| SACK THE BOARD 16:32 - Dec 1 with 44795 views | RAFC1907 |
Absolutely terrible.
No ambition, robbing fans constantly with overpriced entrance fees for watching garbage.
Garbage created by them for not backing the manager with any money, constantly pocketing it and saying we don't have any.
1600 home fans today says it all.
No wonder we will always be little old Rochdale.
Shambles of a football club. |  |
| |  |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:03 - Dec 1 with 2159 views | Dorislove |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:00 - Dec 1 by D_Alien |
Correct me if i've missed anything, but what happened to the shares that CD & BG held before they left the board? Did they sell them on, or did they retain them?
There are other shareholders, too...
[Post edited 1 Dec 2019 22:02]
|
They still have them according to recent accounts ,What happened to Paul hazelhursts also. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:05 - Dec 1 with 2137 views | D_Alien |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:03 - Dec 1 by Dorislove |
They still have them according to recent accounts ,What happened to Paul hazelhursts also. |
Hmm...
I can't help but wonder what the aggregate shareholding might be amongst those who aren't enamoured with the current regime |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:09 - Dec 1 with 2108 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:00 - Dec 1 by D_Alien |
Correct me if i've missed anything, but what happened to the shares that CD & BG held before they left the board? Did they sell them on, or did they retain them?
There are other shareholders, too...
[Post edited 1 Dec 2019 22:02]
|
They retain them.
're the book. Excellent read that I will do nothing to spoil.
It was the butler what done it. |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:10 - Dec 1 with 2099 views | D_Alien |
And presumably, the total shareholding amongst those on the board (other than BD & AK) is supportive of our current position? | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:10 - Dec 1 with 2098 views | SaxonDale |
The post from TS makes me very concerned. As an exile I do feel quite ‘out the loop’ with goings on but things really do seem rotten at the club, and if truth be told, have done since Dunphy’s departure. As ATP says if we’re skint now then something has gone seriously wrong and we may as well pack our bags up as a club and call it a day. Thanks to all posters (Judd and Fitzo especially spring to mind) for helping to shed as much light as possible on the current goings on. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:14 - Dec 1 with 2063 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:10 - Dec 1 by D_Alien |
And presumably, the total shareholding amongst those on the board (other than BD & AK) is supportive of our current position? |
Not sure there was any challenge at the last AGM.
My mate tells me that the Trust were asked to ask the Directors how shares could be purchased by a fan and if a rights issue would happen (or words to that effect). Either the question was not posed or it was ignored. Either way, the Trust has failed to let the questioner know what happened to his question. I'm unsure if he has pursued it though. | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:15 - Dec 1 with 2060 views | SuddenLad |
The fact that Chris Dunphy & Bill Goodwin have made such a declaration, should be reverberating with every fan this club has.
If the current state of affairs continues for much longer, there will be a stream of supporters following suit.
And I don't blame BBM. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:15 - Dec 1 with 2054 views | Dorislove |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:10 - Dec 1 by D_Alien |
And presumably, the total shareholding amongst those on the board (other than BD & AK) is supportive of our current position? |
Off TS s comment , i dont know ,smallholding is a fair size but 110,000 is a chunk to go up against in the recently increased 502957 especially when DBs went up to 13100 a couple of years ago. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:16 - Dec 1 with 2041 views | RAFCBLUE |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:15 - Dec 1 by TalkingSutty |
Neither Chris Dunphy or Bill Goodwin will ever set foot in the Stadium again while the people now running the Club are in charge...that was the exact answer I received when I asked one of them if they will still be attending games. To the best of my knowledge they have been true to their word. I know for a fact that both miss the Club terribly but should circumstances change then they would make themselves available to help in anyway that they could. That shouldn’t come as a surprise though because they are lifelong Dale fans.
As a fanbase we are very passive and the majority just accept everything that they are told by those running the Club, if they are told that there is no money or that the departure of our Chairman and Director was amicable then they will just accept it. It’s what Bury fans did, just lap up everything that those running the Club told them. |
That post TS should be the biggest and loudest warning bell to us all.
Chris Dunphy spends 30 years involved with the club, being it's Chairman during the club’s most successful run in it's history involving securing key players and the ground.
Now no longer sets foot inside Spotland because of the current hierarchy?
You could not make it up.
Unfortunately, it appears those in the current position of custodianship have encountered a clouded amnesia over what Rochdale AFC is.
The rate they are going, they are doing their own legacy a huge damaging disservice. |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:21 - Dec 1 with 2001 views | D_Alien |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:15 - Dec 1 by Dorislove |
Off TS s comment , i dont know ,smallholding is a fair size but 110,000 is a chunk to go up against in the recently increased 502957 especially when DBs went up to 13100 a couple of years ago. |
And referring again to TS' post, one of the major issues thats of concern would be: what would happen should the current regime suddenly find itself under pressure, i.e. what, or who, might replace it?
But if there is still goodwill and an appetite for more with those who've steered the club through very choppy waters in the past, that in itself is at least good to know | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:24 - Dec 1 with 1978 views | 49thseason |
The Trust needs to get involved at a much deeper level.
There are just over half a million shares in issue, worth a nominal £250K - £0.50p per share. Some 400,000 of those are owned by just 13 people, some of them, current Directors some, previous directors and a couple of others. The trust needs to start a campaign to get shareholders to give their shares by proxy to the Trust. There are just over 300 "small" shareholders (each less than £5k worth) amounting to an approximate 20% shareholding. If the trust held these shares by proxy on behalf of the 300 or so shareholders with small(ish) holdings, they would have enough to demand a seat on the Board. If the likes of Chris Dunphy and Bill Goodwin, Graham Morris, Jim Marsh, David Kilpatrick and Geoff Brierley added their shareholdings together, then the balance of power would start to shift and AGM votes against the board or individual Directors would become more interesting.
The current Chairman owns 110,000 shares or the better part of 20%, who knows, he might be persuaded to sell them?... Anyone got a spare £50+k? |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:25 - Dec 1 with 1972 views | Dorislove |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:21 - Dec 1 by D_Alien |
And referring again to TS' post, one of the major issues thats of concern would be: what would happen should the current regime suddenly find itself under pressure, i.e. what, or who, might replace it?
But if there is still goodwill and an appetite for more with those who've steered the club through very choppy waters in the past, that in itself is at least good to know |
There was talk ( a touch more than that) of CD looking at taking over at Gateshead ,dont think he has lost the appetite for football at all. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:25 - Dec 1 with 1967 views | RAFCBLUE |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:21 - Dec 1 by D_Alien |
And referring again to TS' post, one of the major issues thats of concern would be: what would happen should the current regime suddenly find itself under pressure, i.e. what, or who, might replace it?
But if there is still goodwill and an appetite for more with those who've steered the club through very choppy waters in the past, that in itself is at least good to know |
I'm puzzled as to why Andrew Kilpatrick, who has been our biggest shareholder for some time, became convinced he wanted to be Chair.
I say that because he could have done that at any time - and had the voting power to enact it.
Perhaps he was put up to it by another who felt and ability to run the clubs whilst Mr Kilpatrick took more of a silent backseat.
When was the last time we heard from our Chairman? | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:26 - Dec 1 with 1960 views | fitzochris |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:25 - Dec 1 by Dorislove |
There was talk ( a touch more than that) of CD looking at taking over at Gateshead ,dont think he has lost the appetite for football at all. |
He hasn’t. Not one bit. |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:28 - Dec 1 with 1945 views | SuddenLad |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:24 - Dec 1 by 49thseason |
The Trust needs to get involved at a much deeper level.
There are just over half a million shares in issue, worth a nominal £250K - £0.50p per share. Some 400,000 of those are owned by just 13 people, some of them, current Directors some, previous directors and a couple of others. The trust needs to start a campaign to get shareholders to give their shares by proxy to the Trust. There are just over 300 "small" shareholders (each less than £5k worth) amounting to an approximate 20% shareholding. If the trust held these shares by proxy on behalf of the 300 or so shareholders with small(ish) holdings, they would have enough to demand a seat on the Board. If the likes of Chris Dunphy and Bill Goodwin, Graham Morris, Jim Marsh, David Kilpatrick and Geoff Brierley added their shareholdings together, then the balance of power would start to shift and AGM votes against the board or individual Directors would become more interesting.
The current Chairman owns 110,000 shares or the better part of 20%, who knows, he might be persuaded to sell them?... Anyone got a spare £50+k? |
Jim Marsh is no longer with us I'm afraid. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:34 - Dec 1 with 1920 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:24 - Dec 1 by 49thseason |
The Trust needs to get involved at a much deeper level.
There are just over half a million shares in issue, worth a nominal £250K - £0.50p per share. Some 400,000 of those are owned by just 13 people, some of them, current Directors some, previous directors and a couple of others. The trust needs to start a campaign to get shareholders to give their shares by proxy to the Trust. There are just over 300 "small" shareholders (each less than £5k worth) amounting to an approximate 20% shareholding. If the trust held these shares by proxy on behalf of the 300 or so shareholders with small(ish) holdings, they would have enough to demand a seat on the Board. If the likes of Chris Dunphy and Bill Goodwin, Graham Morris, Jim Marsh, David Kilpatrick and Geoff Brierley added their shareholdings together, then the balance of power would start to shift and AGM votes against the board or individual Directors would become more interesting.
The current Chairman owns 110,000 shares or the better part of 20%, who knows, he might be persuaded to sell them?... Anyone got a spare £50+k? |
I believe the last rights issue was at £2, which is the price paid by serving directors for the joining fee of £26k. | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:39 - Dec 1 with 1891 views | Dorislove |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:24 - Dec 1 by 49thseason |
The Trust needs to get involved at a much deeper level.
There are just over half a million shares in issue, worth a nominal £250K - £0.50p per share. Some 400,000 of those are owned by just 13 people, some of them, current Directors some, previous directors and a couple of others. The trust needs to start a campaign to get shareholders to give their shares by proxy to the Trust. There are just over 300 "small" shareholders (each less than £5k worth) amounting to an approximate 20% shareholding. If the trust held these shares by proxy on behalf of the 300 or so shareholders with small(ish) holdings, they would have enough to demand a seat on the Board. If the likes of Chris Dunphy and Bill Goodwin, Graham Morris, Jim Marsh, David Kilpatrick and Geoff Brierley added their shareholdings together, then the balance of power would start to shift and AGM votes against the board or individual Directors would become more interesting.
The current Chairman owns 110,000 shares or the better part of 20%, who knows, he might be persuaded to sell them?... Anyone got a spare £50+k? |
Just depends if the shareholders trust the trust with their shareholding so to speak ,how close these days are the members of the trust to the board members of the club?? | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:45 - Dec 1 with 1851 views | 49thseason |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:34 - Dec 1 by judd |
I believe the last rights issue was at £2, which is the price paid by serving directors for the joining fee of £26k. |
Nominal value is still 50p, you could argue that if there is £2m in the bank they are nearer £4 a share. In truth, values are of little interest if the objective is to simply walk into the AGM holding more shares than the board of directors and their supporters. The good news is that former Directors hold as many shares as the current ones, add those shares owned by the other 300 shareholders and it would be game over for the current board unless they issued and bought more shares in which case there would be money to spend. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:48 - Dec 1 with 1832 views | D_Alien |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:39 - Dec 1 by Dorislove |
Just depends if the shareholders trust the trust with their shareholding so to speak ,how close these days are the members of the trust to the board members of the club?? |
If the shares were to be held in trust by the Trust, on condition that they were utilised only by a majority vote of Trust members - now that would make rejoining the Trust something to be considered...
[Post edited 1 Dec 2019 22:49]
| |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:50 - Dec 1 with 1811 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:45 - Dec 1 by 49thseason |
Nominal value is still 50p, you could argue that if there is £2m in the bank they are nearer £4 a share. In truth, values are of little interest if the objective is to simply walk into the AGM holding more shares than the board of directors and their supporters. The good news is that former Directors hold as many shares as the current ones, add those shares owned by the other 300 shareholders and it would be game over for the current board unless they issued and bought more shares in which case there would be money to spend. |
Cheers. Perhaps I'm a little baffled that we managed to sell a load of 50p shares at 2 quid a pop.
But still signed Calvin. | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:57 - Dec 1 with 1764 views | Dorislove |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:48 - Dec 1 by D_Alien |
If the shares were to be held in trust by the Trust, on condition that they were utilised only by a majority vote of Trust members - now that would make rejoining the Trust something to be considered...
[Post edited 1 Dec 2019 22:49]
|
I want to vote X ,Trust votes Y on a Y+1/X split my vote is lost .
My vote x is not in trust holdings and i vote x ,i have voted where i want.
It only works if all proxy votes are aimed at one conclusion.
It all depends on the end game of the Trust. [Post edited 1 Dec 2019 23:19]
| | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:02 - Dec 1 with 1732 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:57 - Dec 1 by Dorislove |
I want to vote X ,Trust votes Y on a Y+1/X split my vote is lost .
My vote x is not in trust holdings and i vote x ,i have voted where i want.
It only works if all proxy votes are aimed at one conclusion.
It all depends on the end game of the Trust. [Post edited 1 Dec 2019 23:19]
|
Whilst the Trust has a board member in a relationship with a football club board member then I cannot see how it can function in the manner that it should. | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:04 - Dec 1 with 1721 views | fitzochris |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:02 - Dec 1 by judd |
Whilst the Trust has a board member in a relationship with a football club board member then I cannot see how it can function in the manner that it should. |
Does the Trust operate a recusal system in this regard? | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:07 - Dec 1 with 1701 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 23:04 - Dec 1 by fitzochris |
Does the Trust operate a recusal system in this regard? |
I don't know why I laughed so loud at that.
Then again... | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
