| Sporting director 15:44 - Feb 17 with 22512 views | fitzochris |
|  |
| |  |
| Sporting director on 22:25 - Feb 17 with 2637 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 22:15 - Feb 17 by D_Alien |
I think you're right about this appointment being unrelated to our current predicament
I'll simply repeat what i posted in another thread - it's total bollox
The club is no longer the club we expect it to be, it's a vehicle for remunerating people who don't have fans interests at heart
Family club? Don't make me laugh. Its an empty concept; an attempt to manipulate the gullible; a charade
BBM is a mere pawn in the game. The Dale Trust, despite valiant attempts, is being taken for a ride
There's only one solution. The person at whose behest all this is happening, the CEO David Bottomley, must go. Imo it's more vital than whether BBM stays or goes, or gets shifted sideways, or who might replace him. The soul of our club is at stake, nothing less
[Post edited 17 Feb 2021 22:18]
|
Amen to that, brother.
Family club that bans kids from an end of season awards night?
Stuffs kid ticket prices up by what was it - 50%?
Trust absolutely silenced this year after a superb effort earlier in the pandemic.
Ring fencing a personal salary now and building an empire to carry out numerous functions at a high cost, functions previously carried out by 1 person who actually grew the business.
BBM has been given a forlorn task and I hope he survives this.
Time for shareholders to take action. |  |
| |
| Sporting director on 22:48 - Feb 17 with 2548 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 22:00 - Feb 17 by TVOS1907 |
Wasn't he in the team that beat Coventry in 1971? |
Hughen should know that | |
| |
| Sporting director on 04:22 - Feb 18 with 2358 views | Sandyman |
| Sporting director on 22:25 - Feb 17 by judd |
Amen to that, brother.
Family club that bans kids from an end of season awards night?
Stuffs kid ticket prices up by what was it - 50%?
Trust absolutely silenced this year after a superb effort earlier in the pandemic.
Ring fencing a personal salary now and building an empire to carry out numerous functions at a high cost, functions previously carried out by 1 person who actually grew the business.
BBM has been given a forlorn task and I hope he survives this.
Time for shareholders to take action. |
Not much smaller shareholders can do, sadly. The AGM / EGM from last March can't be held for Covid reasons. And even if our angst at the board for some of the bewildering decisions that we get to know about went to a vote, the big shareholders in the board room with their thousands of shares would be able to out-vote the those with a hundred or two.
It's a mess. The recruitment drive off the pitch being the opposite of the will to recruit on the pitch is ridiculous. bury had a crazy number of backroom staff on the books before the inevitable demise. Dale are going the same way (apart from player recruitment on big wages of course)
Retaining a poor manager and (hope it doesn't happen) relegation on the horizon... who is going to buy season cards? Who will pay the Chief Ego Officer's wages?
£6 a share the board wanted from a prospective buyer(s) of available shares 12 months ago, with a rider that current shareholders couldn't invest. They'd be lucky to get 6p a share now, given the rubbish on the pitch and the questionable level of recruitment off it.
Oooh look, Accrington Stanley, smallest fanbase, smallest income in this division. In a play-off place today. Not heard any "poor little Accrington" bleating from up the road. They should be applauded for getting on with what matters and doing it a far sight better than what RAFC are. Perhaps the custodians of their club have the interests of the club and its supporters foremost in their minds? Ours used to. |  | | |
| Sporting director on 08:02 - Feb 18 with 2242 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 04:22 - Feb 18 by Sandyman |
Not much smaller shareholders can do, sadly. The AGM / EGM from last March can't be held for Covid reasons. And even if our angst at the board for some of the bewildering decisions that we get to know about went to a vote, the big shareholders in the board room with their thousands of shares would be able to out-vote the those with a hundred or two.
It's a mess. The recruitment drive off the pitch being the opposite of the will to recruit on the pitch is ridiculous. bury had a crazy number of backroom staff on the books before the inevitable demise. Dale are going the same way (apart from player recruitment on big wages of course)
Retaining a poor manager and (hope it doesn't happen) relegation on the horizon... who is going to buy season cards? Who will pay the Chief Ego Officer's wages?
£6 a share the board wanted from a prospective buyer(s) of available shares 12 months ago, with a rider that current shareholders couldn't invest. They'd be lucky to get 6p a share now, given the rubbish on the pitch and the questionable level of recruitment off it.
Oooh look, Accrington Stanley, smallest fanbase, smallest income in this division. In a play-off place today. Not heard any "poor little Accrington" bleating from up the road. They should be applauded for getting on with what matters and doing it a far sight better than what RAFC are. Perhaps the custodians of their club have the interests of the club and its supporters foremost in their minds? Ours used to. |
A faint heart never banged a pig, Sandyman  | |
| |
| Sporting director on 09:08 - Feb 18 with 2144 views | golfaduffy |
| Sporting director on 22:15 - Feb 17 by D_Alien |
I think you're right about this appointment being unrelated to our current predicament
I'll simply repeat what i posted in another thread - it's total bollox
The club is no longer the club we expect it to be, it's a vehicle for remunerating people who don't have fans interests at heart
Family club? Don't make me laugh. Its an empty concept; an attempt to manipulate the gullible; a charade
BBM is a mere pawn in the game. The Dale Trust, despite valiant attempts, is being taken for a ride
There's only one solution. The person at whose behest all this is happening, the CEO David Bottomley, must go. Imo it's more vital than whether BBM stays or goes, or gets shifted sideways, or who might replace him. The soul of our club is at stake, nothing less
[Post edited 17 Feb 2021 22:18]
|
Excellent post. Your last paragraph is exactly what is wrong with the club, and has been since the day he stepped onto the Board.
I urge everyone to read it, and recall all the warning signs. |  | | |
| Sporting director on 09:34 - Feb 18 with 2098 views | Suggers |
| Sporting director on 22:15 - Feb 17 by D_Alien |
I think you're right about this appointment being unrelated to our current predicament
I'll simply repeat what i posted in another thread - it's total bollox
The club is no longer the club we expect it to be, it's a vehicle for remunerating people who don't have fans interests at heart
Family club? Don't make me laugh. Its an empty concept; an attempt to manipulate the gullible; a charade
BBM is a mere pawn in the game. The Dale Trust, despite valiant attempts, is being taken for a ride
There's only one solution. The person at whose behest all this is happening, the CEO David Bottomley, must go. Imo it's more vital than whether BBM stays or goes, or gets shifted sideways, or who might replace him. The soul of our club is at stake, nothing less
[Post edited 17 Feb 2021 22:18]
|
Anyone who knows anything about the comings and goings of our club off the pitch, in particular in the Boardroom, knows only too well how manipulative the CEO of OUR club is.
Since arriving as an independent Non Exec (with a chequered corporate history at that) he has been party to a Boardroom revolt resulting in the acrimonious and extremely sad exit of one of the finest champions of OUR club in our history, to a self serving appointment as CEO with no experience accompanied by hand picked Board appointments to serve his agenda - two of who reported to him.
Where are the overcoat men when you need them??? |  | | |
| Sporting director on 10:11 - Feb 18 with 2003 views | James1980 |
This thread has escalated quick. I didn't realise matters off the pitch were so dire, that history is looking like it is repeating and the very existence of the club is at risk. [Post edited 18 Feb 2021 10:23]
| |
| |
| Sporting director on 10:32 - Feb 18 with 1962 views | 49thseason |
"the big shareholders in the board room with their thousands of shares would be able to out-vote the those with a hundred or two."
I'm not sure thats absolutely the case,an AGM is normally done of the basis of a show of hands with each shareholder getting a single vote regardless of the numbers of shares owned. But it may be that the Board can then force a vote based on shareholdings. The Trust could, if so inclined, ask smaller shareholders to proxy their shares to the Trust in support of certain actions or proposals such as the removal of Directors. I need to add up the numbers of shares in circulation, and how many are held by the board. There may even be board members who do not entirely support the current regime. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sporting director on 10:42 - Feb 18 with 1941 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 10:32 - Feb 18 by 49thseason |
"the big shareholders in the board room with their thousands of shares would be able to out-vote the those with a hundred or two."
I'm not sure thats absolutely the case,an AGM is normally done of the basis of a show of hands with each shareholder getting a single vote regardless of the numbers of shares owned. But it may be that the Board can then force a vote based on shareholdings. The Trust could, if so inclined, ask smaller shareholders to proxy their shares to the Trust in support of certain actions or proposals such as the removal of Directors. I need to add up the numbers of shares in circulation, and how many are held by the board. There may even be board members who do not entirely support the current regime. |
502,957 issued shares.
41.5% held by the current board combined. | |
| |
| Sporting director on 10:57 - Feb 18 with 1901 views | judd |
They hold 14.8% combined. | |
| |
| Sporting director on 10:58 - Feb 18 with 1891 views | fitzochris |
| Sporting director on 10:57 - Feb 18 by judd |
They hold 14.8% combined. |
So, if the board managed to acquire them... | |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:00 - Feb 18 with 1881 views | 49thseason |
| Sporting director on 10:42 - Feb 18 by judd |
502,957 issued shares.
41.5% held by the current board combined. |
So 58.5% in the hands of fans and another potential 40% or so in treasury. Time for the trust to step up its game and to start a conversation with all those people who own shares and have forgotten about them or cant be bothered turning up to the AGM?
And no excuse now for not holding an Agm or Egm https://www.uk-engage.org/voting-election-services/online-agm-voting/?ppc_keywor | | | |
| Sporting director on 11:03 - Feb 18 with 1864 views | Hopwoodblue |
We all know this board is looked at by the board.
You would like to think under the current circumstances of what’s going on off the field and on it our Chairman would make some sort of statement even if just to stop any talk of sacking BBM and why so many off the field employees are now necessary.
With us staring relegation in the face and to be honest the way things are going I think its inevitable looking how other clubs around us have been proactive over the last few weeks,
I would like to think the board would be looking to trim costs where ever possible looking at our current league position. They don’t seem to have a problem doing it when recruiting players.
Is adding more office / back room staff putting value on the club if they wish to sell it ?
The silence from the club on what really matters is deafening! [Post edited 18 Feb 2021 11:05]
|  |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:04 - Feb 18 with 1856 views | James1980 |
| Sporting director on 10:58 - Feb 18 by fitzochris |
So, if the board managed to acquire them... |
How much are Altman and Co shares worth. Would they be willing to part with them? | |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:08 - Feb 18 with 1837 views | fitzochris |
| Sporting director on 11:04 - Feb 18 by James1980 |
How much are Altman and Co shares worth. Would they be willing to part with them? |
They are worth what someone is willing to pay, James. In the current climate, as per my previous article, they may be willing to sell more cheaply than previously due to the global financial climate. | |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:09 - Feb 18 with 1825 views | James1980 |
| Sporting director on 11:08 - Feb 18 by fitzochris |
They are worth what someone is willing to pay, James. In the current climate, as per my previous article, they may be willing to sell more cheaply than previously due to the global financial climate. |
I'll chip in a few shillings anyone else? | |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:13 - Feb 18 with 1811 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sporting director on 10:42 - Feb 18 by judd |
502,957 issued shares.
41.5% held by the current board combined. |
I make it 37% - 184920 held by current board - where have I gone wrong? | |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:19 - Feb 18 with 1784 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sporting director on 10:32 - Feb 18 by 49thseason |
"the big shareholders in the board room with their thousands of shares would be able to out-vote the those with a hundred or two."
I'm not sure thats absolutely the case,an AGM is normally done of the basis of a show of hands with each shareholder getting a single vote regardless of the numbers of shares owned. But it may be that the Board can then force a vote based on shareholdings. The Trust could, if so inclined, ask smaller shareholders to proxy their shares to the Trust in support of certain actions or proposals such as the removal of Directors. I need to add up the numbers of shares in circulation, and how many are held by the board. There may even be board members who do not entirely support the current regime. |
Yes for first vote but if a poll is called Articles of Association No 69 reads "one vote for the first 10 ....shares and an additional vote for every 10 additional shares held by him" | |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:22 - Feb 18 with 1762 views | tony_roch975 |
agree about Trust trying to accumulate proxy votes - I'm bequeathing my shares to The Trust | |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:23 - Feb 18 with 1757 views | Hopwoodblue |
On a side note
Would the combined salary of BBM and the new Director of Football not be good enough to attract a manager with a decent pedigree ?
It’s seems we can afford to pay wages for two people when one decent one could do the job required! [Post edited 18 Feb 2021 11:26]
| |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:26 - Feb 18 with 1737 views | judd |
| Sporting director on 11:13 - Feb 18 by tony_roch975 |
I make it 37% - 184920 held by current board - where have I gone wrong? |
Not sure if you have allowed for the last years' acquisition of shares by Mr Kelly?
I make it 208,273 including Mr Smallwood, plus 100 for Mrs Fielding I think. | |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:43 - Feb 18 with 1678 views | 442Dale |
| Sporting director on 11:22 - Feb 18 by tony_roch975 |
agree about Trust trying to accumulate proxy votes - I'm bequeathing my shares to The Trust |
The Trust had called an EGM ahead of the club EGM/AGM last year. Of course, all were postponed. There needs to be some clarification about what is happening about those meetings. |  |
| |
| Sporting director on 11:58 - Feb 18 with 1614 views | YouTubeDale |
We need clarity on the appointment of a Sporting Director. David Bottomley needs to communicate clearly the reasoning behind this move especially as it's a departure from the way Dale have worked so far in our history. This appointment raises too many questions and because the fans/shareholders cannot have a say in the matter because of covid that is even more reason to gain clarity and more importantly trust in the people making vital decisions for the club that impact directly on fans.
Fans are massive stakeholders and therefore deserve and indeed demand accountabilty. |  |
| |
| Sporting director on 12:05 - Feb 18 with 1581 views | D_Alien |
| Sporting director on 10:11 - Feb 18 by James1980 |
This thread has escalated quick. I didn't realise matters off the pitch were so dire, that history is looking like it is repeating and the very existence of the club is at risk. [Post edited 18 Feb 2021 10:23]
|
And good to see that those with a far better handle on the business side than i have are starting to put plans together. Will readily admit that shareholdings and business administration aren't something i'm at all familiar with
Just to pick up a point made by Hopwoodblue about backroom staff - where are on earth are they all going to be accommodated? I was under the impression that office space at the COA was pretty tight as things stood prior to the recruitment of several more 'senior' positions. Not that i care how cramped it is, since there's but one position that has to be brought into account now that the empire-building can be seen for what it is
[Post edited 18 Feb 2021 12:07]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
