| Hornets on Sunday 19:31 - Feb 24 with 274205 views | EllDale |
They’re tweeting that their “matchday operations” are being restricted for the home game against Barrow on Sunday for reasons that they don’t want to divulge at the moment.
The bottom line is that the crowd capacity is limited to 920 and there will be no cash admissions on the day.
Wonder what that’s all about? |  | | |  |
| Hornets on Sunday on 00:35 - Feb 10 with 3186 views | pioneer |
| Hornets on Sunday on 23:13 - Feb 9 by RAFCBLUE |
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/february/dalehornetscouncilmeeting_jan23
The purpose of the meeting was to explore and discuss certain possible future operational changes to the 2016 Lease, which was put in place by both parties in March 2016 when the football club legally acquired the freehold of the ground outright.
This appears to be the crux.
We know that there was a very public difference of views in 2021/2022 just after the former CEO left and around the Fiji game which both clubs seemingly seem to want to put behind them.
Mazey has been a bit more conciliatory on Twitter in recent months which is probably down to a realisation that the future growth and success of Hornets is linked to the future growth and success of the football club. Even to the point in his Christmas message where he said:
https://www.hornetsrugbyleague.co.uk/article/1191/christmas-message-from-chairma
I have spoken regularly throughout the year about the challenges the club has faced. We will continue to face these challenges and meet them head on with your support, however, it is Christmas so I won’t go over old ground and our focus is absolutely on an exciting 2023.
The lease in 2016 was put in place by the then boards of both clubs and agreed by Rochdale Council and I think I am right to say there is now no common individual at either the football or rugby club that was involved in 2016.
At the time, the terms of the lease were not disclosed publicly but the lease to Rochdale Hornets looked to be part of the sale deal the Council wanted if they were to sell their shares:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2016/march/rochdale-football-club-secure-full
Rochdale Council are to relinquish its shares in the company that owns and manages Spotland Stadium so that the long-term future of the sporting facility can be secured.
The council became one of three shareholders in the company when it was set up in 1991 to safeguard the stadium, which is used by Rochdale’s professional football and rugby league clubs.
The shares will transfer to Rochdale AFC and the council will recover the original outlay of £100,000.
Loans of £529,000 the stadium company has with the council will be consolidated and repaid over nine years at commercial rates, which will help keep professional sport in the borough and reduce exposure to future risk for the council.
Rochdale Hornets Rugby League Football Club have signed a new long-term lease as part of the agreement.
The input of the Council surely must be funding related for Hornets or even both parties. We know that the Hornets rent is minimal and that they don't contribute to the costs of running the ground, whereas we run at a significant loss each season.
Mazey also said in his Christmas message Hornets were looking for investment:
I have said on many occasions we are always looking for new people who can add value and put in the time and effort to help improve the club. I would urge anyone who may feel they are in a position to help in taking this club forward to get in touch with myself or Steve Kerr. It is not a closed shop and the door is always open and shareholding can be made available to new investors wanting to buy in.
I guess if you are the council and you have seen what happened at bury and Oldham with ground disputes and then watched what happened to us with Bottomley / Morton House and losing the ground to an asset stripping investor as nearly happened in 2021 would be the end for both clubs. Hornets definitely have the best home ground in their league.
I'd assume Hornets might like improved lease terms and in return more money will flow into the football club. We RAFC paid the council £629,000 for shares in 2016 and that mortgage was repaid last year.
Morton House nearly bought the club and ground for just over £1.2m so the land is clearly valuable for an asset stripper.
Its good to see that everyone is talking collaboratively and ultimately if there are future changes it looks like there will have to be an EGM for RAFC shareholders to consider and approve any proposals so we would all get to see the Hornets/Council thinking and vote on it. |
Best home ground in their league?
I think that would be Doncaster. | | | |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:10 - Feb 10 with 2821 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Hornets on Sunday on 22:45 - Jan 11 by RAFCBLUE |
https://www.hornetsrugbyleague.co.uk/tickets
Hornets own ticket website shows available seats and if the grey ones are sold then they've only sold 88 so far:
* 11 in Block A
* 24 in Block B
* 23 in Block C
* 30 in Block D
Boxes 11 and 12 still unsold. |
https://www.hornetsrugbyleague.co.uk/article/1219/we-deserve-more-support-
"With four weeks to go until the start of the season, we need to see more season tickets sales - we can’t sugar coat that. Now is the time to back the club and all you need to do is buy a season ticket and if you can go one step further and introduce someone to the club that would massive”."
https://www.hornetsrugbyleague.co.uk/tickets
Hornets own ticket website shows available seats and if the grey ones are sold then they've only sold 102 so far:
* 14 in Block A
* 37 in Block B
* 21 in Block C
* 30 in Block D
Box 12 still unsold
That would only be 14 sales since January 11th plus Box 11.
I do wonder if that is why the Council is getting involved?
The viability of Rochdale Hornets with just 102 season ticket holders must be under some severe threat with only 2 weeks before the season starts.
2023 could see a failed Rochdale Hornets and RAFC relegated to the National League.
Can Rochdale council afford that with the associated economic impact on the town? [Post edited 10 Feb 2023 20:11]
|  |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:22 - Feb 10 with 2798 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Hornets on Sunday on 23:25 - Feb 9 by D_Alien |
It's also worth noting that the articles that were put in place by a former director to prevent the sale of the ground unless voted for by 75% of shareholdings is still something that could be put at risk should a new owner acquire more than 50% of the shares
This was put forward at tonight's forum. If the 60% of shares NOT held by fans who aren't members of the BoD were to be sold, there would be nothing to stop someone acquiring that shareholding and then issuing new shares which would in theory mean they could achieve the 75% threshold. If i've got this wrong, could someone please reinterpret what came across at the forum |
I wasn't able to attend the forum DA so I don't know what was said.
However, Companies House has a copy of the Graham Morris resolution from 1987 and it says very clearly:
"Notwithstanding the power conferred on Directors of this Company by statutes or these Articles, the Directors shall not without the prior authority by special resolution of the company in general meeting sell, transfer, charge or otherwise dispose of the land and buildings forming the football ground terraces and car park situate and known as Spotland Ground, Rochdale.
A special resolution requires 75% of everyone voting to pass it.
So to sell, transfer, charge or otherwise dispose of the land and buildings and based on the 899,899 shares in issue (prior to the last EGM) that would mean if every share voted it would need 674,925 shares to pass a sale or mortgage of the ground.
Of course, not everyone votes but 75% is a high bar.
If you then expand that to the new share threshold where there could be 1,350,000 shares in issue then there would need to be 1,012,500 to vote for to sell or transfer the ground.
The issue that the Council have is that had Morton House got in they would have had 212,895 shares out of the then 502,957 and so on an evening when not everyone votes that 212,895 is a very big proportion to get towards 75%.
It's possible that someone might just keep buying and buying shares to control the ground outright but the stealthy way it was attempted in 2021 was to buy 212,895 shares for £1.2m which would have nearly done it had Andrew Kelly sold out.
Morton House would have then just controlled the property asset, mortgaged the ground and had a large debt on the stadium. All legally done but it would have sunk Rochdale.
We all saw what Steve Dale did to bury fc and Gigg Lane.
I don't think the Council or Rochdale Hornets perhaps realise how close they might have been to losing the ground for good to people who they did not know. A hostile party had they taken control would have simply have mortgaged the ground for a stupid sum, then watched that not be paid and then foreclosed which would have evicted Rochdale Hornets.
Thank God Andrew Kelly stood firm. [Post edited 10 Feb 2023 20:41]
| |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:27 - Feb 10 with 2789 views | Sandyman |
Are cup games included in a Hornets season ticket?
If not, £150 for only 9 home league games isn't particularly cheap. |  | | |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:36 - Feb 10 with 2776 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:27 - Feb 10 by Sandyman |
Are cup games included in a Hornets season ticket?
If not, £150 for only 9 home league games isn't particularly cheap. |
No.
And it was £150 for 10 games until West Wales folded.
It should be only £135 for 9 games on a pro-rata basis.
They are not even throwing in the Challenge Cup game for free to those hardy souls who have purchased Season tickets on the 10 game basis. | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:42 - Feb 10 with 2753 views | D_Alien |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:22 - Feb 10 by RAFCBLUE |
I wasn't able to attend the forum DA so I don't know what was said.
However, Companies House has a copy of the Graham Morris resolution from 1987 and it says very clearly:
"Notwithstanding the power conferred on Directors of this Company by statutes or these Articles, the Directors shall not without the prior authority by special resolution of the company in general meeting sell, transfer, charge or otherwise dispose of the land and buildings forming the football ground terraces and car park situate and known as Spotland Ground, Rochdale.
A special resolution requires 75% of everyone voting to pass it.
So to sell, transfer, charge or otherwise dispose of the land and buildings and based on the 899,899 shares in issue (prior to the last EGM) that would mean if every share voted it would need 674,925 shares to pass a sale or mortgage of the ground.
Of course, not everyone votes but 75% is a high bar.
If you then expand that to the new share threshold where there could be 1,350,000 shares in issue then there would need to be 1,012,500 to vote for to sell or transfer the ground.
The issue that the Council have is that had Morton House got in they would have had 212,895 shares out of the then 502,957 and so on an evening when not everyone votes that 212,895 is a very big proportion to get towards 75%.
It's possible that someone might just keep buying and buying shares to control the ground outright but the stealthy way it was attempted in 2021 was to buy 212,895 shares for £1.2m which would have nearly done it had Andrew Kelly sold out.
Morton House would have then just controlled the property asset, mortgaged the ground and had a large debt on the stadium. All legally done but it would have sunk Rochdale.
We all saw what Steve Dale did to bury fc and Gigg Lane.
I don't think the Council or Rochdale Hornets perhaps realise how close they might have been to losing the ground for good to people who they did not know. A hostile party had they taken control would have simply have mortgaged the ground for a stupid sum, then watched that not be paid and then foreclosed which would have evicted Rochdale Hornets.
Thank God Andrew Kelly stood firm. [Post edited 10 Feb 2023 20:41]
|
When this point was raised at the Forum, it was met with blank stares
I'd sincerely hope that subsequent to that, discussions have already taken place to look very carefully at how any incoming investor/investment company might be able to wrangle control, including over the ground as an asset, should things not pan out "according to plan" |  |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:55 - Feb 10 with 2725 views | 442Dale |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:42 - Feb 10 by D_Alien |
When this point was raised at the Forum, it was met with blank stares
I'd sincerely hope that subsequent to that, discussions have already taken place to look very carefully at how any incoming investor/investment company might be able to wrangle control, including over the ground as an asset, should things not pan out "according to plan" |
What is the current total of shares issued? There was a thread on here with a breakdown.
Edit: sorry, just seen above. Approx 899 thousand.
How many more shares are remaining unsold?
If these were bought by one person/group, what percentage of the total shareholding will they have?
(All the above putting aside the need for EFL approval at any stage, that’s the next stage) [Post edited 10 Feb 2023 21:01]
|  |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:06 - Feb 10 with 2710 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:42 - Feb 10 by D_Alien |
When this point was raised at the Forum, it was met with blank stares
I'd sincerely hope that subsequent to that, discussions have already taken place to look very carefully at how any incoming investor/investment company might be able to wrangle control, including over the ground as an asset, should things not pan out "according to plan" |
It's a tricky one DA because of how company law applies to owning shares and grants certain rights to shareholders.
The ground is an asset of the company so by owning a % of the company by default you own part of the ground.
What Graham Morris did in 1987 was to legislate that you couldn't sell or mortgage that ground unless you had 75% of the vote in an EGM.
In 1987 that was relatively simple. The club had few shareholders so the chances of 75% was slim - or virtually unanimous agreement which is a good thing.
Over the 1990's and 2000's more shares got issued and the ability to get to 75% was still hard.
To compare that, despite the vitriol and disdain for a former director only saw 60% of votes go against him. Getting to 75% is difficult!
The only risk under company law is that someone buys shares and wants to by more and more - increasing their percentage shareholding to the point where 75% is possible. If you get control (51%) of a company you can do that but it does take time and money.
In 2019 the ground was protected by being an Asset of Community Value which sounds fine in theory but it only relates to stopping the property asset being traded and not the shares in the company that owns it.
If the ground stays in the RAFC company then the Asset of Community Value point isn't really worth the paper it is written on.
The Council in 2016 put in a further protection - securing £629,000 against the ground which would mean someone who had to sell it would have to repay them. It doesn't stop a sale but it makes it very hard.
The prudence of the club between 2016 and 2022 to find a way to pay that £629,000 off means that as we sit here today the asset is mortgage free.
The best two protection for the stadium in the town in the next 50 years are either:
(a) The Council put a sizeable mortgage in on the ground (say £3m) which is secured on the ground. That will stop any asset stripper as if one were to appear to want to take the ground they would need to (1) repay the council their £3m and (2) pass 75% of RAFC shares in an EGM to remortgage. It would cost in my example the asset stripper £3m and that would effectively stop any asset stripper because fans would stop them getting to 75%. Roughly they would have to invest £5m and that is a high level of deterrent.
(b) The Council buy 25.1% of RAFC which means they can always block a sale of the ground in an RAFC EGM.
Rochdale Hornets have no say as tenants. The Council's risk is that they don't act and in 5/10/20 years time the situation is as such that they can't ever make that ground up.
The logic doesn't work if you use a private company to mortgage - as bury found out - the high interest rates usually mean that mortgage company takes control of the ground.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/27/bury-historic-club-football-lea
You can see why Hornets might want the help of the Council to secure tenure. If the club changed ownership to a non-Rochdale party why would they necessarily support Hornets? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:10 - Feb 10 with 2708 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:55 - Feb 10 by 442Dale |
What is the current total of shares issued? There was a thread on here with a breakdown.
Edit: sorry, just seen above. Approx 899 thousand.
How many more shares are remaining unsold?
If these were bought by one person/group, what percentage of the total shareholding will they have?
(All the above putting aside the need for EFL approval at any stage, that’s the next stage) [Post edited 10 Feb 2023 21:01]
|
899,899 was the number in issue before the last EGM.
The EGM increased that possible number to 1,350,000. That would mean 450,001 available for sale.
Assuming 450,001 was bought by one person that would be c.33% (450,000 of 1,350,000) of the club (would need EFL approval).
Still far below the 75% required to sell or mortgage the ground in isolation. | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:21 - Feb 10 with 2678 views | D_Alien |
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:10 - Feb 10 by RAFCBLUE |
899,899 was the number in issue before the last EGM.
The EGM increased that possible number to 1,350,000. That would mean 450,001 available for sale.
Assuming 450,001 was bought by one person that would be c.33% (450,000 of 1,350,000) of the club (would need EFL approval).
Still far below the 75% required to sell or mortgage the ground in isolation. |
Outside the EFL, it wouldn't need EFL approval
However, the main thing is that this matter is of concern and being looked at very carefully to ensure all potential loopholes that might allow an investor who ticks all the right boxes at the time of share acquisition would be unable to change tack once on board
We've seen how changing tack can affect the balance of confidence, when it occurs without prior notice | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:22 - Feb 10 with 2677 views | 442Dale |
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:10 - Feb 10 by RAFCBLUE |
899,899 was the number in issue before the last EGM.
The EGM increased that possible number to 1,350,000. That would mean 450,001 available for sale.
Assuming 450,001 was bought by one person that would be c.33% (450,000 of 1,350,000) of the club (would need EFL approval).
Still far below the 75% required to sell or mortgage the ground in isolation. |
Was wondering how many were left now after initial sales. That percentage available will have dropped further.
Though it assumes that current shareholders wouldn’t then be approached to buy shares, as has happened before.
Why can’t the ground be separated from the club? I don’t profess to knowing enough about how this works, but what is stopping this happening so that any investor would only be investing in the club, this would help to ensure we attract people who accept this and still want to move us forwards. | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:27 - Feb 10 with 2668 views | 442Dale |
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:21 - Feb 10 by D_Alien |
Outside the EFL, it wouldn't need EFL approval
However, the main thing is that this matter is of concern and being looked at very carefully to ensure all potential loopholes that might allow an investor who ticks all the right boxes at the time of share acquisition would be unable to change tack once on board
We've seen how changing tack can affect the balance of confidence, when it occurs without prior notice |
Especially when the timeline for a change of tack still hasn’t become totally clear. | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:50 - Feb 10 with 2619 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:22 - Feb 10 by 442Dale |
Was wondering how many were left now after initial sales. That percentage available will have dropped further.
Though it assumes that current shareholders wouldn’t then be approached to buy shares, as has happened before.
Why can’t the ground be separated from the club? I don’t profess to knowing enough about how this works, but what is stopping this happening so that any investor would only be investing in the club, this would help to ensure we attract people who accept this and still want to move us forwards. |
https://mycommunity.org.uk/what-are-assets-of-community-value-acv
The ground is an Asset of Community Value so it can be separate but it is a very lengthy public process.
So for RAFC to sell the ground it has to follow a special set of rules for assets that are defined as ACV.
The Community Right to Bid does not give the right of first refusal to community organisations to buy an asset that they successfully nominate for inclusion on the local authority’s list. What it does do is give time for them to put together the funding necessary to bid to buy the asset on the open market. If an owner wants to sell property/land that is on the list, they must tell the local authority. If the nominating body is keen to develop a bid, they can then call for the local authority to trigger a moratorium period, during which time the owner cannot proceed to sell the asset.
There are two moratorium periods. Both start from the date the owner of the asset tells the local authority of their intention to sell. The first is the interim moratorium period, which is six weeks, during which time a community organisation can decide if they want to be considered as a potential bidder. The other is a full moratorium period, which is six months, during which a community organisation can develop a proposal and raise the money required to bid to buy the asset
So to be sold on the open market:
(1) 75% of shareholders would need to vote for that at an EGM
(2) Rochdale Council would have to offer a full moratorium period of six months during which a community organisation can develop a proposal and raise the money required to bid to buy the asset
Where shares are sold, the ground is exempt from that which is why many properties are bought via a limited company rather than buying the property outright.
https://www.propertygeek.net/article/buying-property-through-a-company/
The Council's risk re: Hornets is that RAFC is bought and that the ground is never sold. Hornets have little protection and the Council cannot enforce ACV as the property is never sold, but the company is. | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 22:18 - Feb 10 with 2570 views | judd |
| Hornets on Sunday on 21:50 - Feb 10 by RAFCBLUE |
https://mycommunity.org.uk/what-are-assets-of-community-value-acv
The ground is an Asset of Community Value so it can be separate but it is a very lengthy public process.
So for RAFC to sell the ground it has to follow a special set of rules for assets that are defined as ACV.
The Community Right to Bid does not give the right of first refusal to community organisations to buy an asset that they successfully nominate for inclusion on the local authority’s list. What it does do is give time for them to put together the funding necessary to bid to buy the asset on the open market. If an owner wants to sell property/land that is on the list, they must tell the local authority. If the nominating body is keen to develop a bid, they can then call for the local authority to trigger a moratorium period, during which time the owner cannot proceed to sell the asset.
There are two moratorium periods. Both start from the date the owner of the asset tells the local authority of their intention to sell. The first is the interim moratorium period, which is six weeks, during which time a community organisation can decide if they want to be considered as a potential bidder. The other is a full moratorium period, which is six months, during which a community organisation can develop a proposal and raise the money required to bid to buy the asset
So to be sold on the open market:
(1) 75% of shareholders would need to vote for that at an EGM
(2) Rochdale Council would have to offer a full moratorium period of six months during which a community organisation can develop a proposal and raise the money required to bid to buy the asset
Where shares are sold, the ground is exempt from that which is why many properties are bought via a limited company rather than buying the property outright.
https://www.propertygeek.net/article/buying-property-through-a-company/
The Council's risk re: Hornets is that RAFC is bought and that the ground is never sold. Hornets have little protection and the Council cannot enforce ACV as the property is never sold, but the company is. |
There was a prolonged challenge last night as to where the stadium ownership actually lies.
It was said that land registry records did not show ownership by the football club several times despite Simon reiterating that the legals had all been completed. |  |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 08:09 - Feb 11 with 2410 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Hornets on Sunday on 22:18 - Feb 10 by judd |
There was a prolonged challenge last night as to where the stadium ownership actually lies.
It was said that land registry records did not show ownership by the football club several times despite Simon reiterating that the legals had all been completed. |
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news-focus/news-focus-hm-land-registry-delays-mount
It’s a well known fact in legal circles judd that the Land Registry are next to useless.
As long as your solicitor lodges the forms when the transaction concludes then the effective date is the date of the solicitor’s application not when the Land Registry eventually get around to processing them. Behind each transaction there is a sale and purchase contract as well as the Land Registry from.
I’d assume that’s what has happened - as the link says above the delays are significant even though from memory the club secured the ground by repaying the mortgage 8 months ago. | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 08:23 - Feb 11 with 2383 views | James1980 |
| Hornets on Sunday on 22:18 - Feb 10 by judd |
There was a prolonged challenge last night as to where the stadium ownership actually lies.
It was said that land registry records did not show ownership by the football club several times despite Simon reiterating that the legals had all been completed. |
Who did those making said challenge say the ground belongs to? | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 09:09 - Feb 11 with 2336 views | DaleiLama |
| Hornets on Sunday on 08:09 - Feb 11 by RAFCBLUE |
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news-focus/news-focus-hm-land-registry-delays-mount
It’s a well known fact in legal circles judd that the Land Registry are next to useless.
As long as your solicitor lodges the forms when the transaction concludes then the effective date is the date of the solicitor’s application not when the Land Registry eventually get around to processing them. Behind each transaction there is a sale and purchase contract as well as the Land Registry from.
I’d assume that’s what has happened - as the link says above the delays are significant even though from memory the club secured the ground by repaying the mortgage 8 months ago. |
Land registry has been backed up 6-12 months+++ since Covid and its open to speculation whether it will ever recover. I know from family experience about the delays and there is an expedite process which can be initiated if a sale could be affected by the glacial processing. Otherwise .......... |  |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 09:24 - Feb 11 with 2316 views | judd |
| Hornets on Sunday on 08:23 - Feb 11 by James1980 |
Who did those making said challenge say the ground belongs to? |
Denefurst Park was the previous owner.
It surrounded the protection in place should new owners come in. | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 10:44 - Feb 11 with 2230 views | James1980 |
| Hornets on Sunday on 09:24 - Feb 11 by judd |
Denefurst Park was the previous owner.
It surrounded the protection in place should new owners come in. |
In the event the ground was owned by Denehurst Park would that cause any actual issues? | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 11:14 - Feb 11 with 2193 views | judd |
| Hornets on Sunday on 10:44 - Feb 11 by James1980 |
In the event the ground was owned by Denehurst Park would that cause any actual issues? |
Dunno.
Basically there was a mortgage on the ground, the outstanding balance of which was paid off by the current board as a tactic in terms of ownership. The land registry are Mike's behind events | |
| |
| Hornets on Sunday on 12:39 - Feb 11 with 2122 views | EllDale |
Just been looking at Hornets new team photo.
There are 29 players on there which is a pretty big squad. | | | |
| Hornets on Sunday on 17:38 - Feb 11 with 2005 views | pioneer |
| Hornets on Sunday on 12:39 - Feb 11 by EllDale |
Just been looking at Hornets new team photo.
There are 29 players on there which is a pretty big squad. |
There are 17 in a match line up (less than for football games) so not that excessive, particularly when you factor in players are often unavailable because of things like summer holidays in addition to the more usual injuries and suspensions.
Not sure what the contracts are like but would suspect its no play no (or vey little) pay. | | | |
| Hornets on Sunday on 23:16 - Feb 11 with 1876 views | nordenblue |
| Hornets on Sunday on 12:39 - Feb 11 by EllDale |
Just been looking at Hornets new team photo.
There are 29 players on there which is a pretty big squad. |
I'm guessing it looks bigger as its weirdly not just the players and management on the team photo.... | | | |
| Hornets on Sunday on 00:43 - Feb 12 with 1836 views | pioneer |
| Hornets on Sunday on 20:10 - Feb 10 by RAFCBLUE |
https://www.hornetsrugbyleague.co.uk/article/1219/we-deserve-more-support-
"With four weeks to go until the start of the season, we need to see more season tickets sales - we can’t sugar coat that. Now is the time to back the club and all you need to do is buy a season ticket and if you can go one step further and introduce someone to the club that would massive”."
https://www.hornetsrugbyleague.co.uk/tickets
Hornets own ticket website shows available seats and if the grey ones are sold then they've only sold 102 so far:
* 14 in Block A
* 37 in Block B
* 21 in Block C
* 30 in Block D
Box 12 still unsold
That would only be 14 sales since January 11th plus Box 11.
I do wonder if that is why the Council is getting involved?
The viability of Rochdale Hornets with just 102 season ticket holders must be under some severe threat with only 2 weeks before the season starts.
2023 could see a failed Rochdale Hornets and RAFC relegated to the National League.
Can Rochdale council afford that with the associated economic impact on the town? [Post edited 10 Feb 2023 20:11]
|
Love the quote from Kerr “this is your club”. No its not ….Mazey and his pals bought it for just over 100 quid!
Its their club. | | | |
| Hornets on Sunday on 08:04 - Feb 12 with 1782 views | nordenblue |
| Hornets on Sunday on 00:43 - Feb 12 by pioneer |
Love the quote from Kerr “this is your club”. No its not ….Mazey and his pals bought it for just over 100 quid!
Its their club. |
The ever "transparent" Jerry the Berry, bless him | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.