| Walsall home - match thread 21:12 - Apr 5 with 28114 views | EllDale |
Before anything else is discussed could someone confirm that the kick-off is 3.00pm please?
The official site states this but I’m sure that I read somewhere that it had been brought forward to 2.00pm?
Thanks. |  | | |  |
| Walsall home - match thread on 09:44 - Apr 8 with 2806 views | DaleFan7 |
The big difference in the last couple of games is despite the team being small in stature (especially when you compare them to Walsall's team of giants yesterday), they don't lack in effort and when you collectively don't lack in effort then more things will go your way.
We didn't have primadonnas like Quigley and Ball who walk around the field like they're too good to play at this level or having midfielders with the turning circles of artic lorries. The XI that played might not be the best Dale side ever and the first 20 minutes were pretty bad. But once we grew into the game, the effort and desire to not just wilt away and lose was there and it hasn't been all season. | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 10:04 - Apr 8 with 2719 views | 442Dale |
| Walsall home - match thread on 09:44 - Apr 8 by DaleFan7 |
The big difference in the last couple of games is despite the team being small in stature (especially when you compare them to Walsall's team of giants yesterday), they don't lack in effort and when you collectively don't lack in effort then more things will go your way.
We didn't have primadonnas like Quigley and Ball who walk around the field like they're too good to play at this level or having midfielders with the turning circles of artic lorries. The XI that played might not be the best Dale side ever and the first 20 minutes were pretty bad. But once we grew into the game, the effort and desire to not just wilt away and lose was there and it hasn't been all season. |
Good post. Apart from the long throws, their obvious advantage in size made little difference.
The season has been so frustrating because of all the mistakes made and changes in approach on and off the pitch. In reality we shouldn’t be so far adrift still but the table doesn’t lie and we deserve to be bottom. Can the team continue to find results? Who knows but at least we’ve seen some fight now. Plus we get to watch Ethan Brierley.
Should we have done better than we have? Most definitely. Last April we were told “the club has a stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season”.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2022/april/chairmanmessageseasoncards_22-23/
The information in the part about the playing budget makes for interesting reading. |  |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 10:34 - Apr 8 with 2607 views | DaleiLama |
Who knew we could be entertaining too? |  |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 10:59 - Apr 8 with 2536 views | dingdangblue |
| Walsall home - match thread on 09:44 - Apr 8 by DaleFan7 |
The big difference in the last couple of games is despite the team being small in stature (especially when you compare them to Walsall's team of giants yesterday), they don't lack in effort and when you collectively don't lack in effort then more things will go your way.
We didn't have primadonnas like Quigley and Ball who walk around the field like they're too good to play at this level or having midfielders with the turning circles of artic lorries. The XI that played might not be the best Dale side ever and the first 20 minutes were pretty bad. But once we grew into the game, the effort and desire to not just wilt away and lose was there and it hasn't been all season. |
For all Mellor's faults (he doesn't look like scoring ever, and he's outmuscled too often) he ran all day yesterday, closing down defenders and the keeper - and making runs behind. Quigley is never doing that. |  |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:10 - Apr 8 with 2491 views | D_Alien |
| Walsall home - match thread on 10:04 - Apr 8 by 442Dale |
Good post. Apart from the long throws, their obvious advantage in size made little difference.
The season has been so frustrating because of all the mistakes made and changes in approach on and off the pitch. In reality we shouldn’t be so far adrift still but the table doesn’t lie and we deserve to be bottom. Can the team continue to find results? Who knows but at least we’ve seen some fight now. Plus we get to watch Ethan Brierley.
Should we have done better than we have? Most definitely. Last April we were told “the club has a stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season”.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2022/april/chairmanmessageseasoncards_22-23/
The information in the part about the playing budget makes for interesting reading. |
It certainly does
The question as to how we moved from that happy, sunny picture to one of needing to issue 450,000 shares @ £2.35 has never even been attempted to be answered. This message and that need cannot both be right |  |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:17 - Apr 8 with 2460 views | SaxonDale |
I really enjoyed yesterday and thought it was as close to 'no-fear' as we could get out of this squad. Yes, we road our luck at times (Walsall should've had a third and Brierley's ghost goal) but we took the game to Walsall, tried to play football and always played on the front foot.
A midfield of Kelly and Brierley is probably about as lightweight as you'd get in this league but credit to Jim for trying it where our previous two haven't. I'm not going to get into previous management decisions as I don't think now is the time but McNulty is showing them and their tactics completely up at the moment. We had a clear plan with Odoh trying to exploit the lack of pace in their backline by playing on the last man at times and also we changed formations when certain parts weren't working (451 going to a 442.) EEL defended his own box very well for the majority and it was as disciplined a performance I've seen from Kelly for a while- well done to both.
Monday will obviously be a very tough game. We haven't got much room to change things around and I'm sure yesterday will have taken a lot out of the players. Not sure how Mansfield's pitch is but I suspect our playing style will need tweaking if it isn't as great as ours played yesterday. Only change I would consider is Mullarkey in at right back and moving Keohane across to left back as I thought Dodgson looked in need of a rest yesterday. [Post edited 8 Apr 2023 11:20]
|  | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:25 - Apr 8 with 2430 views | dawlishdale |
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:10 - Apr 8 by D_Alien |
It certainly does
The question as to how we moved from that happy, sunny picture to one of needing to issue 450,000 shares @ £2.35 has never even been attempted to be answered. This message and that need cannot both be right |
Nail hit firmly on the head. It absolutely doesn't make sense. | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:34 - Apr 8 with 2397 views | D_Alien |
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:17 - Apr 8 by SaxonDale |
I really enjoyed yesterday and thought it was as close to 'no-fear' as we could get out of this squad. Yes, we road our luck at times (Walsall should've had a third and Brierley's ghost goal) but we took the game to Walsall, tried to play football and always played on the front foot.
A midfield of Kelly and Brierley is probably about as lightweight as you'd get in this league but credit to Jim for trying it where our previous two haven't. I'm not going to get into previous management decisions as I don't think now is the time but McNulty is showing them and their tactics completely up at the moment. We had a clear plan with Odoh trying to exploit the lack of pace in their backline by playing on the last man at times and also we changed formations when certain parts weren't working (451 going to a 442.) EEL defended his own box very well for the majority and it was as disciplined a performance I've seen from Kelly for a while- well done to both.
Monday will obviously be a very tough game. We haven't got much room to change things around and I'm sure yesterday will have taken a lot out of the players. Not sure how Mansfield's pitch is but I suspect our playing style will need tweaking if it isn't as great as ours played yesterday. Only change I would consider is Mullarkey in at right back and moving Keohane across to left back as I thought Dodgson looked in need of a rest yesterday. [Post edited 8 Apr 2023 11:20]
|
That's a good call about how we get Mullarkey back into the team that's produced results
Dodgson's done ok but his first taste of pro football has been really tough and a rest now might do him a favour | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:46 - Apr 8 with 2365 views | 442Dale |
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:25 - Apr 8 by dawlishdale |
Nail hit firmly on the head. It absolutely doesn't make sense. |
It’s only an opinion, but for the Trust’s upcoming supporters meetings to work there has to be a recognition that situations like this need to be clarified publicly.
When we’re holding up previous regimes/the EFL/other sporting clubs for analysis, then feedback and consultation with supporters on all areas such as this will presumably be welcomed at Spotland and by the Trust.
Actually, drop the presumably. It was specifically stated as such last week. [Post edited 8 Apr 2023 11:46]
| |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 12:51 - Apr 8 with 2201 views | TVOS1907 |
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:10 - Apr 8 by D_Alien |
It certainly does
The question as to how we moved from that happy, sunny picture to one of needing to issue 450,000 shares @ £2.35 has never even been attempted to be answered. This message and that need cannot both be right |
I'm sure there are a 'couple' of posters on here who could answer that for you. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 13:25 - Apr 8 with 2126 views | 49thseason |
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:10 - Apr 8 by D_Alien |
It certainly does
The question as to how we moved from that happy, sunny picture to one of needing to issue 450,000 shares @ £2.35 has never even been attempted to be answered. This message and that need cannot both be right |
So, £2.35 is the price the Directors bought up the MH shares at, which they claim sets the current value , I dont think it neccessarily does, like everything else their value is what someone is prepared to pay for them.
They issued 450,000 shares, hoping that the fans would buy a decent chunk of them, say 200,000, that would have put roughly half a million quid into the company. That money could have enabled the company to buy back the MH shares from the Directors and extend the " fan owned " narrative. However, the share issue wasn't taken up to any significant extent so enter stage left, Plan B.... find someone else to buy the the remaining shares in the treasury.
Currently the Directors own a huge tranch of shares ( from MH) that none of them wanted or expected to have to buy. They need to unload them, I imagine, and we shouldnt crticise them for that. We, the supporters, had an opportunity to share their pain and didn't take it up.
So we now have plan B, find another investor. I won £2.30 on the Lottery last week so just another 449,999 shares left for someone else to buy. If as rumoured, some of the Directors have had to borrow money or re- mortgage their houses to buy the MH shares, I think they deserve our support for what comes next, its a difficult position to be in which coupled with a probable relegation really only gives another 12 months of financial runway with EFL funds, at which point there is no safety net and what we earn is what we can spend. |  | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 13:33 - Apr 8 with 2108 views | NigelWatson |
| Walsall home - match thread on 09:44 - Apr 8 by DaleFan7 |
The big difference in the last couple of games is despite the team being small in stature (especially when you compare them to Walsall's team of giants yesterday), they don't lack in effort and when you collectively don't lack in effort then more things will go your way.
We didn't have primadonnas like Quigley and Ball who walk around the field like they're too good to play at this level or having midfielders with the turning circles of artic lorries. The XI that played might not be the best Dale side ever and the first 20 minutes were pretty bad. But once we grew into the game, the effort and desire to not just wilt away and lose was there and it hasn't been all season. |
It does help if you're trying to play football on the ground. There's a significant but vocal minority on here who can't think beyond 'Gerrit forward' | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 13:36 - Apr 8 with 2081 views | kel |
| Walsall home - match thread on 13:33 - Apr 8 by NigelWatson |
It does help if you're trying to play football on the ground. There's a significant but vocal minority on here who can't think beyond 'Gerrit forward' |
You will, of course, be able to provides examples. Or are you still ignoring people who question your opinions with a counter argument? |  | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 13:36 - Apr 8 with 2084 views | NigelWatson |
| Walsall home - match thread on 11:25 - Apr 8 by dawlishdale |
Nail hit firmly on the head. It absolutely doesn't make sense. |
The non-playing wage bill needs looking at, plus other overheads unrelated to football | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 13:42 - Apr 8 with 2064 views | D_Alien |
| Walsall home - match thread on 13:25 - Apr 8 by 49thseason |
So, £2.35 is the price the Directors bought up the MH shares at, which they claim sets the current value , I dont think it neccessarily does, like everything else their value is what someone is prepared to pay for them.
They issued 450,000 shares, hoping that the fans would buy a decent chunk of them, say 200,000, that would have put roughly half a million quid into the company. That money could have enabled the company to buy back the MH shares from the Directors and extend the " fan owned " narrative. However, the share issue wasn't taken up to any significant extent so enter stage left, Plan B.... find someone else to buy the the remaining shares in the treasury.
Currently the Directors own a huge tranch of shares ( from MH) that none of them wanted or expected to have to buy. They need to unload them, I imagine, and we shouldnt crticise them for that. We, the supporters, had an opportunity to share their pain and didn't take it up.
So we now have plan B, find another investor. I won £2.30 on the Lottery last week so just another 449,999 shares left for someone else to buy. If as rumoured, some of the Directors have had to borrow money or re- mortgage their houses to buy the MH shares, I think they deserve our support for what comes next, its a difficult position to be in which coupled with a probable relegation really only gives another 12 months of financial runway with EFL funds, at which point there is no safety net and what we earn is what we can spend. |
Just a slight correction - We, the supporters, had an opportunity to share their pain but couldn't take it up - rather than didn't
If we'd have been able to do so, i'm sure a significant chunk would've been, perhaps the 200,000 you refer to
A great deal more empathy might've been engendered by sharing that narrative - if indeed it's the correct one. We were made aware of the basics around the acquisition of MH shares but it would've been no reflection except a positive one on the BoD to have put their cards on the table about the unsustainability of that acquisition from their own personal perspectives
As it transpired, it looked just a bit underhand to issue the 450,000 shares knowing in all likelihood there'd be an insignificant take-up, thus opening the door to external investment
It's all about communication
And when it's difficult to communicate, it's even more important to do so | |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 15:38 - Apr 8 with 1805 views | electricblue |
"At April 2022, the club has a stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season. We have returned during 2021/22 to being a properly and prudently run football club and aligned our financial reporting year to 30th June alongside many other EFL clubs. The audited results for the year ended 30th June 2022 will be finalised later in the calendar year and then filed within the appropriate Companies House deadlines.
As we plan for next season, the club is working hard to maximise all available commercial revenue opportunities whilst simultaneously controlling and eliminating many unneeded costs. Every member of the Board of Directors acts for the club on a pro-bono basis and as a fan owned club, we seek to achieve break even or better financial result in each operating season.
Subject to final league positions, the club expects contingent transfer fee receipts before the end of the current financial year from three clubs for previously divested players following the achievement of performance-based milestones for those players and clubs. Those receipts will be deployed into the playing squad for next season.
We started shaping our squad for next season in January 2022 with the purchases of Tavhon Campbell, James Ball and Luke Charman and will continue to support Robbie Stockdale as far as possible as he builds his squad for next season this summer. The Board is planning for a significantly increased playing budget for next season.
Our financial approach means all revenue from our Season Card sales and commercial activities is invested as far as possible into our playing squad.
I know it sounds an obvious thing to say, but the more Season Cards that are sold by 30th June 2022, the stronger the position so that the Board can commit additional revenues on players for next season.
The club has no need to sell any players this summer but that does not mean there will not be any departures. No player will ever be sold by this Board of Directors until the valuation of that player is met by the buying club. That valuation includes the provision of relevant long-term performance-based payments and future sell on clauses.
On behalf of the Board of Directors, I would like to thank everyone for their support throughout this season.
Next year is going to be an exciting season and I hope that you will commit your support to the club and Robbie Stockdale by purchasing your Season Card and spreading the word around the people of Rochdale and the wider North Manchester area that this club is owned by the fans and operated for the fans"
So what as changed between this statement and when the BoD say they are moving from fan owned...... |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:09 - Apr 8 with 1605 views | NigelWatson |
| Walsall home - match thread on 13:36 - Apr 8 by kel |
You will, of course, be able to provides examples. Or are you still ignoring people who question your opinions with a counter argument? |
Hmm, let's think, what phrases do the 'gerrit forward', direct-football mob use on here:
1. play on the front foot
2. The arsing about instead of getting a cross
3. Drop the tippy tappy that led to numerous scares
And that's just on one page of one thread! The bottom line is that the "gerrit forward" mob were Bentley's biggest supporters, and before that, they were Coleman fans, because both Bentley and Coleman played a very direct brand of football, which they liked. They also couldn't wait to get shot of the best manager that we ever had in Keith Hill because his progressive, possession-based method frustrated them.
Gerrit forward! [Post edited 8 Apr 2023 17:10]
| | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:09 - Apr 8 with 1600 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Walsall home - match thread on 13:42 - Apr 8 by D_Alien |
Just a slight correction - We, the supporters, had an opportunity to share their pain but couldn't take it up - rather than didn't
If we'd have been able to do so, i'm sure a significant chunk would've been, perhaps the 200,000 you refer to
A great deal more empathy might've been engendered by sharing that narrative - if indeed it's the correct one. We were made aware of the basics around the acquisition of MH shares but it would've been no reflection except a positive one on the BoD to have put their cards on the table about the unsustainability of that acquisition from their own personal perspectives
As it transpired, it looked just a bit underhand to issue the 450,000 shares knowing in all likelihood there'd be an insignificant take-up, thus opening the door to external investment
It's all about communication
And when it's difficult to communicate, it's even more important to do so |
"Share the pain" is a good way to look at the future of football DA given the nonsense economics and financials of football in the EFL.
In the Chairman's Letter open to shareholders - dated 28 October 2022 so before the EGM vote for new shares - it set out a really helpful appendix that shows the losses the club makes without "one-offs" (being transfer fees and cup runs) over the previous 5 seasons - so covering the current and previous two chairman and spells in League 1 and League 2.
Quoting directly the figures from that letter without "one-offs":
2017/18 (audited): Loss of £1,582,628
2018/19 (audited): Loss of £2,241,135
2019/20 (audited): Loss of £1,272,509
2020/21 (audited): Loss of £1,229,208
2021/22 (unaudited): Loss of £1,536,906
Now we know from the audited accounts just published at Companies House in 2021/22 the actual loss in 2021/22 was £467,356.
So, so much for Alexander Jarvis and his financial projections made in Summer 2022.....
The difference of £1,069,550 in 2021/22 must therefore be money from "one-offs" and the accounts refer to initial transfer fees (Humphrys, Rathbone, Beesley and Morley) and money from the FA Cup run which included a game on ITV.
This season the transfer market is significantly depressed - I can't think of a decent transfer fee paid by a Premier League or Championship club to either a League 1 League 2 club or (other than Wrexham) any club spraying significant money around.
The data on transfermarkt has numerous references to "free" or "loan" which isn't how the lower division model works when you only receive 8% of EFL funds in League 2 vs 80% of EFL funds going to the Championship.
The conclusion to draw is that those Championship clubs are not passing that money down any longer. Blackpool and Wigan who a season ago lifted a Dale player for a fee are about to be relegated back to League 1.
Reading have been punished for financial breaches. Sheffield United are under embargo and Birmingham City are the latest Championship club to be under the spotlight because, ironically, of another failed takeover.
Aside from Burnley who are going back to the Premier League most of the Championship is probably technically insolvent.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/transfers/wettbewerb/GB2
The Morton House narrative in July 2021 was going to be very straightforward. Buy the club from a small number of private shareholders on the cheap to gain 51% control, strip out the ground and then run the club into the ground and walk off into the sunset. It's exactly what happened at Bury and Macclesfield and though terminal for the football clubs concerned it was beneficial for the shareholder - Steve Dale getting back for example a lot more than he bought the club for.
Morton House and those who promoted them had no incentive to fund losses of £1.5m a season. Even the previous CEO and Rochdale fan since 1968, David Bottomley - sold his shares to Morton House - 12,960 as noted openly by the EFL's verdict into goings on. Graham Rawlinson another former director also sold as noted here in Paragraph 32:
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/8a7f1cd734c545c6a9e4d3114325d9c8/221014---efl-
Looking forward if we assumed for a moment a great escape and retaining league status the economic outlook without "one-offs" then it is probably fair to assume a £1.5m loss without "one-offs". Arguably relegation to the National Leage yields probably the same numbers as revenue falls but so can costs.
A different way of framing the question is how does that £1.5m each year get funded? A Board of Directors, the club's shareholders, its supporters or a combination thereof?
The 2021/22 deficit was funded by issuing 396,942 at £2 per share - £0.8m.
The obvious observation to make is that if all current shareholders chose to take up their rights to buy shares then 450,000 at £2.35 would raise £1,057,500. However, how sustainable that is year on year given the current economics of football?
Based on the take-up you'd have to argue that it isn't sustainable at all. Equally in the current environment transfer fees and cup runs are not a viable economic strategy as they are haphazard.
In a "competition" where by the end of 2021/22:
(1) Salford had net liabilities of £11.5m and made a 2021/22 loss of £1.5m
- 10th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(2) Bradford had net liabilities of £1.1m and made a 2021/22 loss of £0.3m
- 14th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(3) Leyton Orient had net liabilities of £10.5m and made a 2021/22 loss of £2.3m - 13th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(4) Wrexham lost £3.4m not getting promoted into League 2.
By contrast, RAFC had made loss of £0.5m and had net assets of £1.8m - 18th place in League 2.
Having written all that I am not sure myself what the answer is.
Football is financially broken and I suspect in the next ten years a number will go to the wall once the US TV companies get their hands on the Premier League rights via Streaming rather than TV.
The lesser teams will have even fewer crumbs to live off then than they do now which is what makes financial sustainability the prize but that is easier said than done. |  |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:42 - Apr 8 with 1509 views | TVOS1907 |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:09 - Apr 8 by NigelWatson |
Hmm, let's think, what phrases do the 'gerrit forward', direct-football mob use on here:
1. play on the front foot
2. The arsing about instead of getting a cross
3. Drop the tippy tappy that led to numerous scares
And that's just on one page of one thread! The bottom line is that the "gerrit forward" mob were Bentley's biggest supporters, and before that, they were Coleman fans, because both Bentley and Coleman played a very direct brand of football, which they liked. They also couldn't wait to get shot of the best manager that we ever had in Keith Hill because his progressive, possession-based method frustrated them.
Gerrit forward! [Post edited 8 Apr 2023 17:10]
|
You really have no idea of what you're talking about, do you? | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:46 - Apr 8 with 1498 views | 442Dale |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:09 - Apr 8 by RAFCBLUE |
"Share the pain" is a good way to look at the future of football DA given the nonsense economics and financials of football in the EFL.
In the Chairman's Letter open to shareholders - dated 28 October 2022 so before the EGM vote for new shares - it set out a really helpful appendix that shows the losses the club makes without "one-offs" (being transfer fees and cup runs) over the previous 5 seasons - so covering the current and previous two chairman and spells in League 1 and League 2.
Quoting directly the figures from that letter without "one-offs":
2017/18 (audited): Loss of £1,582,628
2018/19 (audited): Loss of £2,241,135
2019/20 (audited): Loss of £1,272,509
2020/21 (audited): Loss of £1,229,208
2021/22 (unaudited): Loss of £1,536,906
Now we know from the audited accounts just published at Companies House in 2021/22 the actual loss in 2021/22 was £467,356.
So, so much for Alexander Jarvis and his financial projections made in Summer 2022.....
The difference of £1,069,550 in 2021/22 must therefore be money from "one-offs" and the accounts refer to initial transfer fees (Humphrys, Rathbone, Beesley and Morley) and money from the FA Cup run which included a game on ITV.
This season the transfer market is significantly depressed - I can't think of a decent transfer fee paid by a Premier League or Championship club to either a League 1 League 2 club or (other than Wrexham) any club spraying significant money around.
The data on transfermarkt has numerous references to "free" or "loan" which isn't how the lower division model works when you only receive 8% of EFL funds in League 2 vs 80% of EFL funds going to the Championship.
The conclusion to draw is that those Championship clubs are not passing that money down any longer. Blackpool and Wigan who a season ago lifted a Dale player for a fee are about to be relegated back to League 1.
Reading have been punished for financial breaches. Sheffield United are under embargo and Birmingham City are the latest Championship club to be under the spotlight because, ironically, of another failed takeover.
Aside from Burnley who are going back to the Premier League most of the Championship is probably technically insolvent.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/transfers/wettbewerb/GB2
The Morton House narrative in July 2021 was going to be very straightforward. Buy the club from a small number of private shareholders on the cheap to gain 51% control, strip out the ground and then run the club into the ground and walk off into the sunset. It's exactly what happened at Bury and Macclesfield and though terminal for the football clubs concerned it was beneficial for the shareholder - Steve Dale getting back for example a lot more than he bought the club for.
Morton House and those who promoted them had no incentive to fund losses of £1.5m a season. Even the previous CEO and Rochdale fan since 1968, David Bottomley - sold his shares to Morton House - 12,960 as noted openly by the EFL's verdict into goings on. Graham Rawlinson another former director also sold as noted here in Paragraph 32:
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/8a7f1cd734c545c6a9e4d3114325d9c8/221014---efl-
Looking forward if we assumed for a moment a great escape and retaining league status the economic outlook without "one-offs" then it is probably fair to assume a £1.5m loss without "one-offs". Arguably relegation to the National Leage yields probably the same numbers as revenue falls but so can costs.
A different way of framing the question is how does that £1.5m each year get funded? A Board of Directors, the club's shareholders, its supporters or a combination thereof?
The 2021/22 deficit was funded by issuing 396,942 at £2 per share - £0.8m.
The obvious observation to make is that if all current shareholders chose to take up their rights to buy shares then 450,000 at £2.35 would raise £1,057,500. However, how sustainable that is year on year given the current economics of football?
Based on the take-up you'd have to argue that it isn't sustainable at all. Equally in the current environment transfer fees and cup runs are not a viable economic strategy as they are haphazard.
In a "competition" where by the end of 2021/22:
(1) Salford had net liabilities of £11.5m and made a 2021/22 loss of £1.5m
- 10th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(2) Bradford had net liabilities of £1.1m and made a 2021/22 loss of £0.3m
- 14th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(3) Leyton Orient had net liabilities of £10.5m and made a 2021/22 loss of £2.3m - 13th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(4) Wrexham lost £3.4m not getting promoted into League 2.
By contrast, RAFC had made loss of £0.5m and had net assets of £1.8m - 18th place in League 2.
Having written all that I am not sure myself what the answer is.
Football is financially broken and I suspect in the next ten years a number will go to the wall once the US TV companies get their hands on the Premier League rights via Streaming rather than TV.
The lesser teams will have even fewer crumbs to live off then than they do now which is what makes financial sustainability the prize but that is easier said than done. |
We were all well aware of the model the club had, the impact it had on our finances. It was one we were all proud of and was considered to be well regarded across football. Not sure supporters considered that model to include “one-offs”, that was how Rochdale operated, unless all of a sudden there’s some sort of revisionist history to say it wasn’t a good model. Like it was some sort of accident when we sold a player or received a sell-on.
The statement from last April indicates it was continuing to be successful because, as well as being told we had a “stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season”, there was mention made of how receipt of income for “performance-based milestones” from players we’d previously sold would be deployed into the squad for the coming season.
The figures are of course important, but communication of where we were/are and why changes were/are made have to be understandable to make sense. For example, if we were going to suffer a similar loss as to the figures mentioned, why choose to deploy any receipts from, erm, “one-offs” in the playing squad if it would mean having to consider a share issue and then looking at outside investment later the same year?
As mentioned, this is something the Trust and the club will probably be keen to address to ensure better understanding over the next few weeks and months. | |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:49 - Apr 8 with 1492 views | D_Alien |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:42 - Apr 8 by TVOS1907 |
You really have no idea of what you're talking about, do you? |
It's become quite amusing, though
In the instances of both Bentley and Coleman, and where he's referring to someone who he *thinks* were advocates for them once their managerial spells had turned sour, posts which directly contradict him can be found
Only it's more fun to watch him making a right arse of himself | |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:57 - Apr 8 with 1447 views | NigelWatson |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:49 - Apr 8 by D_Alien |
It's become quite amusing, though
In the instances of both Bentley and Coleman, and where he's referring to someone who he *thinks* were advocates for them once their managerial spells had turned sour, posts which directly contradict him can be found
Only it's more fun to watch him making a right arse of himself |
We can all read what was written, by whom, and when. You have a great track record in supporting Bentley & Coleman - two of the worst managers in Rochdale's recent history. Well done you! | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:58 - Apr 8 with 1433 views | TVOS1907 |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:46 - Apr 8 by 442Dale |
We were all well aware of the model the club had, the impact it had on our finances. It was one we were all proud of and was considered to be well regarded across football. Not sure supporters considered that model to include “one-offs”, that was how Rochdale operated, unless all of a sudden there’s some sort of revisionist history to say it wasn’t a good model. Like it was some sort of accident when we sold a player or received a sell-on.
The statement from last April indicates it was continuing to be successful because, as well as being told we had a “stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season”, there was mention made of how receipt of income for “performance-based milestones” from players we’d previously sold would be deployed into the squad for the coming season.
The figures are of course important, but communication of where we were/are and why changes were/are made have to be understandable to make sense. For example, if we were going to suffer a similar loss as to the figures mentioned, why choose to deploy any receipts from, erm, “one-offs” in the playing squad if it would mean having to consider a share issue and then looking at outside investment later the same year?
As mentioned, this is something the Trust and the club will probably be keen to address to ensure better understanding over the next few weeks and months. |
... and preferably in statements shorter than War & Peace so most of us can understand them. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:58 - Apr 8 with 1434 views | NigelWatson |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:42 - Apr 8 by TVOS1907 |
You really have no idea of what you're talking about, do you? |
Great analysis and a fine rebuttal. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
