| We've got our club back 19:15 - Oct 6 with 37900 views | judd |
7 minutes and 1 vote against.
Thank you, Mr Chairman and fellow board members.
|  |
| |  |
| We've got our club back on 22:02 - Oct 8 with 3696 views | Sandyman |
| We've got our club back on 21:31 - Oct 8 by R17ALE |
If I can pull you up on one thing. Rawlinson was never a fan like the average person on here. To him, it was a Gentleman's club - an autocracy where he stood at the helm.
Bottomley played the role of the fan to suck people into believing he was a super fan. He played a long term game and nearly won.
Selling to the right people is common sense if you think logically. If someone offers £200 for 100 shares they're hardly trying to gain a large stake. But if someone, previously unknown, offers £50,000 for 25,000 shares, that will flag up.
Bottomley and Rawlinson got as far as they did because our radars were rusty due to decades of the overcoat men. I think we've all wised up and learned valuable lessons this year.
In contrast, the overcoat men weren't fans at first either. One was City, the other United.
But, and this is the point, they were good men.
Not tvvats. [Post edited 8 Oct 2021 23:31]
|
Nail on head. Brilliant. |  | | |
| We've got our club back on 22:36 - Oct 8 with 3572 views | D_Alien |
| We've got our club back on 15:26 - Oct 8 by Shun |
19 posters, all pretty regular posters and well-respected names, seems pretty unanimous to me. My point is that there were no dissenting voices when he was first appointed all those years ago. If you did have your reservations, and I'm absolutely not saying that you didn't, then you didn't share them on here until later and there was nothing to the average fan that would alert suspicion on to DB. |
Having just re-read what i'd posted in that thread, i'm completely embarrassed by that and acknowledge that it was posted without any real insight into his character or business history. It was based upon what information was readily to hand at the time
My misgivings arose from the direct experience of fan forums where it became clear as daylight that the Chair (A. Kilpatrick) was a mere puppet, which then led to further background information becoming available from "sources"
As 442 says above, lessons to be learned |  |
| |
| We've got our club back on 22:49 - Oct 8 with 3527 views | James1980 |
| We've got our club back on 22:36 - Oct 8 by D_Alien |
Having just re-read what i'd posted in that thread, i'm completely embarrassed by that and acknowledge that it was posted without any real insight into his character or business history. It was based upon what information was readily to hand at the time
My misgivings arose from the direct experience of fan forums where it became clear as daylight that the Chair (A. Kilpatrick) was a mere puppet, which then led to further background information becoming available from "sources"
As 442 says above, lessons to be learned |
'Chairman Chris Dunphy commented: “We first approached David about joining the board a few years ago'
You shouldn't be embarrassed. |  |
| |
| We've got our club back on 22:54 - Oct 8 with 3509 views | Dalenet |
| We've got our club back on 22:49 - Oct 8 by James1980 |
'Chairman Chris Dunphy commented: “We first approached David about joining the board a few years ago'
You shouldn't be embarrassed. |
The alarm bells should have rung when his first task as a Board Director was to set the price for season tickets. It was a disaster and had to be reversed the following season. There was outrage at the time. Then came the carriages affair.
Hindsight is wonderful | | | |
| We've got our club back on 23:28 - Oct 8 with 3442 views | R17ALE |
| We've got our club back on 22:36 - Oct 8 by D_Alien |
Having just re-read what i'd posted in that thread, i'm completely embarrassed by that and acknowledge that it was posted without any real insight into his character or business history. It was based upon what information was readily to hand at the time
My misgivings arose from the direct experience of fan forums where it became clear as daylight that the Chair (A. Kilpatrick) was a mere puppet, which then led to further background information becoming available from "sources"
As 442 says above, lessons to be learned |
Fair play to you holding your hands up. I too, do likewise. I once stayed at his house in Henley as a stopover for Aldershot away. Yes, the wine flowed and I was suckered in. With hindsight, he played me because I know a lot of fans.
Like many, I thought Judd was on an ill gotten mission at first, and then things started to not add up.
We owe Judd a big thanks as the questioner and finally the executioner. Well done lad!
There is a boil still to lance. Bottomley hoodwinked virtually everyone at the club. For their credibility, they need to step forward and renounce the evil Bottomley, and apologise unreservedly. Those that don't will forever be tainted, and eventually scorched.
They know who they are. [Post edited 9 Oct 2021 8:38]
|  |
| |
| We've got our club back on 00:54 - Oct 9 with 3332 views | pioneer |
| We've got our club back on 21:31 - Oct 8 by R17ALE |
If I can pull you up on one thing. Rawlinson was never a fan like the average person on here. To him, it was a Gentleman's club - an autocracy where he stood at the helm.
Bottomley played the role of the fan to suck people into believing he was a super fan. He played a long term game and nearly won.
Selling to the right people is common sense if you think logically. If someone offers £200 for 100 shares they're hardly trying to gain a large stake. But if someone, previously unknown, offers £50,000 for 25,000 shares, that will flag up.
Bottomley and Rawlinson got as far as they did because our radars were rusty due to decades of the overcoat men. I think we've all wised up and learned valuable lessons this year.
In contrast, the overcoat men weren't fans at first either. One was City, the other United.
But, and this is the point, they were good men.
Not tvvats. [Post edited 8 Oct 2021 23:31]
|
OK but we have to go back to the time that he acquired his shares…..what at that time would have identified him as a scoundrel and how would you propose the current/ soon to be share offering be presented to stop someone with the profile he had at the time he acquired his shares, from buying shares now.
Some have suggested maximum quantity of shareholding but that is something applied to everyone (fan, however that is defined, and soon to be scoundrel, alike).
And maximum shareholdings can be got around by purchasing shares for, or by, family/friends.
The challenge we now face is far from easy. | | | |
| We've got our club back on 00:59 - Oct 9 with 3317 views | pioneer |
| We've got our club back on 20:31 - Oct 8 by judd |
Are you sure it was a club employee? |
Maybe not 100% sure…wasnt a former club secretary at one point on the trust board/committe? I seem to recall some lively exchanges on this board about whether that was appropriate.
I am not referring to either of the scoundrels named in this thread. | | | |
| We've got our club back on 08:18 - Oct 9 with 3076 views | Dalenet |
| We've got our club back on 00:54 - Oct 9 by pioneer |
OK but we have to go back to the time that he acquired his shares…..what at that time would have identified him as a scoundrel and how would you propose the current/ soon to be share offering be presented to stop someone with the profile he had at the time he acquired his shares, from buying shares now.
Some have suggested maximum quantity of shareholding but that is something applied to everyone (fan, however that is defined, and soon to be scoundrel, alike).
And maximum shareholdings can be got around by purchasing shares for, or by, family/friends.
The challenge we now face is far from easy. |
I don't see it as a challenge - I only see opportunity. We can set a maximum shareholding of 20,000 shares or 5%, or some other amount for this issue. If the share offer is oversubscribed that would be a good thing too as the shareholder base would be substantial in number. This is our moment.
There is always a risk with a private company that somebody offers to buy the shares from another fan/director to increase their stake. There has to be a market somewhere for those that need to sell. Just lets make it harder for somebody to be able to amass a sizeable stake. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| We've got our club back on 08:44 - Oct 9 with 3014 views | Swissdale |
| We've got our club back on 22:36 - Oct 8 by D_Alien |
Having just re-read what i'd posted in that thread, i'm completely embarrassed by that and acknowledge that it was posted without any real insight into his character or business history. It was based upon what information was readily to hand at the time
My misgivings arose from the direct experience of fan forums where it became clear as daylight that the Chair (A. Kilpatrick) was a mere puppet, which then led to further background information becoming available from "sources"
As 442 says above, lessons to be learned |
As another of the fawning posters on the original thread, I feel pretty much the same.
What I will say though is that I’m not convinced there was a long-term “evil plan”. I think initially the poor management was a sign of incompetence, before things increasingly became more sinister and self-serving.
Despite not knowing him personally (or becoming libellous), there is enough information in the public domain about DB’s personal life. I would say these (self-inflicted) set of circumstances have been the biggest factor in the switch.
Nowadays, his actions are just downright strange (posting and liking things on social media about the club despite trying to sell us down the river), these are the actions of a broken man who probably needs help. |  | | |
| We've got our club back on 09:39 - Oct 9 with 2900 views | judd |
| We've got our club back on 00:59 - Oct 9 by pioneer |
Maybe not 100% sure…wasnt a former club secretary at one point on the trust board/committe? I seem to recall some lively exchanges on this board about whether that was appropriate.
I am not referring to either of the scoundrels named in this thread. |
Sorry, you are absolutely correct. Colin Garlick stepped up to the Trust board when fans wouldn't and it saved a lot of time for the other volunteers in getting things done.
Now we have a Trust board member, which I think is a superb move by both boards. | |
| |
| We've got our club back on 10:15 - Oct 9 with 2824 views | R17ALE |
| We've got our club back on 08:44 - Oct 9 by Swissdale |
As another of the fawning posters on the original thread, I feel pretty much the same.
What I will say though is that I’m not convinced there was a long-term “evil plan”. I think initially the poor management was a sign of incompetence, before things increasingly became more sinister and self-serving.
Despite not knowing him personally (or becoming libellous), there is enough information in the public domain about DB’s personal life. I would say these (self-inflicted) set of circumstances have been the biggest factor in the switch.
Nowadays, his actions are just downright strange (posting and liking things on social media about the club despite trying to sell us down the river), these are the actions of a broken man who probably needs help. |
I think there is more than enough evidence to suggest a long term plan.
He used to say to me that he'd love to have Iain Johnstone's job -"that's my perfect job".
He told us the United money would only keep us going for a couple of months. He told us we were unsustainable without investment and were punching above our weight in League One.
Imho he was trying to pre-condition us all into a position where we'd react like bury fans to a so-called investor. A crafty manipulator par excellence putting the wind up us before unleashing the winds of hell through the club from which he'd walk away with money in his pocket.
But, I do agree about his incompetence which is why he's snatched an awful, earth -shattering defeat from the jaws of a likely victory. | |
| |
| We've got our club back on 12:05 - Oct 9 with 2609 views | pioneer |
| We've got our club back on 09:39 - Oct 9 by judd |
Sorry, you are absolutely correct. Colin Garlick stepped up to the Trust board when fans wouldn't and it saved a lot of time for the other volunteers in getting things done.
Now we have a Trust board member, which I think is a superb move by both boards. |
Agreed. | | | |
| We've got our club back on 12:25 - Oct 9 with 2555 views | Marjorie_Plane |
I think the issue with David Bottomley comes down to the word ‘trust’.
Let’s go back to the Hasbro case 2004, https://bit.ly/3uVCVTe and look at what actually happened.
The Office of Fair Trade started an investigation into price-fixing by toy company
Hasbro in March 2001. The investigation centred not on Hasbro’s relations with retailers, but on price-fixing and/or resale price maintenance by Hasbro and a number of its distributors.
This ‘pricing initiative’ or ‘price fixing’ involved maintaining retail margins on Hasbro’s toys and games by persuading retailers to sell Hasbro products at Hasbro’s recommended retail prices. (RRPs). They would then receive a core rebate of 5%. Senior employees of Hasbro, namely Mike McCulloch, David Bottomley and Mike Brighty, Sales Directors, were active participants in setting up this initiative.
It was the OFT’s view that Hasbro’s ‘pricing initiative’, of which David Bottomley and others were active participants, led directly to an overall infringing agreement and/or concerted practice between Hasbro, Argos and Littlewoods. i.e. price fixing.
The OFT’s decision to prosecute, was, essentially, based on the case was established by the witness statements of Messrs Bottomley and others. Hasbro applied on 14 September 2001 for total immunity from financial penalty or in the alternative, a reduction in the level of penalty due to the level of cooperation by David Bottomley et al.
The OFT’s view was, the case against each appellant is largely proved by the witness evidence of Messrs Bottomley & others. The OFT required Argos to pay a penalty of £17.28 million, while Littlewoods was required to pay a penalty of £5.37 million.
Hasbro’s penalty was assessed by the OFT at £15.59 million, but because Hasbro approached the OFT with information that led to the uncovering of the infringement Hasbro’s penalty was reduced to NIL.
David Bottomley was an active participant in setting up the pricing initiative and then gave evidence against those that joined it. Make of that what you will.
The above case and his role in it, was put to David Bottomley at a meeting with supporters, arranged by him, when he first joined the Board. He totally denied it was him. He told the group it was a different David Bottomley. When further overwhelming evidence was put to him, he broke down and cried and finally admitted it was indeed him.
Trust: ‘firm belief in the reliability, truth or ability of someone or something.’ |  | | |
| We've got our club back on 13:37 - Oct 9 with 2391 views | wozzrafc |
I think when it come down to it nobody expected things to get as bad as what they did. But a series of events led to the conditions for bottemley being able to what he did.
Andrew Kilpatrick wanting to play chairman but not being prepared to put the time or effort in.
Chris Dunphy selling his shares to the yanks.
The finances being hit by COVID leading to Kilpatrick pulling out.
Bottemley saw an opportunity to hawk the club and make a killing, using the story the club is skint and will go under!!
Thankfully we were able to react, both at the EGM in June and everything ever since. How often have trusts been formed when the shit has already hit the fan and all they can do is wipe the smears from the walls and open the window to get rid of the stench. Thank god we were ready!!!! [Post edited 9 Oct 2021 13:40]
| | | |
| We've got our club back on 13:50 - Oct 9 with 2343 views | fitzochris |
I’ve kept my own counsel on David Bottomley up to now because I felt so badly let down by him, it actually made me ill. Only now do I feel I can talk about it openly. It might sound a bit melodramatic, but that’s what happened and so there we are.
I adopted a neutral approach with Bottomley. I fully took on board what all parties were saying about him and he about them. I certainly didn’t always agree with him and nor him with me, but I took confidence from the fact he was very open with me whenever we spoke, so I treated him fairly. I asked him the hard questions too - and, at the time, I believed he answered them honestly.
Like many, I genuinely believed, despite his past misdemeanours, that he had the club’s best interests at heart, especially in the early stages of the pandemic with an invisible chairman.
It was this seeming openness that disarmed me. It led to misplaced trust and, ultimately, that was my undoing. BBM’s secret contract extension and a host of other things made me realise, I’d been played like everybody else. It was a complete slap in the face. I thought I had an ally at the club when taking a public beating from high-profile social-media users after speaking my mind about the state of things on the pitch. I didn’t.
I’ve learned my lesson.
What has gone on to happen from there, and the fact the club was put at risk as a result, is unforgivable for me - not just DB, but all of those who profited from the sale of their shares to an external horror.
Thank a higher force that we supporters clubbed together to stop it.
We now have people we know have the club’s interests at heart running things and long may that continue |  |
| |
| We've got our club back on 13:51 - Oct 9 with 2335 views | D_Alien |
| We've got our club back on 13:37 - Oct 9 by wozzrafc |
I think when it come down to it nobody expected things to get as bad as what they did. But a series of events led to the conditions for bottemley being able to what he did.
Andrew Kilpatrick wanting to play chairman but not being prepared to put the time or effort in.
Chris Dunphy selling his shares to the yanks.
The finances being hit by COVID leading to Kilpatrick pulling out.
Bottemley saw an opportunity to hawk the club and make a killing, using the story the club is skint and will go under!!
Thankfully we were able to react, both at the EGM in June and everything ever since. How often have trusts been formed when the shit has already hit the fan and all they can do is wipe the smears from the walls and open the window to get rid of the stench. Thank god we were ready!!!! [Post edited 9 Oct 2021 13:40]
|
Your last point is bang on, and makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end just to think about it. As time starts to pass, its looking like a very narrow escape indeed, though not yet complete
One point i'm not sure about is the reasoning behind Kilpatrick stepping down as Chair. It was stated as being for personal reasons, which can include a multitude of things
It's not clear how far the talks with the sharks were advanced at that point, but knowing the ill-wind that was going to blow and given his aversity to having the spotlight shone upon him (such as at fan forums) directly and in person, it'd be no surprise if 'personal reasons' didn't simply amount to taking himself out of the firing line | |
| |
| We've got our club back on 13:55 - Oct 9 with 2304 views | judd |
| We've got our club back on 13:51 - Oct 9 by D_Alien |
Your last point is bang on, and makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end just to think about it. As time starts to pass, its looking like a very narrow escape indeed, though not yet complete
One point i'm not sure about is the reasoning behind Kilpatrick stepping down as Chair. It was stated as being for personal reasons, which can include a multitude of things
It's not clear how far the talks with the sharks were advanced at that point, but knowing the ill-wind that was going to blow and given his aversity to having the spotlight shone upon him (such as at fan forums) directly and in person, it'd be no surprise if 'personal reasons' didn't simply amount to taking himself out of the firing line |
One of the potential investors claimed it was the use of prostitutes
His mention of deposits in Montenegron brass were not an offshore bank account [Post edited 9 Oct 2021 14:14]
| |
| |
| We've got our club back on 14:09 - Oct 9 with 2259 views | wozzrafc |
| We've got our club back on 13:51 - Oct 9 by D_Alien |
Your last point is bang on, and makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end just to think about it. As time starts to pass, its looking like a very narrow escape indeed, though not yet complete
One point i'm not sure about is the reasoning behind Kilpatrick stepping down as Chair. It was stated as being for personal reasons, which can include a multitude of things
It's not clear how far the talks with the sharks were advanced at that point, but knowing the ill-wind that was going to blow and given his aversity to having the spotlight shone upon him (such as at fan forums) directly and in person, it'd be no surprise if 'personal reasons' didn't simply amount to taking himself out of the firing line |
My point was when the COVID hit and the club needed leadership and funds to see it through, Kilpatrick decided to pull out.
I’m convinced that previous boards would have put their hands in the pocket if needed, but ld from the front.
Instead the club was left with Bottemley in charge with no one he was accountable to or question him. We were desperately needing funds. | | | |
| We've got our club back on 14:13 - Oct 9 with 2239 views | R17ALE |
| We've got our club back on 13:55 - Oct 9 by judd |
One of the potential investors claimed it was the use of prostitutes
His mention of deposits in Montenegron brass were not an offshore bank account [Post edited 9 Oct 2021 14:14]
|
And Montenegro ones to boot!! | |
| |
| We've got our club back on 15:44 - Oct 9 with 2077 views | seasidedale |
Just got an application for shares come through via email , it’s minimum 100 @£2 a share, think this put many people off or price them out (me for one) | | | |
| We've got our club back on 18:44 - Oct 9 with 1901 views | Shun |
| We've got our club back on 19:03 - Oct 8 by MoonyDale |
23 posts, 19 unique Dale posters and 11 of those including yourself in favour/pleased with the appointment....The rest didn't even give a view one way or the other and were just replying to other posts, if we're going to use numbers let's get them correct... |
I’m not sure what your issue is, Moony, but I think you’ve missed the point. Also, I wasn’t the one who brought up numbers...
The point is that when the news was announced it was pretty unanimously well-received. Only judd had any reservations, and he’s even admitted that he didn’t share them on here until later. |  | | |
| We've got our club back on 18:48 - Oct 9 with 1884 views | Shun |
| We've got our club back on 22:36 - Oct 8 by D_Alien |
Having just re-read what i'd posted in that thread, i'm completely embarrassed by that and acknowledge that it was posted without any real insight into his character or business history. It was based upon what information was readily to hand at the time
My misgivings arose from the direct experience of fan forums where it became clear as daylight that the Chair (A. Kilpatrick) was a mere puppet, which then led to further background information becoming available from "sources"
As 442 says above, lessons to be learned |
Absolutely, DA, and I’m right there with you in admitting I was sucked in, but there’s certainly no reason to be embarrassed. He’s a charismatic and charming speaker who fooled the majority of us. When he was first appointed I saw a man who’d been going to Dale games as long as I can remember, a familiar face, an affable person, and a (seemingly) successful businessman.
There was nothing to suggest anything untoward, so well done to judd for sticking to his guns. I agree with you and 442 though, lessons to be learned. | | | |
| We've got our club back on 18:53 - Oct 9 with 1859 views | James1980 |
| We've got our club back on 18:44 - Oct 9 by Shun |
I’m not sure what your issue is, Moony, but I think you’ve missed the point. Also, I wasn’t the one who brought up numbers...
The point is that when the news was announced it was pretty unanimously well-received. Only judd had any reservations, and he’s even admitted that he didn’t share them on here until later. |
Isn't there another thread? One from after a forum or AGM. Where DRB is spoken about in very positive terms. It has been bumped on here in the last 6-12 months. | |
| |
| We've got our club back on 19:28 - Oct 9 with 1784 views | MoonyDale |
| We've got our club back on 18:44 - Oct 9 by Shun |
I’m not sure what your issue is, Moony, but I think you’ve missed the point. Also, I wasn’t the one who brought up numbers...
The point is that when the news was announced it was pretty unanimously well-received. Only judd had any reservations, and he’s even admitted that he didn’t share them on here until later. |
No point missed at all, just pointing out the numbers from that particular thread....It's all academic now as everyone now understands what a duplicitous Tvvat he was and is....I remember well the fans forum after he had been ushered in when myself and a Sandy Lane mate were standing at the bar as Bottomley came bouncing up, he soon bounced off ashen faced when introducing myself as his old school mate, one who knew he had never stood on said Sandy Lane as he professed....He was full of crap then, and full of crap still..... |  |
| |
| We've got our club back on 19:36 - Oct 9 with 1746 views | 100notout |
To quote Fitzo
"Like many, I genuinely believed, despite his past misdemeanours, that he had the club’s best interests at heart, especially in the early stages of the pandemic with an invisible chairman.
It was this seeming openness that disarmed me. It led to misplaced trust and, ultimately, that was my undoing. BBM’s secret contract extension and a host of other things made me realise, I’d been played like everybody else. It was a complete slap in the face."
My thoughts exactly - I would also add that I believed he was just grossly incompetent rather than having any ulterior motive - wrong again!!!!!
PS hope you're feeling better Fitzo. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
