Quantcast
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
FAO Simon Stone 22:03 - Oct 12 with 2538 viewsRAFCBLUE

Here's what our Board said on the 1st June 2021 (the day of the AGM/EGM):

https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/june/updatetosupporters/

The key bit:
"Should the resolutions put forward by the club be passed by shareholders, it would ensure that any investment will come directly into Rochdale AFC through the issue of new shares, which would be put directly into achieving previously mentioned ambitions."

On the evening, shareholders rejected the resolutions proposed.

This somewhat contradicts your statement

"When Halsall backed away, Curran and his Morton House group became the board's number one choice.

The plan had been for Morton House to take a majority stake in Rochdale through private, independent deals with seven shareholders. But former chairman Andrew Kelly did not complete, which left Morton House with 42%."


Look forward to reading the retraction.
[Post edited 12 Oct 22:08]

Poll: Who REALLY wrote and fact checked the factually flawed BBC article

1

FAO Simon Stone on 22:27 - Oct 12 with 2333 viewsR17ALE

Curran told the Trust that Bottom phoned him after the June 1st EGM had finished from the car park. Circa 11.30pm. He told him the resolutions had failed due to proxies acquired. Halsall was unknown to Curran who had thought he was the front runner.

And then, the hostile takeover began with Bottom trying to deliver on his promises.

£1m later, Curran is left with 43% and the club nimbly manoeuvre themselves to protect the club, which with the fans support, we will.

Someone has lost a lot of money here. They will want revenge from the protagonist.

And Southall has disappeared down a rat hole.

Poll: Who do you think bury should appoint as their next manager?

1
FAO Simon Stone on 22:38 - Oct 12 with 2292 viewsRAFCBLUE

FAO Simon Stone on 22:27 - Oct 12 by R17ALE

Curran told the Trust that Bottom phoned him after the June 1st EGM had finished from the car park. Circa 11.30pm. He told him the resolutions had failed due to proxies acquired. Halsall was unknown to Curran who had thought he was the front runner.

And then, the hostile takeover began with Bottom trying to deliver on his promises.

£1m later, Curran is left with 43% and the club nimbly manoeuvre themselves to protect the club, which with the fans support, we will.

Someone has lost a lot of money here. They will want revenge from the protagonist.

And Southall has disappeared down a rat hole.


"Someone has lost a lot of money here."

This is the crux of the issue.

Who was the man or woman who felt they could broker a deal which the BBC (not us) quotes as "The plan had been for Morton House to take a majority stake in Rochdale through private, independent deals with seven shareholders. But former chairman Andrew Kelly did not complete, which left Morton House with 42%."

Fans know who the broker is!

I'd wager that that £1m spent is likely now to be lost forever, tucked into the pockets of the six selling shareholders who are long gone, to sunnier climbs and never to be seen at Spotland again....

Poll: Who REALLY wrote and fact checked the factually flawed BBC article

0
FAO Simon Stone on 13:52 - Oct 13 with 1766 viewsjudd

FAO Simon Stone on 22:27 - Oct 12 by R17ALE

Curran told the Trust that Bottom phoned him after the June 1st EGM had finished from the car park. Circa 11.30pm. He told him the resolutions had failed due to proxies acquired. Halsall was unknown to Curran who had thought he was the front runner.

And then, the hostile takeover began with Bottom trying to deliver on his promises.

£1m later, Curran is left with 43% and the club nimbly manoeuvre themselves to protect the club, which with the fans support, we will.

Someone has lost a lot of money here. They will want revenge from the protagonist.

And Southall has disappeared down a rat hole.


Add to that the fact that Curran told the Trust that Bottomley stopped taking his calls leading up to the AGM/EGM and he was quite surprised to hear from him afterwards.

Poll: What is it to be then?

0
FAO Simon Stone on 22:10 - Oct 13 with 1368 viewsThacks_Rabbits

FAO Simon Stone on 22:38 - Oct 12 by RAFCBLUE

"Someone has lost a lot of money here."

This is the crux of the issue.

Who was the man or woman who felt they could broker a deal which the BBC (not us) quotes as "The plan had been for Morton House to take a majority stake in Rochdale through private, independent deals with seven shareholders. But former chairman Andrew Kelly did not complete, which left Morton House with 42%."

Fans know who the broker is!

I'd wager that that £1m spent is likely now to be lost forever, tucked into the pockets of the six selling shareholders who are long gone, to sunnier climbs and never to be seen at Spotland again....


I think they will refuse to pay for the shares leaving the tosser and the others attempting to sell in the same position they were in. They will say they are legally not allowed to buy them due to efl test failing etc and that it’s not a majority, they will almost certainly have a clause to get out of the deal, it might cost them a bit, but it could well be written into the terms of the sale (I believe no transfer has happened and as such the shares are still in kilpatrick, the yanks and the manipulative one.

What is interesting is that now more shares are being issued and the shares effectively becoming worth less money, if they challenge the EGM results and how strong our legal defence will be to this. Hopefully it’s water tight as we still hold a majority outside of those aiming to sell. I would be surprised if they manage to get more than £2 per share for their holdings as effectively they can’t actually force any decision through due to the sensible majority voting for what is perceived as good for the club and with no financial urge to sell.

Personally I hope we as fans and the trust are able to take the majority of those shares at a reasonable price as if nobody will benefit from buying them if an overall 50.1% cannot be achieved.

I say majority of shares as I would leave Bottomley to rot with his, they have no real worth and getting his won’t make any difference if we decide to buy shares from the more acceptable shareholders (eg the Americans or kilpatrick) Would be fitting to leave dickhead holding a worthless entity for all he has tried to do.

Personally it would not surprise me if Bottom has not had this planned for years and bided his time, eventually worming his way in and gradually becoming more powerful. I really think he is capable of that as he is an ethical black hole!

Every Team Needs A John Ryan - The Winger Who's a Ringer!!!!!
Poll: Which player would you rather have if Twitter rumour is correct (unlikely)

2
FAO Simon Stone on 22:36 - Oct 13 with 1293 viewsRAFCBLUE

FAO Simon Stone on 22:10 - Oct 13 by Thacks_Rabbits

I think they will refuse to pay for the shares leaving the tosser and the others attempting to sell in the same position they were in. They will say they are legally not allowed to buy them due to efl test failing etc and that it’s not a majority, they will almost certainly have a clause to get out of the deal, it might cost them a bit, but it could well be written into the terms of the sale (I believe no transfer has happened and as such the shares are still in kilpatrick, the yanks and the manipulative one.

What is interesting is that now more shares are being issued and the shares effectively becoming worth less money, if they challenge the EGM results and how strong our legal defence will be to this. Hopefully it’s water tight as we still hold a majority outside of those aiming to sell. I would be surprised if they manage to get more than £2 per share for their holdings as effectively they can’t actually force any decision through due to the sensible majority voting for what is perceived as good for the club and with no financial urge to sell.

Personally I hope we as fans and the trust are able to take the majority of those shares at a reasonable price as if nobody will benefit from buying them if an overall 50.1% cannot be achieved.

I say majority of shares as I would leave Bottomley to rot with his, they have no real worth and getting his won’t make any difference if we decide to buy shares from the more acceptable shareholders (eg the Americans or kilpatrick) Would be fitting to leave dickhead holding a worthless entity for all he has tried to do.

Personally it would not surprise me if Bottom has not had this planned for years and bided his time, eventually worming his way in and gradually becoming more powerful. I really think he is capable of that as he is an ethical black hole!


https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/businessman

According to Andrew Curran in the Manchester Evening News on 12th August 2021:

"Furthermore, we have paid in excess of £1 million to date in consideration for shares, due diligence and legal costs."

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03779852/fili

Publicly available accounts for Morton House Mgt and First Form Construction Limited filed on 13th September 2021 for the year ending 31st July 2021 show that there are Investments held as current assets of £1,262,800.

Whilst that Companies House disclosure effectively proves beyond all reasonable doubt the EFL's disciplinary case against Morton House (as on the 31st July they are saying they owned these shares); it does indicate that they have bought and that money will have changed hands.

Sellers will be under no compunction to return their money to Morton House - at roughly £6 a share then they are laughing all the way to the bank!

Poll: Who REALLY wrote and fact checked the factually flawed BBC article

2
FAO Simon Stone on 22:52 - Oct 13 with 1258 viewsThreeLions

FAO Simon Stone on 22:10 - Oct 13 by Thacks_Rabbits

I think they will refuse to pay for the shares leaving the tosser and the others attempting to sell in the same position they were in. They will say they are legally not allowed to buy them due to efl test failing etc and that it’s not a majority, they will almost certainly have a clause to get out of the deal, it might cost them a bit, but it could well be written into the terms of the sale (I believe no transfer has happened and as such the shares are still in kilpatrick, the yanks and the manipulative one.

What is interesting is that now more shares are being issued and the shares effectively becoming worth less money, if they challenge the EGM results and how strong our legal defence will be to this. Hopefully it’s water tight as we still hold a majority outside of those aiming to sell. I would be surprised if they manage to get more than £2 per share for their holdings as effectively they can’t actually force any decision through due to the sensible majority voting for what is perceived as good for the club and with no financial urge to sell.

Personally I hope we as fans and the trust are able to take the majority of those shares at a reasonable price as if nobody will benefit from buying them if an overall 50.1% cannot be achieved.

I say majority of shares as I would leave Bottomley to rot with his, they have no real worth and getting his won’t make any difference if we decide to buy shares from the more acceptable shareholders (eg the Americans or kilpatrick) Would be fitting to leave dickhead holding a worthless entity for all he has tried to do.

Personally it would not surprise me if Bottom has not had this planned for years and bided his time, eventually worming his way in and gradually becoming more powerful. I really think he is capable of that as he is an ethical black hole!


The bearded judas has been telling people he has already been paid for his act of treason.
1

FAO Simon Stone on 23:33 - Oct 13 with 1181 views49thseason

The renegade shares situation is a bit tricky. Essentially the shares have been bought and sold without properly informing the club that there has been a transfer i.e. a letter signed by both parties agreeing that the shares have been sold by A to B and from B to C.
So the renegades are still officially the owners as the register is unchanged, but if they attempt to use them in some way ie to vote, the claim by MH that they have bought them needs to be considered by the Board. You might also wonder exactly which shares have been "sold" to to Southall. So there are still more transfer forms missing. Bearing this in mind the board cannot actually agree the share transfers to Southall as there is no clarity about which shares are involved as none have been transferred from the register since the AGM. Neither MH nor Southall currently legally owns the shares and yet the original owners may ( or may not) have been paid the better part of £1m. I bet Bottom and company crap themselves every time the doorbell rings in case there is a "collector" calling for the return of their money.
0
FAO Simon Stone on 02:30 - Oct 14 with 1076 viewsThacks_Rabbits

FAO Simon Stone on 22:36 - Oct 13 by RAFCBLUE

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/businessman

According to Andrew Curran in the Manchester Evening News on 12th August 2021:

"Furthermore, we have paid in excess of £1 million to date in consideration for shares, due diligence and legal costs."

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03779852/fili

Publicly available accounts for Morton House Mgt and First Form Construction Limited filed on 13th September 2021 for the year ending 31st July 2021 show that there are Investments held as current assets of £1,262,800.

Whilst that Companies House disclosure effectively proves beyond all reasonable doubt the EFL's disciplinary case against Morton House (as on the 31st July they are saying they owned these shares); it does indicate that they have bought and that money will have changed hands.

Sellers will be under no compunction to return their money to Morton House - at roughly £6 a share then they are laughing all the way to the bank!


My understanding is that the 1.2 million held in accounts as assets could be classed as funds held in an account with the sole purpose to purchase these assets with agreement being made on the price etc. Putting it simply if I was a painter and decorator and had ordered £1000 worth of paint, paid for it but was awaiting delivery it would show as an asset, even though I did not yet have the paint. The funds held with the lawyers would show as an asset not as cash balance (as I understand it though could be wrong)

It’s mind boggling though as if the untrustworthy one and others have been paid and yet no transfer has happened, an almighty bollock has been dropped by someone. With no transfer of the shares I cannot see how they can agree to sell them, as they don’t have them to sell. If they are trying to get below a level where the efl have to bet them, it would be far simpler for an agreement to reduce the purchase to those levels, then have the 3rd party buy what he wanted.

It’s an absolute mess and the efl need to come out with a statement explaining what the hell is going on. If they cannot buy the shares then they will have to try and recover the funds, let’s hope the moors are not too cold this next few months eh Mr Bottomley!

Every Team Needs A John Ryan - The Winger Who's a Ringer!!!!!
Poll: Which player would you rather have if Twitter rumour is correct (unlikely)

3
Login to get fewer ads


FAO Simon Stone on 03:08 - Oct 14 with 1063 viewsSandyman

Once "Morton House" proclaimed to hold 42% shares in RAFC, that was their downfall. The shares were never transferred to them as they were in breach of EFL regulations and procedure which stated over 30% ownership had to be approved, submitted and tested under a different set of rules. That made them sh.. their pants as the funding would have to be justified as being kosher, which, obviously, it wasn't. Which fools didn't know jack sh.. about EFL rules and procedure? Jarvis? Roger the BIFFO? Morton House "directors" jumped ship and got away from the project ASAP. Now they are stuck with useless shares that STILL have not, and can not be truly owned by them whilst an EFL investigation is ongoing. Jarvis and Roger the BIFFO must be very worried - maybe they will have to enter the boxing ring to contest this issue...

PS: Love Thacks "ethical black hole" remark. Genius, Sir.


UP THE DALE AND WE'RE NOT FOR SALE

0

FAO Simon Stone on 07:13 - Oct 14 with 921 viewsDalenet

Simon Stone, did you think to ask how the new investors were to provide the funds to commit to the new training facilities that Bottomley said the club required. He had previously suggested the need for around £4.5m. Unless somebody genuinely had £4.5m plus around £1m to buy the shares, the rationale for the deal would evaporate.

What we know is the company that was to acquire the shares has assets of £1.2m. What we know is that the Board led by Bottomley had twice tried to ask shareholders to allow extra shares to be sold to a third party and failed. Those requests were done on the basis that shareholders weren't to be informed who was to buy those shares. The Board said that shareholders needed to trust them. The same Board whose members had found a buyer prepared to pay them 5 times more for their shares. The same Board whose job it is to protect shareholder value - not just their own. The same Board that appears to have allowed a potential buyer to acquire shares against the EFL rules. The same Board led by Bottomley that had yet to provide shareholders with any evidence that the £4.5m was available to invest in the training facilities. The shareholders were never going to support that.

So before you tell us how financially vulnerable the club might be, and poke fun at our lack of owned training facilities, did you ask where the funds were coming from? Did you ask the Board why they felt shareholders didn't need to know. Did you ask why the Board hadn't undertaken due diligence. And did you ask why the Board didn't feel conflicted in the decisions they were trying to push through? Thank god our Trust aren't as weak as your investigation
[Post edited 14 Oct 8:06]
5
FAO Simon Stone on 20:20 - Oct 14 with 525 viewsDorkingDale

FAO Simon Stone on 22:10 - Oct 13 by Thacks_Rabbits

I think they will refuse to pay for the shares leaving the tosser and the others attempting to sell in the same position they were in. They will say they are legally not allowed to buy them due to efl test failing etc and that it’s not a majority, they will almost certainly have a clause to get out of the deal, it might cost them a bit, but it could well be written into the terms of the sale (I believe no transfer has happened and as such the shares are still in kilpatrick, the yanks and the manipulative one.

What is interesting is that now more shares are being issued and the shares effectively becoming worth less money, if they challenge the EGM results and how strong our legal defence will be to this. Hopefully it’s water tight as we still hold a majority outside of those aiming to sell. I would be surprised if they manage to get more than £2 per share for their holdings as effectively they can’t actually force any decision through due to the sensible majority voting for what is perceived as good for the club and with no financial urge to sell.

Personally I hope we as fans and the trust are able to take the majority of those shares at a reasonable price as if nobody will benefit from buying them if an overall 50.1% cannot be achieved.

I say majority of shares as I would leave Bottomley to rot with his, they have no real worth and getting his won’t make any difference if we decide to buy shares from the more acceptable shareholders (eg the Americans or kilpatrick) Would be fitting to leave dickhead holding a worthless entity for all he has tried to do.

Personally it would not surprise me if Bottom has not had this planned for years and bided his time, eventually worming his way in and gradually becoming more powerful. I really think he is capable of that as he is an ethical black hole!


I could swear that I read somewhere on here that the money for the shares had been paid - maybe that came from Southall?!
0

FAO Simon Stone on 20:49 - Oct 14 with 450 viewsfinberty

The accounts were filed surprisingly early, given the accounting year only ended in July.

Someone trying to paint a particular picture, perhaps?

Still, notifying inaccurately to Companies House carries far less peril than doing so to HMRC.
0

Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2021