| EGM on 17:41 - Nov 21 with 3091 views | 1mark1 |
| EGM on 10:13 - Nov 21 by dingdangblue |
How much of 'us' tax payers money goes into running the Stadium then each season? How much of 'us' tax payers money have we loaned to the Stadium company? |
I have no idea, but I thought there were debts that were./are owed to the Council. |  |
|  |
| EGM on 19:49 - Nov 21 with 2961 views | ArthurDaley |
| EGM on 17:17 - Nov 20 by bennersdale |
It looked like hornets had a big meeting upstairs in the flying horse on Tuesday evening. Who should walk through the pub going to said meeting other than Mr Allen Brett. Maybe there is some movement on the sale of shares |
Not a lot happened it seemed.
Members Meeting Feedback
The quarterly members meeting took place on Tuesday at the Flying Horse, with the hot topic of the 2015 playing date high on the agenda.
A motion for the club to trial four Saturday dates in 2015 was proposed and, following a discussion paper circulated in advance and full and frank debate on the evening, the motion was accepted by a two thirds majority.
Member's also got a first look at the 2015 home and away kits, a brief overview of the 2015 squad, and update on Denehurst Park stadium and also discussed the introduction of a 'Time Served Member' initiat |  |
| |
| EGM on 20:03 - Nov 21 with 2931 views | dalefan |
| EGM on 19:49 - Nov 21 by ArthurDaley |
Not a lot happened it seemed.
Members Meeting Feedback
The quarterly members meeting took place on Tuesday at the Flying Horse, with the hot topic of the 2015 playing date high on the agenda.
A motion for the club to trial four Saturday dates in 2015 was proposed and, following a discussion paper circulated in advance and full and frank debate on the evening, the motion was accepted by a two thirds majority.
Member's also got a first look at the 2015 home and away kits, a brief overview of the 2015 squad, and update on Denehurst Park stadium and also discussed the introduction of a 'Time Served Member' initiat |
Why would they get an update on Denehurst Park Stadium company it is nothing at all to do with them. Presumably that's why Brett attended the meeting. He has no right to be giving any information to people who do not have an interest in it. He should be asked to state exactly what he told them and whether any of it was confidential information |  | | |
| EGM on 20:20 - Nov 21 with 2897 views | TVOS1907 |
| EGM on 19:49 - Nov 21 by ArthurDaley |
Not a lot happened it seemed.
Members Meeting Feedback
The quarterly members meeting took place on Tuesday at the Flying Horse, with the hot topic of the 2015 playing date high on the agenda.
A motion for the club to trial four Saturday dates in 2015 was proposed and, following a discussion paper circulated in advance and full and frank debate on the evening, the motion was accepted by a two thirds majority.
Member's also got a first look at the 2015 home and away kits, a brief overview of the 2015 squad, and update on Denehurst Park stadium and also discussed the introduction of a 'Time Served Member' initiat |
Hope the kits have been verified by 442. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| EGM on 20:23 - Nov 21 with 2888 views | 442Dale |
| EGM on 20:20 - Nov 21 by TVOS1907 |
Hope the kits have been verified by 442. |
They should go back to the traditional blue shirts with the red band with white trim.
Can knock them up a plan if they like.... |  |
| |
| EGM on 20:27 - Nov 21 with 2873 views | TVOS1907 |
| EGM on 20:23 - Nov 21 by 442Dale |
They should go back to the traditional blue shirts with the red band with white trim.
Can knock them up a plan if they like.... |
They'd only ignore it. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| EGM on 03:50 - Nov 22 with 2703 views | pioneer |
i love the stuff on their website about the rugby league heritage festival. They now claim to be one of the oldest clubs in rugby league being formed in 1871.
That was the club that went bust. the current club has yet to reach double figures.
You can tell they have politicians in the organisation... its all propaganda and lies | | | |
| EGM on 08:58 - Nov 22 with 2658 views | ColDale |
| EGM on 03:50 - Nov 22 by pioneer |
i love the stuff on their website about the rugby league heritage festival. They now claim to be one of the oldest clubs in rugby league being formed in 1871.
That was the club that went bust. the current club has yet to reach double figures.
You can tell they have politicians in the organisation... its all propaganda and lies |
It did amuse me when I noticed their current tagline outside Spotland declaring "Here since 1871". I'd be surprised if any Hornets supporter does anything other than cringe at that. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| EGM on 10:04 - Nov 22 with 2605 views | Albert_Whitehurst |
| EGM on 08:58 - Nov 22 by ColDale |
It did amuse me when I noticed their current tagline outside Spotland declaring "Here since 1871". I'd be surprised if any Hornets supporter does anything other than cringe at that. |
...a proud boast for a club who rejected using the name of the town when reforming as Hornets RL. |  | | |
| EGM on 19:34 - Nov 26 with 2392 views | 1mark1 |
I have more understanding now of what Dale have actually "offered" the Council, according to two different sources. Dale basically want to borrow the money off RMBC to be able to buy the shares and pay off the Stadium company debts/loans. RMBC are not likely (quite rightly in my opinion) agree to these terms. If Dale want the shares they have to pay for them, and yes of course they are worth a price- The land itself would be worth plenty for building. On the other hand if they want to pay a good sum of front, a deal to pay the rest could be agreed , but certainly NOT involving borrowing off RMBC.
One of the sources is a Dale fan, I know this for a fact. They did believe Dale do have the money to pay the amount required up front, but whether they are willing to do so is another matter. Also confirmed that going back months ago, Dale might have said they wanted to acquire all of the Stadium, but never actually put any offers in or entered talks.
So long as a 25 year lease for the RL club is offered and the right amount of money is paid the the Stadium can be acquired.
I have no reason to believe what I was told is not true. | |
| |
| EGM on 20:26 - Nov 26 with 2296 views | KenBoon |
| EGM on 19:34 - Nov 26 by 1mark1 |
I have more understanding now of what Dale have actually "offered" the Council, according to two different sources. Dale basically want to borrow the money off RMBC to be able to buy the shares and pay off the Stadium company debts/loans. RMBC are not likely (quite rightly in my opinion) agree to these terms. If Dale want the shares they have to pay for them, and yes of course they are worth a price- The land itself would be worth plenty for building. On the other hand if they want to pay a good sum of front, a deal to pay the rest could be agreed , but certainly NOT involving borrowing off RMBC.
One of the sources is a Dale fan, I know this for a fact. They did believe Dale do have the money to pay the amount required up front, but whether they are willing to do so is another matter. Also confirmed that going back months ago, Dale might have said they wanted to acquire all of the Stadium, but never actually put any offers in or entered talks.
So long as a 25 year lease for the RL club is offered and the right amount of money is paid the the Stadium can be acquired.
I have no reason to believe what I was told is not true. |
Are we just taking about Metro Rochdale's small percentage? Alone they are pretty much worthless. They have it for mediation purposes. If they cared for anything they'd do what is right for BOTH Rochdale and Hornets, as they are integral parts of the community. Both are integrated into Rochdale and offer more than just matches to watch. Both offer career training and opportunities. |  | | |
| EGM on 01:53 - Nov 27 with 2116 views | pioneer |
| EGM on 20:26 - Nov 26 by KenBoon |
Are we just taking about Metro Rochdale's small percentage? Alone they are pretty much worthless. They have it for mediation purposes. If they cared for anything they'd do what is right for BOTH Rochdale and Hornets, as they are integral parts of the community. Both are integrated into Rochdale and offer more than just matches to watch. Both offer career training and opportunities. |
according to the stadium company rules dont all three parties have to agree to a transfer or sale of shares, even though we dont appear to invoked that when the RFL took on the original hornets shares.
wouldnt the RFL therefore have to agree to us buying the council shares? | | | |
| EGM on 14:41 - Dec 16 with 1769 views | Daley_Lama |
Is this going to now be held in Tenerife? |  |
| |
| EGM on 15:07 - Dec 16 with 1703 views | 100notout |
Anyone know details of the3 Hornets AGM/EGM that was due to be held last night? | |
| |
| EGM on 16:43 - Dec 16 with 1542 views | ColDale |
This was posted by one of the more influential Hornets' lot:
There comes a point in any 'conflict' where you have to park the past if you want to go forward.
So, for what it's worth, here's my view...
It's clear that the Football Club wants control of the stadium - to own it outright - and, for mine, there are two ways for them to do that.
We need to remind ourselves that Hornets can't afford either the asking price of the shares - or to service the historical StadCo debt, so it's not tenable for us to regain ownership of the shares from the RFL, so...
Firstly, if we support the RFL's sale of the shares to the Dale, they have put a deal on the table that will retain us as tenants at Spotland (as we already are) for the next 25 years, on significantly more favorable terms that benefit us financially, which is crucial at the moment as revenue/cashflow are - as always - very tight.
The existing deal was forced on the re-founded club based on the Dale's experience with our predecessor - and it's a disproportionately large amount that we have to find every month in order to stand still - but beggars can't be choosers and we were begging a lot to get the new club off the ground.
The new deal - which comes bound to a 25 year tenancy agreement - is financially much more beneficial. By my cursory calculations, the next five years would cost us £84,000 less than the previous five. In our club that sort of money goes a very long way.
Since the reformation of the club in 2009, the Co-op has always been a tenant of the StadCo. We were always going to have to rent in order to have a place to play.
It's taken five years to demonstrate that we are not cut from the same cloth as our predecessors - and we need to capitalise on the hard won trust we've had to build with the football club, by demonstrating some trust in them.
The alternative approach would be to block the RFL's sale, which would leave the status quo in place. In this scenario, the Dale could viably let the StadCo go bust and buy it back from the receiver for next to nothing. That way, the RFL not only loses its share of the StadCo, it also loses the £120k it paid for the shares.
This leaves us in exactly the same situation, but without the incentive of the rent deal - and with five years worth of goodwill-building with both parties in tatters.
So, what would the alternative be?
1. Buy land and build a ground? We'd need ten times what we've been able to raise in the last five years just to pay our rent to create something even approaching Championship standard. That might remain a long-term goal, but we also need to address our immediate and medium-term future.
2. 'Acquire' a ground on the cheap? I refer us all to Whitebank - and we don't have the capital reserves to stretch to that!
3. Rent out of town? Become like Swinton? Nomads playing wherever and whenever. We've battled to (re)build a fan-base here, a move out of town would kill us.
The reality is, our choices are few. We are hamstrung by the actions of our predecessors - and by what remains, in reality, a hand-to-mouth existence where literally every single penny counts.
If - at the relaunch of the club in 2009 - the deal currently on the table was offered, we'd've seen it as an opportunity. Then as now, we needed a place to play and Spotland offered the most favourable option. The new deal gives us the same option at improved terms. Why wouldn't we consider it if it improves our chances of survival? Which is what we're really talking about here.
Not winning games, or losing games or getting promoted. Survival. Our existence - as always - is fragile. Do not take our club for granted.
Ultimately, we have no bargaining power. No leverage, no chips in the game - other than improved relationships with the Dale and the RFL salvaged, from the car-crash we inherited in 2009.
If - in 2009 someone offered us a 25 year lifeline - we'd've taken it. We're the same club, the same people, in the same situation. Why do anything differently? | | | |
| EGM on 16:49 - Dec 16 with 1527 views | Sandyman |
Realism and common sense - well said that man. |  | | |
| EGM on 16:54 - Dec 16 with 1516 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
Hornets need another Jack Grindrod. | | | |
| EGM on 17:09 - Dec 16 with 1473 views | YouTubeDale |
It's sounds like heads we win and tails we win, at least in the long term. So the natural conclusion is to finalise the whole damn thing now and let everyone move forward with the best of intentions. And the Council should oil the wheels and push it along too. Do something good for a change. |  |
| |
| EGM on 17:30 - Dec 16 with 1440 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
| EGM on 01:53 - Nov 27 by pioneer |
according to the stadium company rules dont all three parties have to agree to a transfer or sale of shares, even though we dont appear to invoked that when the RFL took on the original hornets shares.
wouldnt the RFL therefore have to agree to us buying the council shares? |
The 3 parties are Dale Hornets and RMBC.......RFL are not party to the Company although they hold the Hornets share.They have a lien over them.
I don't think they have a LEGAL right as Dale/RMBC would have had to consent to that on the transfer back in the day? | | | |
| EGM on 17:34 - Dec 16 with 1428 views | ColDale |
| EGM on 15:07 - Dec 16 by 100notout |
Anyone know details of the3 Hornets AGM/EGM that was due to be held last night? |
its Wednesday evening. I'd assume that our own board will be wanting to know the outcome of that before preparing for Thursday's meeting. | | | |
| EGM on 17:39 - Dec 16 with 1413 views | MoonyDale |
| EGM on 17:34 - Dec 16 by ColDale |
its Wednesday evening. I'd assume that our own board will be wanting to know the outcome of that before preparing for Thursday's meeting. |
Thursdays EGM is cancelled Col is it not? |  |
| |
| EGM on 17:41 - Dec 16 with 1409 views | ColDale |
| EGM on 17:39 - Dec 16 by MoonyDale |
Thursdays EGM is cancelled Col is it not? |
Sorry I meant that our's was cancelled because it wouldn't give sufficient time to prepare for our's from finding out their result. Badly worded by me. | | | |
| EGM on 17:51 - Dec 16 with 1374 views | robbowood |
| EGM on 17:41 - Dec 16 by ColDale |
Sorry I meant that our's was cancelled because it wouldn't give sufficient time to prepare for our's from finding out their result. Badly worded by me. |
Re: EGM 18th December at 7.00 pm
The Board of Directors of Rochdale Association Football Club Limited (RAFC) HEREBY GIVE NOTICE that the EGM formally fixed for the 18th December 2014 at 7.00 pm is hereby adjourned. A Notice setting out the date and time of the adjourned date will be given in the early New Year.
The Board had hoped to be in a position to present the Share Holders with full detail with regard to the Stadium Company Limited. Regrettably, for reasons entirely beyond their control, that information although imminent, is currently not available. The Board apologise for any inconvenience caused and confirm their commitment for achieving the best possible resolution for RAFC and will disclose full details at the adjourned meeting. | | | |
| EGM on 18:15 - Dec 16 with 1331 views | pioneer |
| EGM on 17:30 - Dec 16 by Yorkshire_Dale |
The 3 parties are Dale Hornets and RMBC.......RFL are not party to the Company although they hold the Hornets share.They have a lien over them.
I don't think they have a LEGAL right as Dale/RMBC would have had to consent to that on the transfer back in the day? |
Is that the case? This gets more confusing over time.
Who owns the shares that belonged to the 1871 Rochdale Hornets RLFC? It is not the new Rochdale Hornets. There is no 1871 Rochdale Hornets so that suggests to me that it must be the RFL - they took ownership when the 1871 RHRLFC went bust, presumably with the agreement of the football club and the council.
Sorry I am not a lawyer so I might be missing something here.
Is the membership of the stadium company different from the ownership of the shares? If so when did the new Rochdale Hornets become members. My understanding was that they are nothing to do with the Stadium company.
Can anyone clarify? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
