about? | | | |
| EGM + statement on 16:55 - Feb 20 with 17333 views | 442Dale |
| EGM + statement on 16:47 - Feb 20 by DaleiLama |
The value of shares is extremely fluid. The 50p shares were sold at Ā£2 then Ā£2.35/share to fans and the board recently. Any current shares privately held would seem to be "lost" in either eventuality. Even with a new investor buying 9M "A" shares @ Ā£2M (= just over 20p/share) the new owner of the club surely wouldn't need to mop up the last 10% of shares, and certainly not at any of the above prices after paying pence for his/her shares (or whatever other pronoun is appropriate).
As SL said, Hobson's choice. But it never looked like going any other way?
Edit .............. and now in the public domain
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rochdale-af
[Post edited 20 Feb 16:54]
|
Never? Bored of posting those links from April ā22. Meandering failure.
They know. | |
| |
| EGM + statement on 17:04 - Feb 20 with 17221 views | DaleiLama |
| EGM + statement on 16:55 - Feb 20 by 442Dale |
Never? Bored of posting those links from April ā22. Meandering failure.
They know. |
With hindsight, the content of those links and the outcome were at best BS and at worst, incompetence. I should have qualified that "never" as applying to the festering mess left over from Stockdale/Bentley and the resultant relegation. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| EGM + statement on 17:15 - Feb 20 with 17084 views | dale18 |
Silly question- but if we are asset rich, cash poor as the chairman states. Can we not remortgage the ground to inject cash quickly? | | | |
| EGM + statement on 17:20 - Feb 20 with 16995 views | DaleFan7 |
| EGM + statement on 17:15 - Feb 20 by dale18 |
Silly question- but if we are asset rich, cash poor as the chairman states. Can we not remortgage the ground to inject cash quickly? |
Who's going to mortgage it if we're loss making and potentially won't pay it back though? | | | |
| EGM + statement on 17:24 - Feb 20 with 16937 views | DareToCalvin |
Confirming our worst fears. Felt physically sick reading that.
6 weeks to go. |  | | |
| EGM + statement on 17:24 - Feb 20 with 16937 views | JimmyRustler |
| EGM + statement on 17:15 - Feb 20 by dale18 |
Silly question- but if we are asset rich, cash poor as the chairman states. Can we not remortgage the ground to inject cash quickly? |
Youād have to prove you can manage the repayments without relying on the injection itself.
We would probably also need a business plan of some description (thatās not written on the back of a fag packet) |  | | |
| EGM + statement on 17:29 - Feb 20 with 16879 views | D_Alien |
Now this is out in the open, as suggested yesterday there's just no point in the Trust continuing with its very well-meaning proposal regarding 200+ share issuance at Ā£58.75p each
I'd also question, given the timeline, the value of the Fans Forum on Thursday 29 Feb, i.e. a week before the EGM. It's my opinion that it'd be impossible to concentrate on anything but the EGM, which would be the proper place to discuss the EGM resolutions
At this stage, the danger of the Forum becoming a slanging match (including non-shareholders) is - again, entirely imo - too dangerous and could even precipitate the end of Dale (as we know it) regardless of other events
I'm sure others will have a different opinion, and might see it as an opportunity to raise questions, but there's an EGM the week after for that. Football matters are pretty irrelevant in this context; is anyone seriously bothered about whether we bring all players back for corners, right now? |  |
| |
| EGM + statement on 17:40 - Feb 20 with 16764 views | DorkingDale |
The worst possible news, but not unexpected.
End of Morris resolution - the shysters will be queuing up to buy 90% & have total control including the stadium.
So sad, especially after so many people worked so hard to keep Morton House at bay. Never thought I'd say it, but we might have been better off with that shower. | | | |
| EGM + statement on 17:43 - Feb 20 with 16730 views | scooby |
If Simon converts debt to shares as per resolution, what does his Ā£500K+ equate to in % + his current holding? Would that give him enough to sell the ground?
Also, doesnāt this make the trust dead whichever way? | | | |
| EGM + statement on 17:48 - Feb 20 with 16652 views | 442Dale |
| EGM + statement on 17:29 - Feb 20 by D_Alien |
Now this is out in the open, as suggested yesterday there's just no point in the Trust continuing with its very well-meaning proposal regarding 200+ share issuance at Ā£58.75p each
I'd also question, given the timeline, the value of the Fans Forum on Thursday 29 Feb, i.e. a week before the EGM. It's my opinion that it'd be impossible to concentrate on anything but the EGM, which would be the proper place to discuss the EGM resolutions
At this stage, the danger of the Forum becoming a slanging match (including non-shareholders) is - again, entirely imo - too dangerous and could even precipitate the end of Dale (as we know it) regardless of other events
I'm sure others will have a different opinion, and might see it as an opportunity to raise questions, but there's an EGM the week after for that. Football matters are pretty irrelevant in this context; is anyone seriously bothered about whether we bring all players back for corners, right now? |
I can see your points, (another reason why the forum should never have been moved in the first place) but also ALL supporters need to be given an opportunity to find out exactly what the options and implications are. Iām not saying that what weāve heard today doesnāt provide some answers but there are still plenty more questions that anyone would want to know the answer to.
For example:
1) what are the current debts?
2) how much would it cost to run the club in different scenarios eg full/part time with different levels of staffing?
3) without investment, why is the word āliquidationā used and isnāt administration an option?
Iām not saying there arenāt already answers to those before the usual patronising circus pitches a temporary tent in this thread, but lots might want answers to those and plenty more before an EGM.
Thereās a real argument for a supporters meeting too, if only for people to be able to express their concern/ideas/questions in an environment that isnāt like a āhereās a microphone, ask a question before we move round the roomā
I donāt know. Maybe itās all pie in the sky, but the predictability of this was recognised a long time ago. Hence why there was importance put on those Trust meetings over the last year. From the last six months alone:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/300679/fans-meeting-before
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/302514/no-cup-run-money--d
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/303434/dale-trust-agm-satu | |
| |
| EGM + statement on 17:58 - Feb 20 with 16522 views | D_Alien |
| EGM + statement on 17:48 - Feb 20 by 442Dale |
I can see your points, (another reason why the forum should never have been moved in the first place) but also ALL supporters need to be given an opportunity to find out exactly what the options and implications are. Iām not saying that what weāve heard today doesnāt provide some answers but there are still plenty more questions that anyone would want to know the answer to.
For example:
1) what are the current debts?
2) how much would it cost to run the club in different scenarios eg full/part time with different levels of staffing?
3) without investment, why is the word āliquidationā used and isnāt administration an option?
Iām not saying there arenāt already answers to those before the usual patronising circus pitches a temporary tent in this thread, but lots might want answers to those and plenty more before an EGM.
Thereās a real argument for a supporters meeting too, if only for people to be able to express their concern/ideas/questions in an environment that isnāt like a āhereās a microphone, ask a question before we move round the roomā
I donāt know. Maybe itās all pie in the sky, but the predictability of this was recognised a long time ago. Hence why there was importance put on those Trust meetings over the last year. From the last six months alone:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/300679/fans-meeting-before
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/302514/no-cup-run-money--d
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/303434/dale-trust-agm-satu |
I can see the value in all your points
Just on the specific questions, i have severe doubts whether 1) and 2) could be answered in an open public forum. Re: 3) that's something that might well trigger the kind of end-of-meeting/club reaction i fear will happen | |
| |
| EGM + statement on 18:01 - Feb 20 with 16472 views | Newbury_Dale |
What are the Uneconomical Leases referring to in SGs statement ? Didn't understand that. | | | |
| EGM + statement on 18:04 - Feb 20 with 16414 views | Duckegg |
What is so specific about owning 90% the figure mentioned by SG. | | | |
| EGM + statement on 18:06 - Feb 20 with 16369 views | 100notout |
| EGM + statement on 18:01 - Feb 20 by Newbury_Dale |
What are the Uneconomical Leases referring to in SGs statement ? Didn't understand that. |
Hornets I would guess | |
| |
| EGM + statement (n/t) on 18:08 - Feb 20 with 16346 views | DorkingDale |
| EGM + statement on 18:01 - Feb 20 by Newbury_Dale |
What are the Uneconomical Leases referring to in SGs statement ? Didn't understand that. |
[Post edited 20 Feb 18:12]
| | | |
| EGM + statement on 18:08 - Feb 20 with 16330 views | 442Dale |
| EGM + statement on 17:58 - Feb 20 by D_Alien |
I can see the value in all your points
Just on the specific questions, i have severe doubts whether 1) and 2) could be answered in an open public forum. Re: 3) that's something that might well trigger the kind of end-of-meeting/club reaction i fear will happen |
Yeah, I know. But what are the alternatives because without asking them somewhere or trying to find out more, weāre in a position reflected in that statement today.
Being backed up against the wall is one thing, but are we even being given a chance to see what the routes out are?
And yeah, those questions might not work, but people have plenty more Iām sure. Imagine being a non shareholder and not even being given a chance to say something, anything. There will be so much worry and upset amongst supporters tonight. That needs to be acknowledged and addressed if possible. | |
| |
| EGM + statement on 18:08 - Feb 20 with 16311 views | 442Dale |
| EGM + statement on 18:04 - Feb 20 by Duckegg |
What is so specific about owning 90% the figure mentioned by SG. |
Another good question. | |
| |
| EGM + statement on 18:15 - Feb 20 with 16211 views | DaleiLama |
| EGM + statement on 18:04 - Feb 20 by Duckegg |
What is so specific about owning 90% the figure mentioned by SG. |
Not an expert on such matters, but did a quick Google search (and this may not be a definitive answer as there may be different rules for different classes of companies), but
"There are procedures in the Companies Acts which allow a person who acquires 90% of the ordinary share capital to acquire compulsorily the other 10%.
So a 10.1% shareholding gives the power to block a takeover and buyers almost inevitably want to acquire 100% of the companyās shares.
There are in fact other procedures (but these require a Court Order), under which someone who acquires 75% shareholder support can acquire all the shares."
If this is the case, and new owners got 90% or more, sounds like that means they'd have the right to compulsorily buy any remaining shares out - at 22p? - to get to 100% ownership. So shareholders may get some of their cash back. Speaking personally, I regard my shareholding as an unsecured loan which would never be repaid but it might be important to some?
Does anyone have any idea of the value of the stadium land to a developer? Would Ā£2M + cost of acquisition + cost of clearance (+ cost of repaying SG's loan?) still make it attractive as an investment? | |
| |
| EGM + statement on 18:16 - Feb 20 with 16199 views | Dalenet |
I think Murray is best resigning from the Board asap to allow the Trust some breathing space here. In December shareholders were told of the cost challenges and the money the Chairman and Board was having to put in, but we were told that the club was now operating at break even. Yes were also told that we were expecting the proceeds of a player sale in January that didn't come.
In early January, following the Trust meeting with the Dale Board, it was agreed that a further 50,000 shares would be made available to Dale fans to buy. The Trust also got the Board to agree to the aggregate scheme for smaller purchases.
Within 7 weeks of that we are being told that time is up and we run out of cash next month. Adminstration isn't an option as I assume one or more major directors will want assets disposed of to repay them - or other major creditors. We have no idea whether we have other non loan debt such as outstanding HMRC debt. Hence the suggestion of liquidation.
So anybody that bought shares since the Trust & Board meeting have done so when it was clear all along that we were likely to go under. Buying shares is always a judgement call, but the timing of this share issuance is questionable.
So if shareholders approve the motions and the club can issue unlimited shares at whatever price, and the key Director A Shares are then allowed to appoint or sack Board members, and the A Shares get preference in any liquidation, as I read it the Trust and any fan owned ordinary shares are worthless - either as a voting option, or as an investment. New owners, or the current Director A share holders have full authority and ownership. If we don't have a buyer lined up.....I can see a number of scenario's here - but none will be influenced by the fans or the Ordinary share shareholders.
A dark day - a message that probably wouldn't have been issued this afternoon had we not postponed tonights game. [Post edited 20 Feb 18:21]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
