| Chairman's Statement 17:02 - Jan 5 with 46714 views | HullDale |
|  | | |  |
| Chairman's Statement on 23:45 - Feb 26 with 4674 views | kel |
| Chairman's Statement on 22:55 - Feb 26 by A_Newby |
Hi 49th
The last time that the Dale issued new shares, the club was claimed to have treated one set of shareholders differently to the others and the directors ended up being personally sued and had to stump up (my estimate of around) £500,000 of their own money buying shares to settle the case out of court.
The fans and trust had to pay over £80,000 in legal fees.
You may be right and a scheme as proposed offering people incentives to buy new shares could be perfectly legal. Then again, I may be right, it may be illegal to offer incentives to people to purchase a new share issue and it could be challenged in court by a “malicious actor”.
Now if you were a director on the RAFC board would you be willing to gamble on such a scheme being legal knowing that you could face potentially massive financial consequences if it wasn’t or would you want to have it completely verified and approved by existing shareholders?
I still think that a reward scheme for shareholders is a good idea just not in this form. [Post edited 27 Feb 2023 8:33]
|
Hi A_Newby
Where has the 500k figure come from? I don’t recall seeing it anywhere but as I’ve already said elsewhere, my memory is quite bad sometimes. |  | | |
| Chairman's Statement on 07:10 - Feb 27 with 4502 views | A_Newby |
| Chairman's Statement on 23:45 - Feb 26 by kel |
Hi A_Newby
Where has the 500k figure come from? I don’t recall seeing it anywhere but as I’ve already said elsewhere, my memory is quite bad sometimes. |
Good morning Kel
You haven't missed any announcements.
I calculated / deduced / estimated the £500k.
This was widely reported about the Morton House case settlement.
"Additionally, Morton House has agreed to transfer its full beneficial shareholding of 212,895 shares to a consortium of seven individuals, who are all currently serving members of the club’s board of directors, for an undisclosed sum."
Now when the new share issue was being discussed at the last EGM a question was raised of why the price of the shares would be £2.35 rather than £2.00 like last time.
The gist of the answer given was this was the latest price that had been paid for RAFC shares, as the only shares that had purchased during this time where those from Morton House I concluded this was the price the board had paid for each share.
So multiplying 212,895 by £2.35 you get £500,303 so I've presumed that the board paid £500k to settle the case and buy back the shares. [Post edited 27 Feb 2023 8:35]
|  | | |
| Chairman's Statement on 08:53 - Feb 27 with 4353 views | kel |
Hi A_Newby
Thanks for that. I’m not very good when it comes to maths so that seems to make sense. I do, however, like to think I can work out people’s intentions when they post on a football message board, especially when they display similar traits to other users.
What would be your thoughts on the farcical situation I’ve faced over the transfer of shares to myself that I’ve mentioned in this thread? I’ve tried contacting the club before you suggest that but as I’m clearly limited in the brains department I’d appreciate the advice of someone smarter.
Thanks in advance. | | | |
| Chairman's Statement on 09:24 - Feb 27 with 4277 views | 49thseason |
Hi AN, I guess the shares issue faced by the board hung on a procedural issue more than the actual issue of the shares, in that the board didnt offer the shares to MH, a) because they were not at that point properly transfered from the original owners and b) because the company articles allowed the board to decide who can be shareholders..
If the case had gone to court, it could have been a complete lottery due to the lack of precedent so the board took the less costly route and settled, thats not to say they did anything amiss, simply that the cost,of settling was probably less than contesting the issue. Make no mistake, defending a hostile takeover attempt by issuing shares and diluting the % of shares owned by a predator and thus increasing their cost of reaching a majority is an entirely legitimate way to see off an unwanted takeover.
Actually, if you think about it, any incentive offered to all shareholders might be an incentive for non-holders to buy shares in the company. For example I remember one of the channel ferry companies offering a free crossing to shareholders and remember the number of shares required being cheaper than the cost of the crossing. It was very popular with caravaners! Thus, 10% off season tickets for shareholders with 10 or more shares might be a good incentive to get more shareholders on board. |  | | |
| Chairman's Statement on 12:24 - Feb 27 with 3968 views | A_Newby |
| Chairman's Statement on 08:53 - Feb 27 by kel |
Hi A_Newby
Thanks for that. I’m not very good when it comes to maths so that seems to make sense. I do, however, like to think I can work out people’s intentions when they post on a football message board, especially when they display similar traits to other users.
What would be your thoughts on the farcical situation I’ve faced over the transfer of shares to myself that I’ve mentioned in this thread? I’ve tried contacting the club before you suggest that but as I’m clearly limited in the brains department I’d appreciate the advice of someone smarter.
Thanks in advance. |
Hi Kel,
As far as I can see your problem would be that the shareholders database has either not been updated to include your email address or your email address has been added incorrectly into the database.
I suspect the first is most likely, the shareholder list posted on companies house has not been updated since June 2022 either.
Do you know if the person who gifted you the shares receives shareholder emails?
Do you get any emails at all from the club at all, for example about offers in the bar, ticket offers etc?
I get these as a season card holder so if you get these then somewhere on the system, the club must have your correct email address.
Most of my emails from the club come from the same address, office@rochdaleafc.co.uk, it is the same address I get emails from both as a season ticket holder and shareholder.
The person I have dealt with at RAFC regarding shares is Nicola Toolan, email address, Nicola.toolan@rochdaleafc.co.uk. I think that she may be the person who is responsible for maintaining the shareholder list.
If you have not already done so I would suggest that you contact Nicola directly with your email / share problem. If you have already contacted Nicola, then I’m sorry but I don’t have any other suggestions.
With regards to my traits being similar to others who post on the forum, I can assure you that I only have one account on the forum. | | | |
| Chairman's Statement on 13:21 - Feb 27 with 3817 views | kel |
| Chairman's Statement on 12:24 - Feb 27 by A_Newby |
Hi Kel,
As far as I can see your problem would be that the shareholders database has either not been updated to include your email address or your email address has been added incorrectly into the database.
I suspect the first is most likely, the shareholder list posted on companies house has not been updated since June 2022 either.
Do you know if the person who gifted you the shares receives shareholder emails?
Do you get any emails at all from the club at all, for example about offers in the bar, ticket offers etc?
I get these as a season card holder so if you get these then somewhere on the system, the club must have your correct email address.
Most of my emails from the club come from the same address, office@rochdaleafc.co.uk, it is the same address I get emails from both as a season ticket holder and shareholder.
The person I have dealt with at RAFC regarding shares is Nicola Toolan, email address, Nicola.toolan@rochdaleafc.co.uk. I think that she may be the person who is responsible for maintaining the shareholder list.
If you have not already done so I would suggest that you contact Nicola directly with your email / share problem. If you have already contacted Nicola, then I’m sorry but I don’t have any other suggestions.
With regards to my traits being similar to others who post on the forum, I can assure you that I only have one account on the forum. |
Hi A_Newby, thanks for that and I apologise for my incorrect assumption.
I haven’t contacted Nicola no, but I have in the past liaised with the ‘shares’ email address which I thought would be the correct one. I’ve always found the staff at the club in person to be really good but I have next to zero faith in ever getting replies to emails. I think the person who gifted me the shares does still get them yes but it’s not their responsibility to forward these on to me as it’s me that holds the shares. The club do indeed have my email address as its used when purchasing ‘your card’ tickets but general emails seem to have dried up so I don’t get any inviting me to part with my money.
Apathy has set in with me now so I really can’t be bothered chasing them anymore, hence it being one of the reasons I don’t attend as many games as I’d like. It’s too much effort supporting this club sometimes. | | | |
| Chairman's Statement on 17:22 - Feb 27 with 3440 views | DorkingDale |
| Chairman's Statement on 07:10 - Feb 27 by A_Newby |
Good morning Kel
You haven't missed any announcements.
I calculated / deduced / estimated the £500k.
This was widely reported about the Morton House case settlement.
"Additionally, Morton House has agreed to transfer its full beneficial shareholding of 212,895 shares to a consortium of seven individuals, who are all currently serving members of the club’s board of directors, for an undisclosed sum."
Now when the new share issue was being discussed at the last EGM a question was raised of why the price of the shares would be £2.35 rather than £2.00 like last time.
The gist of the answer given was this was the latest price that had been paid for RAFC shares, as the only shares that had purchased during this time where those from Morton House I concluded this was the price the board had paid for each share.
So multiplying 212,895 by £2.35 you get £500,303 so I've presumed that the board paid £500k to settle the case and buy back the shares. [Post edited 27 Feb 2023 8:35]
|
That was my calculation too.....and on that basis I believe that the directors forked out £100k each to buy the Morton House shares. |  | | |
| Chairman's Statement on 18:11 - Feb 27 with 3340 views | electricblue |
| Chairman's Statement on 17:22 - Feb 27 by DorkingDale |
That was my calculation too.....and on that basis I believe that the directors forked out £100k each to buy the Morton House shares. |
That is some commitment by the BoD... |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Chairman's Statement on 18:22 - Feb 27 with 3313 views | James1980 |
| Chairman's Statement on 17:22 - Feb 27 by DorkingDale |
That was my calculation too.....and on that basis I believe that the directors forked out £100k each to buy the Morton House shares. |
And the ignoramuses still claim they don't care about the club. | |
| |
| Chairman's Statement on 18:52 - Feb 27 with 3229 views | Newbury_Dale |
| Chairman's Statement on 18:22 - Feb 27 by James1980 |
And the ignoramuses still claim they don't care about the club. |
I haven't seen anyone question how much the BOD care. It's not about compassion, it's about competency and maybe it's also about knowing your limitations. | | | |
| Chairman's Statement on 19:02 - Feb 27 with 3201 views | James1980 |
| Chairman's Statement on 18:52 - Feb 27 by Newbury_Dale |
I haven't seen anyone question how much the BOD care. It's not about compassion, it's about competency and maybe it's also about knowing your limitations. |
You know what I mean though | |
| |
| Chairman's Statement on 19:23 - Feb 27 with 3139 views | 442Dale |
| Chairman's Statement on 19:02 - Feb 27 by James1980 |
You know what I mean though |
We do and the vast majority of the fan base are sensible enough to realise that we should all be very grateful for what the board have done. This is not about those who think chucking abuse out is acceptable.
This doesn’t however change the fact that we are struggling to comprehend what the future holds, why there is little in the way of action to address what is happening on the pitch to try and save our league status and acknowledgment of the mistakes made with possible solutions we can all buy into.
It’s possible to be thankful and constructively critical. The board and all involved at Spotland should welcome that.
Being dismissive of supporters concerns would never, ever be an option, that would be like every Dale regime ever. There is hopefully a real desire to communicate and reassure everyone about where we stand. It’s boring hearing rumours and guesses based on figures people may or may not be aware of. It’s time for real clarity. |  |
| |
| Chairman's Statement on 19:51 - Feb 27 with 3033 views | D_Alien |
| Chairman's Statement on 19:23 - Feb 27 by 442Dale |
We do and the vast majority of the fan base are sensible enough to realise that we should all be very grateful for what the board have done. This is not about those who think chucking abuse out is acceptable.
This doesn’t however change the fact that we are struggling to comprehend what the future holds, why there is little in the way of action to address what is happening on the pitch to try and save our league status and acknowledgment of the mistakes made with possible solutions we can all buy into.
It’s possible to be thankful and constructively critical. The board and all involved at Spotland should welcome that.
Being dismissive of supporters concerns would never, ever be an option, that would be like every Dale regime ever. There is hopefully a real desire to communicate and reassure everyone about where we stand. It’s boring hearing rumours and guesses based on figures people may or may not be aware of. It’s time for real clarity. |
I largely agree with that
I'd be interested in your opinion on calls for individuals to be "held to account" for specific decisions
Even if a specific individual could be identified as being wholly responsible - for instance, for allowing Ethan Brierley to train with Sheffield Utd during the recent transfer window - do you believe it would be in the interests of the club and fanbase to have that individual identified, and therefore potentially subject to even greater abuse and threats of violence?
We're operating in an environment where the online targeting of individuals has almost certainly contributed to the communications issue; the closing of ranks |  |
| |
| Chairman's Statement on 20:15 - Feb 27 with 2978 views | 442Dale |
| Chairman's Statement on 19:51 - Feb 27 by D_Alien |
I largely agree with that
I'd be interested in your opinion on calls for individuals to be "held to account" for specific decisions
Even if a specific individual could be identified as being wholly responsible - for instance, for allowing Ethan Brierley to train with Sheffield Utd during the recent transfer window - do you believe it would be in the interests of the club and fanbase to have that individual identified, and therefore potentially subject to even greater abuse and threats of violence?
We're operating in an environment where the online targeting of individuals has almost certainly contributed to the communications issue; the closing of ranks |
We are a collective. That’s always been my view. If anything that’s what made the whole ‘fan owned, fan led’ club a great idea, because it helps to try and overcome the barriers that have existed at Spotland for as long as can be remembered. The culture where Trigger’s broom has had more handles and heads than any self respecting school caretaker could go through in an entire career.
When the criticism does become abusive or targeted at someone with them being named as to be at fault, it not only allows the overall structural issues to be overlooked, but increase the chances of divides being widened when fans are tarred with a group-wide brush (ask the caretaker) - that could possibly result in the closing of ranks which you mention.
That targeting of individuals is completely self-defeating as well. It actually doesn’t improve anything and is totally unacceptable at the same time.
So what if one person takes the blame, many others would be involved at different stages in any decision that’s ever made. This isn’t a Sunday League team (even though we defend like one at set pieces) where some bloke does everything from putting up the net and ringing through the results. You have to look to improve everything for everyone.
If there is a structure where constructive criticism and feedback is both welcomed and acted upon consistently, then surely any supporter would realise shouting into the wind is never helpful and very unfair on those who are doing their best?
It’s something that can be challenged both ways:
The club (including the Trust) to ensure its in place and working effectively in every circumstance.
The fans to make sure they utilise it rather than ranting abusively.
It’s easy to ignore those who shout. Sometimes you have to answer those who ask. | |
| |
| Chairman's Statement on 20:29 - Feb 27 with 2915 views | D_Alien |
| Chairman's Statement on 20:15 - Feb 27 by 442Dale |
We are a collective. That’s always been my view. If anything that’s what made the whole ‘fan owned, fan led’ club a great idea, because it helps to try and overcome the barriers that have existed at Spotland for as long as can be remembered. The culture where Trigger’s broom has had more handles and heads than any self respecting school caretaker could go through in an entire career.
When the criticism does become abusive or targeted at someone with them being named as to be at fault, it not only allows the overall structural issues to be overlooked, but increase the chances of divides being widened when fans are tarred with a group-wide brush (ask the caretaker) - that could possibly result in the closing of ranks which you mention.
That targeting of individuals is completely self-defeating as well. It actually doesn’t improve anything and is totally unacceptable at the same time.
So what if one person takes the blame, many others would be involved at different stages in any decision that’s ever made. This isn’t a Sunday League team (even though we defend like one at set pieces) where some bloke does everything from putting up the net and ringing through the results. You have to look to improve everything for everyone.
If there is a structure where constructive criticism and feedback is both welcomed and acted upon consistently, then surely any supporter would realise shouting into the wind is never helpful and very unfair on those who are doing their best?
It’s something that can be challenged both ways:
The club (including the Trust) to ensure its in place and working effectively in every circumstance.
The fans to make sure they utilise it rather than ranting abusively.
It’s easy to ignore those who shout. Sometimes you have to answer those who ask. |
I fully agree about the collective environment
Thus, whilst it may be easy to ignore those who shout, in doing so it allows them to flourish; to think they're being heard and even agreed with
I posted on Saturday morning the adage about "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"
Later that day, and having almost certainly read about the abuse and threats of violence that those who've done so much to keep RAFC afloat are being subjected to, it was demanded that individuals within the club be identified and "held to account" over a particular footballing matter
The collective environment should then allow for pushback against such demands, to try to forestall the abuse and worse that would almost certainly follow; but collective doesn't mean one or two individuals who're prepared to push back, in my opinion it requires those who make such demands to fully understand that the collective environment doesn't support them in doing so | |
| |
| Chairman's Statement on 20:43 - Feb 27 with 2870 views | 442Dale |
| Chairman's Statement on 20:29 - Feb 27 by D_Alien |
I fully agree about the collective environment
Thus, whilst it may be easy to ignore those who shout, in doing so it allows them to flourish; to think they're being heard and even agreed with
I posted on Saturday morning the adage about "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"
Later that day, and having almost certainly read about the abuse and threats of violence that those who've done so much to keep RAFC afloat are being subjected to, it was demanded that individuals within the club be identified and "held to account" over a particular footballing matter
The collective environment should then allow for pushback against such demands, to try to forestall the abuse and worse that would almost certainly follow; but collective doesn't mean one or two individuals who're prepared to push back, in my opinion it requires those who make such demands to fully understand that the collective environment doesn't support them in doing so |
On your last point, details of other routes have been provided to those who have concerns. They can also be debated calmly and sensibly by making it clear sometimes people are going too far (see the list of our former players from Liverpool).
Being diplomatic, I usually am, because at the same time it can become back and forth on here which again achieves little. Without doubt, some maybee annoyed with me/my posts at times, but like to think I’m quite fair and open for discussion on points raised and being wrong. Others may confirm that I’ll even address it in person without making obscure sock references as well.
The point I’m making (badly) is that it sometimes becomes a competition to be most outraged and offended on here (don’t use Facebook but hear tales), yet at the same time we all need to try and be better and look at ways that passion can be challenged and actually be directed in the correct manner so the club have to acknowledge it. Otherwise it gives further excuses not to. [Post edited 27 Feb 2023 20:45]
| |
| |
| Chairman's Statement on 21:05 - Feb 27 with 2801 views | D_Alien |
| Chairman's Statement on 20:43 - Feb 27 by 442Dale |
On your last point, details of other routes have been provided to those who have concerns. They can also be debated calmly and sensibly by making it clear sometimes people are going too far (see the list of our former players from Liverpool).
Being diplomatic, I usually am, because at the same time it can become back and forth on here which again achieves little. Without doubt, some maybee annoyed with me/my posts at times, but like to think I’m quite fair and open for discussion on points raised and being wrong. Others may confirm that I’ll even address it in person without making obscure sock references as well.
The point I’m making (badly) is that it sometimes becomes a competition to be most outraged and offended on here (don’t use Facebook but hear tales), yet at the same time we all need to try and be better and look at ways that passion can be challenged and actually be directed in the correct manner so the club have to acknowledge it. Otherwise it gives further excuses not to. [Post edited 27 Feb 2023 20:45]
|
You are certainly known - and appreciated - for your diplomacy, including by myself
If i thought for one moment that those who demand that individuals at the club who've put their finances, their family life, their safety even on the line should be "held to account" and thus hung out to dry over purely footballing issues would benefit from not having their accusers receiving pushback, i'd fully support that
The club remaining silent could, of course, be taken two ways. It could mean they too seek to simply ignore the abuse and threats, or those who by their "passion" might engender them. It could also mean they've closed ranks, due to feeling beleaguered, and therefore calls for greater transparency from those such as your good self are doomed to go unheeded
[Post edited 27 Feb 2023 21:09]
| |
| |
| Chairman's Statement on 21:31 - Mar 2 with 2180 views | Statzdale |
| Chairman's Statement on 12:00 - Jan 20 by 49thseason |
Kel, thats one of the most damning things I have read about the club in a long time.
A while ago I questioned if the Club has a CRM system in place, it would seem they don't , either that or noone is charged with keeping it up to date. They give the impression that everyone is working hard but from here it looks like there is no real direction or purpose to what is being done. Where there is no managerial guidance, the "work" naturally fills the time available and a pleasant daily routine evolves and the difficult things like cold calling potential sponsors or developing new income streams simply gets shelved.
Does anyone imagine they have started to plan the new Gold Bond yet? (After all its months away) but actually it needs to be ready in just 9 months. Is there even an outline plan, how long will it take to get the legal stuff sorted? Who is going to contact potential collectors, what are the financial targets? What software will be needed? What will it cost to initiate? Like just about everything else at the COA will it be cobbled together at the last minute, fail and then the "I told you so" brigade will be out in force?
I understand your frustration. |
As a former Goldbond agent for 15 years doing two walks. I would hope we would be given first refusal on recommencing our former walks. If so I will happily recommence them both. | | | |
| Chairman's Statement on 16:35 - Mar 25 with 1379 views | Rodingdale |
Presumably we can soon expect an update on how it’s been going since the club - didn’t give up - in early January?? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.