| Dunphy withdraws bid 17:01 - Apr 30 with 16611 views | TomRAFC |
From his Facebook:
"Rochdale AFC
Now that the shareholding has been published, it is perfectly understandable that the board would be reluctant to walk away without some sort of recompense.
Unfortunately, I have to tell you, that I am unable to personally invest the amount of money required, and as I cannot ask my associates to do what I am not prepared to do, I have no option but to withdraw.
For a few years, I have watched in sadness as our beloved team sank out of league one, then to the bottom of league two. I promised myself (and my wife) that I was not going to get involved, but in that final week I felt compelled to give it ‘just one last shot’.
Like many of you, Rochdale AFC has been in my life longer than anyone or anything and to watch it slip out of the league was hard. I am sure Simon felt the same, but as a former chairman, I know better than anyone the pressure he would have been under.
I put forward a proposal in which myself, and other experienced associates offered our services to the club. The offer was made with the best interests of the club at heart, but I was unaware of just how many shares the BoD actually owned, and how much money they had invested. I would like to take this opportunity to commend them for preventing the hostile takeover bid.
I understand that there are other ‘interested parties’ and sincerely hope that they will be able to offer a clear way forward, secure a successful future for the club and ensure the continuation of professional sport in Rochdale.
I would like to thank all of you for the kind messages I have received and would reassure you that I remain committed to the club and would be willing to meet and talk with those who would help to protect the club we all love.
Christopher Dunphy" |  |
| |  |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 19:58 - Apr 30 with 3629 views | Sheffield_dale |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 19:52 - Apr 30 by D_Alien |
Of course he had money to put in
As he stated, he was looking to acquire "new shares" (his words)
He was also looking to take control, but like others i'm surprised/dismayed that he wasn't aware how much financial input would be required to achieve this - and to rightly recompense those who bought out the MH shares
The "be careful what you wish for" aspect is simply about the club being thrust into a potential ownership void again, rather than having someone who's known to us all
Is that what anyone would wish for? |
Then why doesn't he buy a sizeable amount of shares so he has a seat at the top table to affect change?
I want him to be a part of the solution rather than THE solution because I don't trust his "all or nothing" approach | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 20:05 - Apr 30 with 3559 views | D_Alien |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 19:58 - Apr 30 by Sheffield_dale |
Then why doesn't he buy a sizeable amount of shares so he has a seat at the top table to affect change?
I want him to be a part of the solution rather than THE solution because I don't trust his "all or nothing" approach |
I've asked the same question |  |
| |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 20:21 - Apr 30 with 3488 views | Sheffield_dale |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 20:05 - Apr 30 by D_Alien |
I've asked the same question |
Fair 👠| | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 20:50 - Apr 30 with 3349 views | Dalenet |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 19:54 - Apr 30 by Clivert |
The current board are inept. We all want what's best for the club but I'm getting to the point where I don't believe that they do. |
Whats that got to do with Chris Dunphy wanting to have 100% control of the club but doesn't have the means to buy 51% of the shares. Thats not the current boards fault. Or are you saying they shouldn't have made the new share issues and thus created a higher capital cost to acquire RAFC? At £3m for all the shares we are still cheap for a football club with a large town frnachise, our own ground and little debt. | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:03 - Apr 30 with 3296 views | Clivert |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 20:50 - Apr 30 by Dalenet |
Whats that got to do with Chris Dunphy wanting to have 100% control of the club but doesn't have the means to buy 51% of the shares. Thats not the current boards fault. Or are you saying they shouldn't have made the new share issues and thus created a higher capital cost to acquire RAFC? At £3m for all the shares we are still cheap for a football club with a large town frnachise, our own ground and little debt. |
As fans don't they want what's best for the club.
I get that selling their shares at loss doesn't make sense. |  | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:33 - Apr 30 with 3162 views | Dalenet |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:03 - Apr 30 by Clivert |
As fans don't they want what's best for the club.
I get that selling their shares at loss doesn't make sense. |
I am still not sure what you are hoping for.
But a few searches online show that quite a few football clubs are up for sale right now. Hartlepool and Morecambe are amongst them, as are Southend United. And a Northern Premier League club is up for sale for £3.2m. So our £3m price valuation is a bit on the low side and still nobody has placed a strong offer to invest or take over the club. Or maybe there is plenty of interest but the Board has the fans best interests at heart and won't just sell to anybody with a cheque book. Time will tell. But the Board have stumped up almost £1m between them - would you want to hand the club to somebody else to run if you had done that? | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:40 - Apr 30 with 3128 views | Clivert |
I'm hoping that a supporter with plenty of cash in the bank is going to take over the club.
It isn't going happen though is it? | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:46 - Apr 30 with 3107 views | pioneer |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:40 - Apr 30 by Clivert |
I'm hoping that a supporter with plenty of cash in the bank is going to take over the club.
It isn't going happen though is it? |
No it isn't now that CD has pulled out.
If we are waiting for someone tobuy the BoDs shares at the price they were purchased it could. be a long wait | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:50 - Apr 30 with 3083 views | 442Dale |
What would have happened to any shares bought, either by the board or other supporters over the last year, if we’d remained ‘fan owned’? |  |
| |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:53 - Apr 30 with 3067 views | D_Alien |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:33 - Apr 30 by Dalenet |
I am still not sure what you are hoping for.
But a few searches online show that quite a few football clubs are up for sale right now. Hartlepool and Morecambe are amongst them, as are Southend United. And a Northern Premier League club is up for sale for £3.2m. So our £3m price valuation is a bit on the low side and still nobody has placed a strong offer to invest or take over the club. Or maybe there is plenty of interest but the Board has the fans best interests at heart and won't just sell to anybody with a cheque book. Time will tell. But the Board have stumped up almost £1m between them - would you want to hand the club to somebody else to run if you had done that? |
You pose a very good question
What - exactly - are the board's intentions?
If, as you say, they'd be reluctant for an investor to acquire a controlling interest, they're unlikely to get any of their financial outlay for the MH shares back
It may well be time for clarification, for the other shareholders as much as the fanbase as a whole, on this matter
Much better, surely, than social media briefings which do no favours to anyone | |
| |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 22:00 - Apr 30 with 3036 views | Dalenet |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:40 - Apr 30 by Clivert |
I'm hoping that a supporter with plenty of cash in the bank is going to take over the club.
It isn't going happen though is it? |
Oh I see. We can only hope. | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 22:28 - Apr 30 with 2943 views | Sheffield_dale |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 21:40 - Apr 30 by Clivert |
I'm hoping that a supporter with plenty of cash in the bank is going to take over the club.
It isn't going happen though is it? |
You mean like Simon Gauge and a few others of the current board did? 😵â€ðŸ’« | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 00:59 - May 1 with 2713 views | 49thseason |
The Board have admitted that there are NDAs in place , so its safe to assume that discussions are currently underway. Following the Dunphy interruption, they asked for him to put a concrete plan to them by May 9th or 10th which indicates that mid May may well be an anticipated date for someone to close a deal unless there is a better one twix now and then.
I don't think they will sell all their shares as well as those currently in treasury, although there may be some Directors who are under more financial pressure to sell their MH shares than others, unless there is an offer that is simply too good to refuse, ie someone with several millions to invest in a " project" to get back into the EFL and even further up the divisions. Who knows, maybe MRTK have contacts with potential investors and SG did say that there had been a decent amount of interest including from multi-club operations that MRTK do claim to have some expertise in. Of itself, that might mean that the MRTK investigation is more to do with a possible investor than RAFC. Hopefully not long to wait..... |  | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 01:15 - May 1 with 2697 views | judd |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 00:59 - May 1 by 49thseason |
The Board have admitted that there are NDAs in place , so its safe to assume that discussions are currently underway. Following the Dunphy interruption, they asked for him to put a concrete plan to them by May 9th or 10th which indicates that mid May may well be an anticipated date for someone to close a deal unless there is a better one twix now and then.
I don't think they will sell all their shares as well as those currently in treasury, although there may be some Directors who are under more financial pressure to sell their MH shares than others, unless there is an offer that is simply too good to refuse, ie someone with several millions to invest in a " project" to get back into the EFL and even further up the divisions. Who knows, maybe MRTK have contacts with potential investors and SG did say that there had been a decent amount of interest including from multi-club operations that MRTK do claim to have some expertise in. Of itself, that might mean that the MRTK investigation is more to do with a possible investor than RAFC. Hopefully not long to wait..... |
The dates are the time limits set by the EFL. |  |
| |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 01:44 - May 1 with 2679 views | Bluebottle |
Well there's a surprise, I had heard last week Dunphy didn't have the money but got shouted down because his fellow investors would sort him out.
Truth is he was shit stirring as those with our sensible heads on could see 2 minutes after the final whistle at Stockport.
Dunphy was and Is part of the problem , glad he's now out of the equation and hopefully we can move forward | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 06:01 - May 1 with 2584 views | frenzied |
Glad to see hes made his decision early.
To his credit hes made a head over heart decision and rightly so.
I wouldn't be suprised if we go into next season with this process still unresolved. | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 07:07 - May 1 with 2518 views | NigelWatson |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 06:01 - May 1 by frenzied |
Glad to see hes made his decision early.
To his credit hes made a head over heart decision and rightly so.
I wouldn't be suprised if we go into next season with this process still unresolved. |
Is Gauge interested in property development? Just asking. | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 07:34 - May 1 with 2454 views | James1980 |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 07:07 - May 1 by NigelWatson |
Is Gauge interested in property development? Just asking. |
Do you know the ground is an asset of community value and that 75% of shareholders have to agree for it to be sold? | |
| |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 09:18 - May 1 with 2256 views | A_Newby |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 07:34 - May 1 by James1980 |
Do you know the ground is an asset of community value and that 75% of shareholders have to agree for it to be sold? |
Hi James
The ground is better protected than it used to be but not totally.
An asset of community value only gives the local community the right to bid to purchase the asset within 6 months of it being put up for sale. It does not prevent a sale.
The “Morris” resolution in the club’s articles does indeed require that 75% of shareholders vote to allow a mortgage to be put on the ground or to sell the ground.
However, the flaw in this I believe is that in an EGM you only need 50% +1 of shares to vote to issue more shares.
The board between them own 346,636 shares, there are 375,270 new shares available that we voted in the last EGM to give the board the right to sell them to whomever they choose.
If somebody was to buy all the new shares and all the board's shares, they would have 721,916 of the shares out of 1,350,000 or 53.5% of the shares and in effect total control of the club.
Once the have above 50% of the shares they can then call an EGM and vote for a new share issue. They can then buy up these shares to take their holding over 75% and then simply vote to sell the ground.
The existing minority shareholders would have a right to buy the new shares in proportion to their current holding, within a certain time limit, and could try to block such a move, but if that happened there would be nothing to stop any new owners from repeatedly issuing shares until any existing shareholders could not afford buy them.
I do not believe that this is the boards intention I am just pointing out, as others have, that the ground is not totally protected. [Post edited 1 May 2023 9:49]
|  | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 10:17 - May 1 with 2093 views | dawlishdale |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 09:18 - May 1 by A_Newby |
Hi James
The ground is better protected than it used to be but not totally.
An asset of community value only gives the local community the right to bid to purchase the asset within 6 months of it being put up for sale. It does not prevent a sale.
The “Morris” resolution in the club’s articles does indeed require that 75% of shareholders vote to allow a mortgage to be put on the ground or to sell the ground.
However, the flaw in this I believe is that in an EGM you only need 50% +1 of shares to vote to issue more shares.
The board between them own 346,636 shares, there are 375,270 new shares available that we voted in the last EGM to give the board the right to sell them to whomever they choose.
If somebody was to buy all the new shares and all the board's shares, they would have 721,916 of the shares out of 1,350,000 or 53.5% of the shares and in effect total control of the club.
Once the have above 50% of the shares they can then call an EGM and vote for a new share issue. They can then buy up these shares to take their holding over 75% and then simply vote to sell the ground.
The existing minority shareholders would have a right to buy the new shares in proportion to their current holding, within a certain time limit, and could try to block such a move, but if that happened there would be nothing to stop any new owners from repeatedly issuing shares until any existing shareholders could not afford buy them.
I do not believe that this is the boards intention I am just pointing out, as others have, that the ground is not totally protected. [Post edited 1 May 2023 9:49]
|
Remarkable knowledge.
I have to say I find CD's approach and subsequent withdrawal from negotiations somewhat strange on his part. Surely to goodness, he would have carried out a little due diligence regarding the shareholding currently held by the Board before launching his bid? Kind of makes him look either very silly, or not serious about his bid in the first place.
I guess it just shows (for the Facebook numpties who think £25k per Board member buys them out) just how much the current Board have put their hands into their pockets to support the club financially. For this, they should be thanked eternally . Sadly, almost every footballing decision they have made since taking office has been questionable, and for that, they are rightly under scrutiny.
What I do find somewhat annoying is the premise that if they can find an investor to take over, they should be paid back for their shares as if they are preference shareholders. That will mean that all non-board shareholders (possibly including the Trust and hundreds who put a few thousand in or even a few hundred) will be left with worthless shares, and not so much as a wave goodbye from the Board for their help, which was also vital in getting rid of the Rogers etc . | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 10:35 - May 1 with 2025 views | Dalenet |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 10:17 - May 1 by dawlishdale |
Remarkable knowledge.
I have to say I find CD's approach and subsequent withdrawal from negotiations somewhat strange on his part. Surely to goodness, he would have carried out a little due diligence regarding the shareholding currently held by the Board before launching his bid? Kind of makes him look either very silly, or not serious about his bid in the first place.
I guess it just shows (for the Facebook numpties who think £25k per Board member buys them out) just how much the current Board have put their hands into their pockets to support the club financially. For this, they should be thanked eternally . Sadly, almost every footballing decision they have made since taking office has been questionable, and for that, they are rightly under scrutiny.
What I do find somewhat annoying is the premise that if they can find an investor to take over, they should be paid back for their shares as if they are preference shareholders. That will mean that all non-board shareholders (possibly including the Trust and hundreds who put a few thousand in or even a few hundred) will be left with worthless shares, and not so much as a wave goodbye from the Board for their help, which was also vital in getting rid of the Rogers etc . |
I think it depends on what a new investor wants. If they want total control, inluding EGM votes, they will need to own more than 53%. Do they pick off other large shareholders or do they make an offer to buy every share. The Trust will need to have a plan if that was a proposal, as would all fan shareholders. As I said earlier, 100% of the shares at £2.35 each would cost £3.1m. Not a high price for somebody who wanted full control. | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 10:37 - May 1 with 1998 views | 49thseason |
I dont understand how the EFL can tell the club how long a negotiation with a third party should take? Surely the EFL can only get involved once the buyer and the sellers have reached some sort of agreement subject to EFL approval? And wouldnt the Board have asked for details of the sort of details the EFL would want anyway?
Equally how long can the EFL influence a deal? Isnt there a cutoff deadline in June? It would be ridiculous to stop a deal in May that could go ahead in July... but I guess it is the EFL we are talking about | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 11:38 - May 1 with 1788 views | DaleiLama |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 09:18 - May 1 by A_Newby |
Hi James
The ground is better protected than it used to be but not totally.
An asset of community value only gives the local community the right to bid to purchase the asset within 6 months of it being put up for sale. It does not prevent a sale.
The “Morris” resolution in the club’s articles does indeed require that 75% of shareholders vote to allow a mortgage to be put on the ground or to sell the ground.
However, the flaw in this I believe is that in an EGM you only need 50% +1 of shares to vote to issue more shares.
The board between them own 346,636 shares, there are 375,270 new shares available that we voted in the last EGM to give the board the right to sell them to whomever they choose.
If somebody was to buy all the new shares and all the board's shares, they would have 721,916 of the shares out of 1,350,000 or 53.5% of the shares and in effect total control of the club.
Once the have above 50% of the shares they can then call an EGM and vote for a new share issue. They can then buy up these shares to take their holding over 75% and then simply vote to sell the ground.
The existing minority shareholders would have a right to buy the new shares in proportion to their current holding, within a certain time limit, and could try to block such a move, but if that happened there would be nothing to stop any new owners from repeatedly issuing shares until any existing shareholders could not afford buy them.
I do not believe that this is the boards intention I am just pointing out, as others have, that the ground is not totally protected. [Post edited 1 May 2023 9:49]
|
Can the club just keep issuing shares ad infinitum beyond the current number issued and held in treasury? Surely there are rules preventing this? |  |
| |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 11:43 - May 1 with 1757 views | DorkingDale |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 19:06 - Apr 30 by Sheffield_dale |
And rightly so.
Why was it a surprise how much the BoD owned, it's pretty common knowledge how many shares they have.
Seems silly to have put that statement of intent so publicly without having basic knowledge. He is either not too bright or assumed he is entitled to walk in on cheaper terms.
If he cared as much as his amateur statements suggest then why not buy a decent share, work alongside the board and change it from within. Sorry but what a circus he's created |
Just what I was thinking.....it's fairly common knowledge how much the current board had to stump up to buy the Morton House shares, albeit at a huge loss to MH. | | | |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 11:44 - May 1 with 1753 views | DaleiLama |
| Dunphy withdraws bid on 10:37 - May 1 by 49thseason |
I dont understand how the EFL can tell the club how long a negotiation with a third party should take? Surely the EFL can only get involved once the buyer and the sellers have reached some sort of agreement subject to EFL approval? And wouldnt the Board have asked for details of the sort of details the EFL would want anyway?
Equally how long can the EFL influence a deal? Isnt there a cutoff deadline in June? It would be ridiculous to stop a deal in May that could go ahead in July... but I guess it is the EFL we are talking about |
The Pontius Pilate's of governance.  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
