| Hill on GMR about the stadium 17:59 - Aug 23 with 13055 views | 442Dale |
Would think it'll be online later, but he's not happy about the situation.
Over two weeks since it hit the press and there's been nothing further. Did any of the Dale fans who contacted the council get a reply? |  |
| |  |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 15:21 - Aug 26 with 2004 views | D_Alien |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 14:31 - Aug 26 by TalkingSutty |
The ideal solution would be to secure Hornets as tenants on a long term lease and obviously charge them a rent but set it at a sum that is reasonable. The towns down in the dumps as it is and the rugby club going bust would be tragic, it has a lot of history, that's from somebody who doesn't even like rugby.
As a Dale fan I wouldn't want to think the Football Club was instrumental in Hornets demise, that would turn quite a lot of the Rochdale sporting public against the club.Time for everybody to get their heads together and forget trying to score points, sort things out to the benefit of both sporting codes and the supporters. |
That pretty much sums up my position.
On the subject of a reasonable rent, I'd suggest the Dale should consider an almost nominal sum - just enough to cover any overheads incurred by Hornets use of facilities - if that helped to secure overall ownership of the stadium. That way, we'd be seen as trying to be more than helpful to Hornets future existence, rather than a threat. The potential for increasing revenue streams should more than make up for any short-term loss of income - which, given that Hornets have struggled with their rent, is probably immaterial anyway. |  |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:18 - Aug 26 with 1884 views | Vespa |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 14:15 - Aug 26 by nordenblue |
St Helens only built a new stadium in the last couple of years so id imagine they've no interest at all in anything to do with Spotland apart from sending the odd player there for match fitness when it suits them, im sure someone like Vespa will clear everything up for us though, |
It's news to me, but I'm not party to board meeting or secret deals or negotiations.
On the face of it my first response would be that it sounds a little far fetched. What would St Helens RL want with Spotland? They've got a brand new one.
Having said that the directors of St Helens actually financed the building of Langtree Park out of their own pockets, Michael Coleman is a fund manager and manages the best part of a £1bn so maybe it's not St Helens but the directors of St Helens that have plans for this or that?
Hopefully it'll secure the future of Spotland as a venue for both codes if in the unlikely event it proves to be true.
http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/5068056.Top_financier_bolsters_Saints_board_o [Post edited 26 Aug 2014 16:20]
|  |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:22 - Aug 26 with 1870 views | MoonyDale |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:18 - Aug 26 by Vespa |
It's news to me, but I'm not party to board meeting or secret deals or negotiations.
On the face of it my first response would be that it sounds a little far fetched. What would St Helens RL want with Spotland? They've got a brand new one.
Having said that the directors of St Helens actually financed the building of Langtree Park out of their own pockets, Michael Coleman is a fund manager and manages the best part of a £1bn so maybe it's not St Helens but the directors of St Helens that have plans for this or that?
Hopefully it'll secure the future of Spotland as a venue for both codes if in the unlikely event it proves to be true.
http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/5068056.Top_financier_bolsters_Saints_board_o [Post edited 26 Aug 2014 16:20]
|
If this is true then legal proceedings should be started against Hornets and the RFL for the illegal way the shares were obtained/used by Hornets to obtain the loan in the first place....And let's not hear any of that oh that was the old Hornets, nowt to do with us garbage. |  |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:27 - Aug 26 with 1852 views | Vespa |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:22 - Aug 26 by MoonyDale |
If this is true then legal proceedings should be started against Hornets and the RFL for the illegal way the shares were obtained/used by Hornets to obtain the loan in the first place....And let's not hear any of that oh that was the old Hornets, nowt to do with us garbage. |
Been left too long. | |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:30 - Aug 26 with 1845 views | MoonyDale |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:27 - Aug 26 by Vespa |
Been left too long. |
Not sure on any time limits that are in force for a case of this nature. That would be my next move if I was Dunphy...... | |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:32 - Aug 26 with 1814 views | ColDale |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:30 - Aug 26 by MoonyDale |
Not sure on any time limits that are in force for a case of this nature. That would be my next move if I was Dunphy...... |
I do believe it to be the case that too much time has elapsed. However, that rule would / should prevent any future transfer of the RFL shares into a 3rd party assuming it not being used last time doesn't act as a precedent. |  | | |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:33 - Aug 26 with 1808 views | MoonyDale |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:27 - Aug 26 by Vespa |
Been left too long. |
As this would probably come under contracts the time limit is 6 years ... | |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:40 - Aug 26 with 1779 views | Vespa |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:30 - Aug 26 by MoonyDale |
Not sure on any time limits that are in force for a case of this nature. That would be my next move if I was Dunphy...... |
I'm not sure myself to be honest but I do know that as a general principle the longer a party leaves initiating legal proceedings from the date of discovery the less chance any legal action has to succeed.
Challenging the transfer of shares could cost Mr Dunphy many hundreds of thousand of pounds with no guarantee of success.
Plus consider this, even if Mr Dunphy was successful and and a court ruled the transfer was illegal what then? I doubt the court would just hand over these shares to the Dale, they would be offered up for sale and go to the highest bidder with the monies raised used to pay off the creditors of the old Hornets, with any residual going to the share holders of the old Hornets prior to them going bust
That highest bidder may be the Dale, but then again it maybe a fund manager from St Helens. | |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:41 - Aug 26 with 1778 views | MoonyDale |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:33 - Aug 26 by MoonyDale |
As this would probably come under contracts the time limit is 6 years ... |
And I suppose there would be no way to claim back all the money Dale have had to pay to cover the Stad Co bills since the RFL stole the shares? Or are the FRL paying half of everything already seeing as they are in possession of the same amount of shares we hold? | |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:42 - Aug 26 with 1774 views | MoonyDale |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:40 - Aug 26 by Vespa |
I'm not sure myself to be honest but I do know that as a general principle the longer a party leaves initiating legal proceedings from the date of discovery the less chance any legal action has to succeed.
Challenging the transfer of shares could cost Mr Dunphy many hundreds of thousand of pounds with no guarantee of success.
Plus consider this, even if Mr Dunphy was successful and and a court ruled the transfer was illegal what then? I doubt the court would just hand over these shares to the Dale, they would be offered up for sale and go to the highest bidder with the monies raised used to pay off the creditors of the old Hornets, with any residual going to the share holders of the old Hornets prior to them going bust
That highest bidder may be the Dale, but then again it maybe a fund manager from St Helens. |
This absolutely stinks to high heaven, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this wasn't the plan all along.... | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 16:43 - Aug 26 with 1769 views | Masher |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:27 - Aug 26 by Vespa |
Been left too long. |
[Post edited 26 Aug 2014 16:47]
|  |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:45 - Aug 26 with 1763 views | Vespa |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 16:43 - Aug 26 by Masher |
[Post edited 26 Aug 2014 16:47]
|
There's a difference between civil and criminal law. | |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:47 - Aug 26 with 1753 views | Vespa |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:41 - Aug 26 by MoonyDale |
And I suppose there would be no way to claim back all the money Dale have had to pay to cover the Stad Co bills since the RFL stole the shares? Or are the FRL paying half of everything already seeing as they are in possession of the same amount of shares we hold? |
I don't think shareholders are responsible for the debts of a Limited Company. | |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:52 - Aug 26 with 1731 views | MoonyDale |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:47 - Aug 26 by Vespa |
I don't think shareholders are responsible for the debts of a Limited Company. |
If this is allowed to happen then My Dunphy is going to have a rather uncomfortable time for not acting in the first place..... | |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:54 - Aug 26 with 1721 views | MoonyDale |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:47 - Aug 26 by Vespa |
I don't think shareholders are responsible for the debts of a Limited Company. |
So who apart from Dale are paying the bills? Hornets certainly aren't, they are up to date with their rent as far as I am aware but the bills the Stad Co cannot pay are being met by the football club....Ongoing bills that is, not the reported 750k debt they are in.... | |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 17:19 - Aug 26 with 1651 views | Vespa |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:32 - Aug 26 by ColDale |
I do believe it to be the case that too much time has elapsed. However, that rule would / should prevent any future transfer of the RFL shares into a 3rd party assuming it not being used last time doesn't act as a precedent. |
I think that's probably true Col but I do believe that there are ways to have beneficial ownership of shares with out actually owning them.
I really am no expert and I would suspect that there is more than one poster on here that can put me right but I own share in a stocks shares ISA but am not listed on a share register, they are held in a nominee account. Then there's always trusts funds and the like. I'm not saying that this is possible with Stadium Co' shares but it's a thought. [Post edited 26 Aug 2014 17:22]
| |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 18:00 - Aug 26 with 1555 views | judd |
Russell Crowd being rumour monged |  |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 18:29 - Aug 26 with 1485 views | TalkingSutty |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 16:52 - Aug 26 by MoonyDale |
If this is allowed to happen then My Dunphy is going to have a rather uncomfortable time for not acting in the first place..... |
Its not just down to the Chairman but it does beg the question why the football club and the council didnt act when the rugby clubs handed their shares to the RFL.
If the rugby club and council want to muddy the waters and expect us to pick up the tab i would rather we leave them holding the baby and go down the route of getting a new stadium. Lets not be held to ransom. [Post edited 26 Aug 2014 18:33]
|  | | |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 19:35 - Aug 26 with 1401 views | ArthurDaley |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 18:00 - Aug 26 by judd |
Russell Crowd being rumour monged |
Do you mean Russell Crowe ? Actor and part owner of South Sydney Rabbitohs.
Might take a while as the Rabbitohs owe him $ 1.6 million, and it might take them a decade to pay it back. After Russell decided to walk away. |  |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 20:08 - Aug 26 with 1336 views | Vespa |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 19:35 - Aug 26 by ArthurDaley |
Do you mean Russell Crowe ? Actor and part owner of South Sydney Rabbitohs.
Might take a while as the Rabbitohs owe him $ 1.6 million, and it might take them a decade to pay it back. After Russell decided to walk away. |
Maybe he's got fed up of the sun in New South Wales and has decided to move to Norden. It is the 325th best place to live in Britain after all. | |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 20:58 - Aug 26 with 1262 views | nordenblue |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 20:08 - Aug 26 by Vespa |
Maybe he's got fed up of the sun in New South Wales and has decided to move to Norden. It is the 325th best place to live in Britain after all. |
It was till I moved away its now 324th |  | | |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 21:19 - Aug 26 with 1228 views | Vespa |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 20:58 - Aug 26 by nordenblue |
It was till I moved away its now 324th |
I may have to move in and lower the tone, bring it into line with the rest of the town. | |
| Up the Dale, C'mon Hornets |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 22:24 - Aug 26 with 1167 views | RAFCBLUE |
The legal challenge under the 2006 Companies Act is simple. If another party (RFL or the Council) wanted to transfer their shares, the shareholders would need to agree.
Share transfer procedure
The shareholder (usually called 'the transferor') provides the transferee with a duly completed and signed stock transfer form and the share certificate in respect of the shares to be transferred. The transferee has the transfer stamped by paying the relevant amount of stamp duty (see below) and then sends the stock transfer form and the share certificate to the company. It is not lawful for a company to register a transfer of shares unless a duly stamped proper instrument of transfer has been delivered to it, or the transfer is an exempt transfer within the Stock Transfer Act 1982. This applies notwithstanding anything in the company's articles.
The company decides whether to accept the transfer. This should be done by a resolution of the directors unless the secretary has previously been authorised by the board to accept transfers. The company must accept the transfer unless there is some provision in its articles which restricts transfers or gives the board a discretion to decline them. If a company refuses to register a transfer it shall within two months after the date on which the transfer was lodged with it, send to the transferee notice of the transfer.
So a RFL sale to St Helen's or a Council sale to St Helens would need RAFC approval. The controlling Council stake can be blocked since both RAFC and RFL own 45%. The RFL sale to a third party needs both RAFC and the Council to agree.
In short, I don't believe the St Helen's stuff is possible; notwithstanding a desire to buy a share in a ground it is miles away from where they are and their feeder players are about to be relegated to rugby league's third tier. The game of rugby league is failing and Hornets need financial propping up not just to be a feeder club - the economics simply don't work.
More likely this is scaremongering to drive the price of the non-RAFC shares up. In essence all shares are worthless - the liability of maintaining he facility by far exceeds its investment holding value. |  |
| |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 22:34 - Aug 26 with 1142 views | MoonyDale |
| Hill on GMR about the stadium on 22:24 - Aug 26 by RAFCBLUE |
The legal challenge under the 2006 Companies Act is simple. If another party (RFL or the Council) wanted to transfer their shares, the shareholders would need to agree.
Share transfer procedure
The shareholder (usually called 'the transferor') provides the transferee with a duly completed and signed stock transfer form and the share certificate in respect of the shares to be transferred. The transferee has the transfer stamped by paying the relevant amount of stamp duty (see below) and then sends the stock transfer form and the share certificate to the company. It is not lawful for a company to register a transfer of shares unless a duly stamped proper instrument of transfer has been delivered to it, or the transfer is an exempt transfer within the Stock Transfer Act 1982. This applies notwithstanding anything in the company's articles.
The company decides whether to accept the transfer. This should be done by a resolution of the directors unless the secretary has previously been authorised by the board to accept transfers. The company must accept the transfer unless there is some provision in its articles which restricts transfers or gives the board a discretion to decline them. If a company refuses to register a transfer it shall within two months after the date on which the transfer was lodged with it, send to the transferee notice of the transfer.
So a RFL sale to St Helen's or a Council sale to St Helens would need RAFC approval. The controlling Council stake can be blocked since both RAFC and RFL own 45%. The RFL sale to a third party needs both RAFC and the Council to agree.
In short, I don't believe the St Helen's stuff is possible; notwithstanding a desire to buy a share in a ground it is miles away from where they are and their feeder players are about to be relegated to rugby league's third tier. The game of rugby league is failing and Hornets need financial propping up not just to be a feeder club - the economics simply don't work.
More likely this is scaremongering to drive the price of the non-RAFC shares up. In essence all shares are worthless - the liability of maintaining he facility by far exceeds its investment holding value. |
As TS has said it could be time to look into the possibility of a new stadium and let them pick up the pieces before they run themselves into oblivion....We all know they couldn't run a p1ss up in a brewery ... | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
