| Shocking BBC article. 20:10 - Oct 12 with 17882 views | boromat |
In case you've not seen it. Good on the DaleTrust jumping on it. |  |
| |  |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:51 - Oct 13 with 3328 views | James1980 |
Looks like they are circling the waggons. Radio Bolton have shared a link to this hatchet job. | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:52 - Oct 13 with 3320 views | James1980 |
Looks like they are circling the waggons. Radio Bolton have shared a link to this hatchet job. Update tweet has since been deleted. | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:52 - Oct 13 with 3318 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Shocking BBC article. on 12:53 - Oct 13 by HullDale |
Interestingly the journo has replied to a question on twitter:
Q: "...Did you consult the Club or Daletrust, whom you bizarrely abbreviate to RST?..."
A: "Yes. I did."
It would be good to know who he spoke to at the Club, and whether they were still in employment at the time he spoke to them. I don't believe for one moment he legitimately spoke to anybody from the Trust. |
The Trust tweeted in the OP states he did not contact them.
So either The Trust are wrong or Simon Stone is wrong on that. If he is saying he contacted the Dale Trust, I am sure they will have a record of it.
If he didn't contact Dale Trust - but is now saying that he did - then there is an honesty and credibility issue with a BBC journalist not being truthful. |  |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:55 - Oct 13 with 3309 views | judd |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:52 - Oct 13 by RAFCBLUE |
The Trust tweeted in the OP states he did not contact them.
So either The Trust are wrong or Simon Stone is wrong on that. If he is saying he contacted the Dale Trust, I am sure they will have a record of it.
If he didn't contact Dale Trust - but is now saying that he did - then there is an honesty and credibility issue with a BBC journalist not being truthful. |
The club has formally complained. Why would they if an accredited person gave out this misinformation? |  |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 14:13 - Oct 13 with 3235 views | D_Alien |
One of the things i find particularly annoying (amongst several others) is the way our recent dip in form has been linked to the club and it's fans ousting former directors/employees and their transparent attempts to bring in dodgy 'investment'
Would this article have even been considered if we were doing okay in say, 10th place?
What it amounts to is propaganda; anti-Dale propaganda and anti-Dale fan propaganda
The BBC has become a shameful tool for opinions and rhetoric rather than news
Time for the licence fee to be abolished |  |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 14:27 - Oct 13 with 3175 views | judd |
simon.stone@bbc.co.uk | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 14:32 - Oct 13 with 3131 views | finberty |
RAFCBLUE said there is an honesty and credibility issue with a BBC journalist not being truthful.
Sadly this is not the first time. Didn't we encounter an official response from BBC Radio Manchester, presumably a journalist, arguing that there is no disproportionate amount of coverage in favour of Bolton Wanderers, the exclusion of others?
Perhaps this is their truth, as opposed to the truth. |  | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 14:34 - Oct 13 with 3121 views | 49thseason |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:52 - Oct 13 by James1980 |
Looks like they are circling the waggons. Radio Bolton have shared a link to this hatchet job. Update tweet has since been deleted. |
Would anyone bet against this being a bit of payback for publicising their "special deal" with Bolton and asking awkward questions about it? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Shocking BBC article. on 16:41 - Oct 13 with 2806 views | 14bowlers |
Done my complaint | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 17:34 - Oct 13 with 2652 views | Plattyswrinklynuts |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:52 - Oct 13 by RAFCBLUE |
The Trust tweeted in the OP states he did not contact them.
So either The Trust are wrong or Simon Stone is wrong on that. If he is saying he contacted the Dale Trust, I am sure they will have a record of it.
If he didn't contact Dale Trust - but is now saying that he did - then there is an honesty and credibility issue with a BBC journalist not being truthful. |
BBC journalists not being truthful?
There’s a shocker. They have a long & not too illustrious history of that (Martin Bashir to name but one)… |  | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 18:32 - Oct 13 with 2512 views | krafty80 |
I work as an editor of a business publication which has moved its focus from print to online. It's not in the mainstream media or sport, but I am going to try to offer a bit of insight into what I suspect could have happened here. Note this is just an educated guess. I have no inside info about the BBC or any other news outlet.
It's the international break. From my experience listening to BBC Radio Five Live, Simon Stone's work is mainly focused on the two Manchester clubs, primarily United I think. But when it's international break, there's is much less 'news' from the big clubs knocking about. Does that matter? Yes. In print days, newspapers could manage pagination etc to mitigate loss of content. In the digital era, even as big an organisation as the BBC can't allow its news feeds to run dry. It affects search engines, audience stats and so on. So stories have to be found.
It would not surprise me if in this case, the journalist rang up a few contacts who'd helped him on other stories in the past. These people are likely to be in the Manchester area and may be regarded not so much as football sources but PR specialists. Again I have no knowledge of this story's provenance, but it would not shock me if a PR person or two were involved. Others have speculated about where the information contained in it may have ultimately been sourced from.
The other thing that would not surprise me is a journalist starting to write a story knowing that it has to be finished, come what may. It has to be filed, it cannot fall apart. So could that sway how sources are regarded? For example, if you know a relevant organisation might provide bundles of information that contradicts your almost-done draft, are you really busting a gut to get hold of them, or do you just hunker down and hit your deadline and story quota? The word 'churnalism' was invented for a reason...
The continued use of the passive voice and odd, hard to decipher phrases like 'highlighted negativity' in this particular article lead me to think that the writer himself may not have been wholly convinced by what he was drafting. But like I say, that's just a gut feeling.
I understand people being angry with the BBC over apparent unprofessionalism, and this story's failure in particular to get the Trust's viewpoint across is a major flaw. But let's also not pretend the BBC has the same resources as other news outlets. Yes there is a licence fee, but it doesn't cover much beyond the big ticket TV and radio operations.
The contrast between this piece and the two articles run by The Athletic on the Dale takeover is absolutely glaring. But of course, the Athletic is a paying subscription-only service dedicated to a handful of sports. No wonder the depth and quality is better. You get what you pay for in the media, and dubious pieces like this will appear time and again as long as most of the audience expects news for free in perpetuity.
The best thing about Stone's article is that for all its efforts to rewrite recent history, there isn't a scrap of evidence included to explain why Dale fans were wrong to be suspicious of Morton House and co. In that sense, whoever the contacts were who set the story up, they've failed again. If they can't justify the acquisition of a majority shareholding, who on earth can?! |  | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 19:17 - Oct 13 with 2383 views | DaleiLama |
| Shocking BBC article. on 18:32 - Oct 13 by krafty80 |
I work as an editor of a business publication which has moved its focus from print to online. It's not in the mainstream media or sport, but I am going to try to offer a bit of insight into what I suspect could have happened here. Note this is just an educated guess. I have no inside info about the BBC or any other news outlet.
It's the international break. From my experience listening to BBC Radio Five Live, Simon Stone's work is mainly focused on the two Manchester clubs, primarily United I think. But when it's international break, there's is much less 'news' from the big clubs knocking about. Does that matter? Yes. In print days, newspapers could manage pagination etc to mitigate loss of content. In the digital era, even as big an organisation as the BBC can't allow its news feeds to run dry. It affects search engines, audience stats and so on. So stories have to be found.
It would not surprise me if in this case, the journalist rang up a few contacts who'd helped him on other stories in the past. These people are likely to be in the Manchester area and may be regarded not so much as football sources but PR specialists. Again I have no knowledge of this story's provenance, but it would not shock me if a PR person or two were involved. Others have speculated about where the information contained in it may have ultimately been sourced from.
The other thing that would not surprise me is a journalist starting to write a story knowing that it has to be finished, come what may. It has to be filed, it cannot fall apart. So could that sway how sources are regarded? For example, if you know a relevant organisation might provide bundles of information that contradicts your almost-done draft, are you really busting a gut to get hold of them, or do you just hunker down and hit your deadline and story quota? The word 'churnalism' was invented for a reason...
The continued use of the passive voice and odd, hard to decipher phrases like 'highlighted negativity' in this particular article lead me to think that the writer himself may not have been wholly convinced by what he was drafting. But like I say, that's just a gut feeling.
I understand people being angry with the BBC over apparent unprofessionalism, and this story's failure in particular to get the Trust's viewpoint across is a major flaw. But let's also not pretend the BBC has the same resources as other news outlets. Yes there is a licence fee, but it doesn't cover much beyond the big ticket TV and radio operations.
The contrast between this piece and the two articles run by The Athletic on the Dale takeover is absolutely glaring. But of course, the Athletic is a paying subscription-only service dedicated to a handful of sports. No wonder the depth and quality is better. You get what you pay for in the media, and dubious pieces like this will appear time and again as long as most of the audience expects news for free in perpetuity.
The best thing about Stone's article is that for all its efforts to rewrite recent history, there isn't a scrap of evidence included to explain why Dale fans were wrong to be suspicious of Morton House and co. In that sense, whoever the contacts were who set the story up, they've failed again. If they can't justify the acquisition of a majority shareholding, who on earth can?! |
Had this not appeared on 8th of October and were his WiFi down for the last week preventing him from Googling I might have had a tad more sympathy with him.
https://www.football365.com/news/opinion-whats-happening-at-rochdale-is-a-failur
There is also a bunch of other stuff in the public domain on this whole pitiful saga of a stream of conmen trying to bring our club to its knees for their own profit.
Sorry, but for me, it it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'm thinking it's a duck. This piece of "journalism" (I use the term loosely) is a dead duck. [Post edited 13 Oct 2021 19:18]
|  |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 19:24 - Oct 13 with 2345 views | Newbury_Dale |
Maybe a deliberate attempt to destabilise/smear the club during the share application period. I am sure Stone is returning a favour for someone with this. | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 20:54 - Oct 13 with 2112 views | EllDale |
I’d be tempted if I were the board to ban the BBC from the COA for the foreseeable future.
And get the ban in place before the Bolton game which they’re bound to want to turn up for.
Be interesting to see how they explain that away to the loyal fans of Radio Bolton.
But I’d also be tempted to delay any sanctions until we see the cup draw and if they might be tempted to cover a game from Spotland on television! | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 21:41 - Oct 13 with 1963 views | 49thseason |
| Shocking BBC article. on 20:54 - Oct 13 by EllDale |
I’d be tempted if I were the board to ban the BBC from the COA for the foreseeable future.
And get the ban in place before the Bolton game which they’re bound to want to turn up for.
Be interesting to see how they explain that away to the loyal fans of Radio Bolton.
But I’d also be tempted to delay any sanctions until we see the cup draw and if they might be tempted to cover a game from Spotland on television! |
We need to get them out of the Wilbutts Lane stand and somewhere were some tasty chants can be heard, especially if we are playing their beloved Bolton. Who knows, we might get them in the Cup too! | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 21:56 - Oct 13 with 1907 views | James1980 |
| Shocking BBC article. on 20:54 - Oct 13 by EllDale |
I’d be tempted if I were the board to ban the BBC from the COA for the foreseeable future.
And get the ban in place before the Bolton game which they’re bound to want to turn up for.
Be interesting to see how they explain that away to the loyal fans of Radio Bolton.
But I’d also be tempted to delay any sanctions until we see the cup draw and if they might be tempted to cover a game from Spotland on television! |
Maybe ITV sport would like to put out a factually correct article and help us stick it to the BBC. | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 22:26 - Oct 13 with 1834 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Shocking BBC article. on 20:54 - Oct 13 by EllDale |
I’d be tempted if I were the board to ban the BBC from the COA for the foreseeable future.
And get the ban in place before the Bolton game which they’re bound to want to turn up for.
Be interesting to see how they explain that away to the loyal fans of Radio Bolton.
But I’d also be tempted to delay any sanctions until we see the cup draw and if they might be tempted to cover a game from Spotland on television! |
I don't think anyone is looking to ban the BBC.
What we are looking for is factually accurate reporting based on verifiable information that is in the public domain.
For example:
The Simon Stone article says very clearly When Halsall backed away, Curran and his Morton House group became the board's number one choice.
Here's what actually happened:
1st June: Bottomley and Rawlinson removed by shareholders following a legal and democratic majority vote at the EGM.
3rd June: Club statement
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/june/boardstatement030621/
"We need time to consider the next steps carefully and reflect on Tuesday night’s outcomes. It is only then that we will be in a position to provide a further update."
8th June: Club statement
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/june/board-of-directors-update/
"We hope these appointments will be the first steps towards rebuilding the trust of the shareholders, Dale Supporters Trust board and members, and fans, and that we can all unite to move forward as one"
16th June: Simon Gauge elected new chairman
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/june/simongaugeelectedchairman/
We have also made the decision that we will call another EGM to get authorisation for a share issue. This will be quite different to the last set of resolutions brought to the last EGM. The terms of this issue will be very clearly set out and it will give directors, existing shareholders, Season Card holders and all supporters the opportunity to purchase shares in the club and cement our place as one of the few fan-owned clubs in the EFL, generating much needed funds.
30th June: Club statement
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/june/statement_boardofdirectors/
We are aware of a group or individuals who are currently attempting to buy shares from shareholders with a takeover in mind.
The Board is not in support of this action, but is seeking to create a share issue soon to qualifying individuals to raise funds.
12th July: EFL statement
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/july/efl-statement_rochdaleafc/
"At present no approval has been granted as a result of the specific requirements not being met. The EFL is still to receive any evidence of the source and sufficiency of funding on behalf of any potential purchaser, and, in addition, the Club is yet to submit the necessary Future Financial Information (FFI).
5th August: EFL statement regarding Rochdale AFC
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/august/eflstatement_050821/
"The EFL continues to work with Rochdale AFC, Morton House Mgt and First Form Construction Limited alongside a number of other individuals in relation to applications under the EFL’s Owners’ and Directors‘ Test.
Based on discussions to date, the EFL has reserved its position in respect of any matters arising out of the ongoing situation at the Club and will take the most appropriate action available to it under its Regulations.
Any allegations in relation to discriminatory comments are matters for the Football Association which can investigate any individual who is subject to the FA Rules at the time the comments were allegedly made."
21st August: EFL statement - Rochdale AFC
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/august/eflstatement_21.08.21/
On 16 August 2021, in accordance with its Regulations, the EFL issued notice to multiple individuals of the commencement of disciplinary investigations in respect to the acquisition of shares in Rochdale Association Football Club.
Conclusion:
At no point from the AGM did Morton House become the "number one" Board choice.
Quite the opposite in fact. Statements on 8th, 16th and 30th June note that the aim is to be a supporter led club.
EFL statements on 12th July, 5th and 21st August note that Morton House acted outside of EFL rules and therefore are subject to a currently live EFL investigation.
Quite simple, Simon. | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 00:23 - Oct 14 with 1638 views | wozzrafc |
Sorry if it’s been mentioned before but has anyone noticed the article has been edited!!
Example:
“In June, at a five-hour meeting, Rochdale directors David Bottomley and Graham Rawlinson were voted off the board by shareholders. No representatives of Morton House were allowed into the meeting because their purchase had not been recognised.”
The bit about Morton house has been removed!!!
That’s practically admitting it was not factual.
If that was wrong why not admit it !! Again I ask what is the authors agenda | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 00:37 - Oct 14 with 1624 views | Sandyman |
| Shocking BBC article. on 00:23 - Oct 14 by wozzrafc |
Sorry if it’s been mentioned before but has anyone noticed the article has been edited!!
Example:
“In June, at a five-hour meeting, Rochdale directors David Bottomley and Graham Rawlinson were voted off the board by shareholders. No representatives of Morton House were allowed into the meeting because their purchase had not been recognised.”
The bit about Morton house has been removed!!!
That’s practically admitting it was not factual.
If that was wrong why not admit it !! Again I ask what is the authors agenda |
"In June, at a five-hour meeting, Rochdale directors David Bottomley and Graham Rawlinson were voted off the board by shareholders. No representatives of Morton House were allowed into the meeting because their purchase had not been recognised. With the atmosphere turning increasingly toxic, Curran stepped away. The EFL began an investigation."
is now...
"In June, at a five-hour meeting, Rochdale directors David Bottomley and Graham Rawlinson were voted off the board by shareholders.
With the atmosphere turning increasingly toxic, Curran stepped away. The EFL began an investigation."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58883213
Ooooh, Simon got a squeaky bum edit? You'll have to correct a lot more to show a semblance of integrity in your reporting. We have the original. We're watching. |  | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 00:52 - Oct 14 with 1605 views | wozzrafc |
The reason I noticed the edit was I wanted to point something out on the timeline.
The whole article points out the Morton House were hard done by and that the were stopped taking ownership of their rightly purchased shares by the football club board not completing the paperwork.
Indeed they were unable to vote at the EGM in June for this very reason.
Well if that is the case why did the people selling the shares all attend that meeting or give proxy for their shares if they sold them. We know they all voted differently.
And secondly if it was the plan of the club to sell to Morton house why would the board in place at the time of the EGM plan to sell the shares to Morton House but refuse to then sign the share transfer.
Seems to me Simon Stone has realised he’s swallowed a big pile of bull shit but rather than hold his hands up and admitting it he’s trying to remove the obvious inaccuracies one sly edit at a time!!
Given what’s in the rest of the article, if he continues to edit it by this time next week it will read “ Simon Gauge is a lifelong Dale Fan.” | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 01:30 - Oct 14 with 1577 views | wozzrafc |
| Shocking BBC article. on 00:52 - Oct 14 by wozzrafc |
The reason I noticed the edit was I wanted to point something out on the timeline.
The whole article points out the Morton House were hard done by and that the were stopped taking ownership of their rightly purchased shares by the football club board not completing the paperwork.
Indeed they were unable to vote at the EGM in June for this very reason.
Well if that is the case why did the people selling the shares all attend that meeting or give proxy for their shares if they sold them. We know they all voted differently.
And secondly if it was the plan of the club to sell to Morton house why would the board in place at the time of the EGM plan to sell the shares to Morton House but refuse to then sign the share transfer.
Seems to me Simon Stone has realised he’s swallowed a big pile of bull shit but rather than hold his hands up and admitting it he’s trying to remove the obvious inaccuracies one sly edit at a time!!
Given what’s in the rest of the article, if he continues to edit it by this time next week it will read “ Simon Gauge is a lifelong Dale Fan.” |
Thinking about it, has someone asked stone to remove that line for a reason? Has stone inadvertently let the cat out of the bag and the Morton House deal was already well under way / agreed BEFORE June’s EGM……… | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 07:16 - Oct 14 with 1418 views | Zac_B |
| Shocking BBC article. on 01:30 - Oct 14 by wozzrafc |
Thinking about it, has someone asked stone to remove that line for a reason? Has stone inadvertently let the cat out of the bag and the Morton House deal was already well under way / agreed BEFORE June’s EGM……… |
I explicitly mentioned that line in my complaint, and asked what Simon Stone knew which we didn't, as nobody had heard of Morton House on June 1st... | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 07:41 - Oct 14 with 1379 views | James1980 |
"If Morton House had been open and transparent, BBC Sport has been told, they would have been welcomed by Rochdale fans. But they were not. The fans did not know where the money was coming from."
I'm pretty sure after the in depth analysis that took place into the various characters and their 'business' connections. They wouldn't have been welcome regardless of how 'open and transparent' they tried to be. | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 08:18 - Oct 14 with 1320 views | Dalenet |
| Shocking BBC article. on 22:45 - Oct 12 by wozzrafc |
This part here suggests to me it is Jarvis/Southall behind the article/sources:
“ Southall feels there is no reason why he would fail the EFL owners and directors' test. Rochdale's fans, prompted by Charlton supporters who have highlighted negativity, are keen to make sure it does not get that far and are determined to keep Southall away. A recent virtual meeting between the two parties found no common ground.
All sides now agree the current picture is one of confusion and legal debate, not helped by the fact there are almost 398,000 'golden shares' lying dormant, which the club could try to raise money by selling.
However, there is uncertainty about whether they have to be offered on a pro-rata basis to current shareholders and, for those currently running the club, that is fraught with problems.
If, for instance, Morton House bought 42% of the new shares but some of the rest went unsold, that could take them above the overall 50% threshold that might trigger a sale to Southall.” |
The club isn't going to be "selling" shares as it is a private company and is restricted in how it can offer shares for sale by law. There will be no share offer or prospectus. Potential shareholders need to request that they want to acquire shares. The more that do, the less chance we have of the larger shareholders acquiring stock. To my mind the Board can argue that large shareholders shouldn't be allowed to strengthen their holding given the Board strategy to remain fan owned. That argument is diluted if the 400,000 new shares go unsold.
We should also remember that this is a private company. There is no dividend policy and there is no exit strategy. You have a restricted audience who would buy your shares. So rather than see it as a productive investment, fans should reflect on the fact that their shares are really a long term donation to allow investment in the club and keep it safe from predatory owners. If we go under your shares are worth nowt. I say that because everybody buying shares should be clear that you are not buying a tradeable share in a public company. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
