| Trust update email.. 17:51 - May 13 with 14825 views | electricblue |
I recieved the trust update about the court case etc.
A date as been set and mediation as been asked to try n resolve the issue that date is still tbc.. |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |  |
| Trust update email.. on 00:41 - May 18 with 4932 views | James1980 |
If Roger's resolution had passed at the EGM. Am I right in thinking Bott and Co wouldn't have got the cash for their shares?
I'm wondering if they never wanted it to get passed at the EGM in the first place. |  |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 10:18 - May 18 with 4657 views | rafc1977 |
| Trust update email.. on 00:41 - May 18 by James1980 |
If Roger's resolution had passed at the EGM. Am I right in thinking Bott and Co wouldn't have got the cash for their shares?
I'm wondering if they never wanted it to get passed at the EGM in the first place. |
I think he definitely wanted it passed at EGM. Its likely he would have stayed on and overseen whatever MH, Curran, Rose, Southall et al had in mind for the club.
Whilst staying on and for whatever period of time it'd taken to execute the plan for the club, he was allegedly drawing a 6 figure annual salary and theres every chance that he had agreed a increase to this with the potential new owners.
I think he had 12500 shares, so at £6 each thats £75k whereas if he had hung around for 3 or 4 years on an increased salary he stood to make a lot more than £75k. Even if he had of recieved £10 a share I still believe he would have wanted to stay on, he loved the kudos of his self appointed role.
As many on here have said....all roads lead to Roger and sooner or later it will all come out in the wash, it always does.
The overcoat men are mentioned and rightly so remembered a lot on here for their keeping the club alive through the 80's & 90's. We have the equivilent now in those like RAFCBLUE, JUDD, R17ALE, UTDNFS, DaleTrust and the many others. Now I havent got a name for them, but by god they will be remembered for generations to come as equally an important piece of fabric in our history. |  | | |
| Trust update email.. on 11:23 - May 18 with 4569 views | DorkingDale |
| Trust update email.. on 00:41 - May 18 by James1980 |
If Roger's resolution had passed at the EGM. Am I right in thinking Bott and Co wouldn't have got the cash for their shares?
I'm wondering if they never wanted it to get passed at the EGM in the first place. |
If it had been passed those shareholders would've undoubtedly sold their shares to the incoming lot. Not sure when Halsall pulled out, but I thought that he was frontrunner at the time. | | | |
| Trust update email.. on 11:54 - May 18 with 4514 views | kel |
| Trust update email.. on 00:41 - May 18 by James1980 |
If Roger's resolution had passed at the EGM. Am I right in thinking Bott and Co wouldn't have got the cash for their shares?
I'm wondering if they never wanted it to get passed at the EGM in the first place. |
Grindrod certainly wanted it passed. Another “life long Dale fan” who hasn’t been since. |  | | |
| Trust update email.. on 13:05 - May 18 with 4371 views | dawlishdale |
| Trust update email.. on 00:41 - May 18 by James1980 |
If Roger's resolution had passed at the EGM. Am I right in thinking Bott and Co wouldn't have got the cash for their shares?
I'm wondering if they never wanted it to get passed at the EGM in the first place. |
Hmm... I seem to recall that Halsall had included a cash payout for a certain number of shares in his bid, and on examination, that cash sum totalled roughly the equivalent of a payout for the then Board members plus the ex Chairman. Thus, my theory is that they had colluded to enrich themselves whilst all other shareholders would be left with worthless shares in effect. Just as devious if true..
Thus, I always thought that Halsall's bid was the preferred option of Roger et al, as he was less " dubious" and therefore less likely to be examined by any supporters than the bid of Curran & Rose.
Can anyone else recall this ? | | | |
| Trust update email.. on 14:02 - May 18 with 4264 views | DorkingDale |
| Trust update email.. on 13:05 - May 18 by dawlishdale |
Hmm... I seem to recall that Halsall had included a cash payout for a certain number of shares in his bid, and on examination, that cash sum totalled roughly the equivalent of a payout for the then Board members plus the ex Chairman. Thus, my theory is that they had colluded to enrich themselves whilst all other shareholders would be left with worthless shares in effect. Just as devious if true..
Thus, I always thought that Halsall's bid was the preferred option of Roger et al, as he was less " dubious" and therefore less likely to be examined by any supporters than the bid of Curran & Rose.
Can anyone else recall this ? |
It's all a bit lost in the of mists of time now, but my recollection is that it was the Halsall bid that was being fought off at the time of that EGM. He then pulled out immediately, which is why Roger turned to his first reserve benefactors - and the infamous e-mailing of financial information after he had left the employment of RAFC. Bloody scumbag. | | | |
| Trust update email.. on 15:50 - May 18 with 4135 views | judd |
| Trust update email.. on 13:05 - May 18 by dawlishdale |
Hmm... I seem to recall that Halsall had included a cash payout for a certain number of shares in his bid, and on examination, that cash sum totalled roughly the equivalent of a payout for the then Board members plus the ex Chairman. Thus, my theory is that they had colluded to enrich themselves whilst all other shareholders would be left with worthless shares in effect. Just as devious if true..
Thus, I always thought that Halsall's bid was the preferred option of Roger et al, as he was less " dubious" and therefore less likely to be examined by any supporters than the bid of Curran & Rose.
Can anyone else recall this ? |
Halsall proposed to acquire 202,597 shares from existing shareholders, the 4 board directors held 98,100 (8.16%) and Andrew Kilpatrick 110,000 = 208,100.
Halsall intended to hold 75% of future issued shares, additional funds required to be raised via a bond.
His businesses had no cash and a cumulative nett worth of -£1.76m. |  |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 16:07 - May 18 with 4102 views | DaleiLama |
| Trust update email.. on 15:50 - May 18 by judd |
Halsall proposed to acquire 202,597 shares from existing shareholders, the 4 board directors held 98,100 (8.16%) and Andrew Kilpatrick 110,000 = 208,100.
Halsall intended to hold 75% of future issued shares, additional funds required to be raised via a bond.
His businesses had no cash and a cumulative nett worth of -£1.76m. |
Is this him?
 |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust update email.. on 16:53 - May 18 with 4060 views | DorkingDale |
| Trust update email.. on 15:50 - May 18 by judd |
Halsall proposed to acquire 202,597 shares from existing shareholders, the 4 board directors held 98,100 (8.16%) and Andrew Kilpatrick 110,000 = 208,100.
Halsall intended to hold 75% of future issued shares, additional funds required to be raised via a bond.
His businesses had no cash and a cumulative nett worth of -£1.76m. |
Thanks Judd. In retrospect we had a lucky escape getting MH on board......  | | | |
| Trust update email.. on 17:14 - May 18 with 4013 views | judd |
| Trust update email.. on 16:53 - May 18 by DorkingDale |
Thanks Judd. In retrospect we had a lucky escape getting MH on board...... |
I believe he pulled out when it became public that he was the preferred bidder.
It was undoubted that he would have had to borrow to fund the purchase and his businesses had no assets of note to borrow against, but the football club did.
The shareholders of the club were asked at a reconvened AGM/EGM to remove their own pre-emption rights so that a board owning 8% of shares could sell the club to who they saw fit.
Even if Halsall had remained interested, I doubt shareholders, having conducted basic due diligence, would have allowed him. I even think the EFL may have been involved if he attempted to acquire 30% + without first informing them, presenting his business plan and source & sufficiency of funding. | |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 18:36 - May 18 with 3891 views | NorthernDale |
Why does the EFL not ban or introduce regulations that owners cannot use the club assets to fund the purchase of a club and if a new borrows the cash to take control of a club, they cannot pass the debt onto the clubs books. Sadly the EFL is not fit for purpose, in that far too many dodgy people have been allowed to take clubs over or become directors of clubs. | | | |
| Trust update email.. on 20:06 - May 18 with 3770 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust update email.. on 17:14 - May 18 by judd |
I believe he pulled out when it became public that he was the preferred bidder.
It was undoubted that he would have had to borrow to fund the purchase and his businesses had no assets of note to borrow against, but the football club did.
The shareholders of the club were asked at a reconvened AGM/EGM to remove their own pre-emption rights so that a board owning 8% of shares could sell the club to who they saw fit.
Even if Halsall had remained interested, I doubt shareholders, having conducted basic due diligence, would have allowed him. I even think the EFL may have been involved if he attempted to acquire 30% + without first informing them, presenting his business plan and source & sufficiency of funding. |
What I will always remember about those EGM motions was the crude way that they sought to generate however many "new" shares - in the words of Bottomley - "putting money into the club" - but then with those new shares and in cohoots with the potential buyer of those new shares partnering with a small number of existing key individual shareholders (Andrew Kilpatrick etc) could then do a deal and cash in themselves.
The price of that March 2020 and then June 2021 EGM motion was £6 per share which effectively valued the club at £5.4m - absolutely ludicrous.
That £6 EGM motion valuation valued Kilpatrick's holding at a notional £660,000 which is not insubstantial given he + the new shares would effectively have gained control of the club with new shares.
What then is telling is this.
On the evening in question - 1 June 2021 - the Directors withdrew their motions. Bottomley sense the mood in the room and didn't fancy being voted down.
Halsall had withdrawn so there was no chance of Bottomley having a buyer lined up that was Board supported - we know that because the Board asked the Trust to meet Halsall and as far as we know they did not ask the Trust to meet anyone else.
There being no buyer was actually the reason - if the motions had been passed Bottomley would have looked really stupid that he couldn't get £5.4m for the club, which let us remember had just enjoyed a "controlled relegation."
Bottomley was removed from the Board by the Trust's motion just before the clock struck midnight and then the whole plan is up in smoke.
Andrew Kilpatrick had gone in February 2021. Andrew Kilpatrick's nominated CEO had gone.
How was the plan going to be enacted?
How would Andrew Kilpatrick get his £660,000 (the EGM valuation)?
Bottomley left the club by "mutual consent" in June 2021. Days later in July 2021 shares are traded to a faceless payroll company.
Given the scale of the alleged trades from Captain Sabotage and co, Andrew Kilpatrick was one of the traders in July 2021.
Now you have to think that Andrew Kilpatrick did not vote for Bottomley staying on the Board. If he had done, there was very little chance of the Trust ousting Roger. Roger would still be in post and actually, it all might have gone very differently.
So why did Andrew Kilpatrick not stick up for his mate?
And days later sell his shares, off the cuff, to a faceless payroll company, alongside some other shareholders?
It stinks. |  |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 20:38 - May 18 with 3689 views | judd |
| Trust update email.. on 20:06 - May 18 by RAFCBLUE |
What I will always remember about those EGM motions was the crude way that they sought to generate however many "new" shares - in the words of Bottomley - "putting money into the club" - but then with those new shares and in cohoots with the potential buyer of those new shares partnering with a small number of existing key individual shareholders (Andrew Kilpatrick etc) could then do a deal and cash in themselves.
The price of that March 2020 and then June 2021 EGM motion was £6 per share which effectively valued the club at £5.4m - absolutely ludicrous.
That £6 EGM motion valuation valued Kilpatrick's holding at a notional £660,000 which is not insubstantial given he + the new shares would effectively have gained control of the club with new shares.
What then is telling is this.
On the evening in question - 1 June 2021 - the Directors withdrew their motions. Bottomley sense the mood in the room and didn't fancy being voted down.
Halsall had withdrawn so there was no chance of Bottomley having a buyer lined up that was Board supported - we know that because the Board asked the Trust to meet Halsall and as far as we know they did not ask the Trust to meet anyone else.
There being no buyer was actually the reason - if the motions had been passed Bottomley would have looked really stupid that he couldn't get £5.4m for the club, which let us remember had just enjoyed a "controlled relegation."
Bottomley was removed from the Board by the Trust's motion just before the clock struck midnight and then the whole plan is up in smoke.
Andrew Kilpatrick had gone in February 2021. Andrew Kilpatrick's nominated CEO had gone.
How was the plan going to be enacted?
How would Andrew Kilpatrick get his £660,000 (the EGM valuation)?
Bottomley left the club by "mutual consent" in June 2021. Days later in July 2021 shares are traded to a faceless payroll company.
Given the scale of the alleged trades from Captain Sabotage and co, Andrew Kilpatrick was one of the traders in July 2021.
Now you have to think that Andrew Kilpatrick did not vote for Bottomley staying on the Board. If he had done, there was very little chance of the Trust ousting Roger. Roger would still be in post and actually, it all might have gone very differently.
So why did Andrew Kilpatrick not stick up for his mate?
And days later sell his shares, off the cuff, to a faceless payroll company, alongside some other shareholders?
It stinks. |
What did he stick up for? | |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 21:48 - May 18 with 3607 views | DorkingDale |
| Trust update email.. on 18:36 - May 18 by NorthernDale |
Why does the EFL not ban or introduce regulations that owners cannot use the club assets to fund the purchase of a club and if a new borrows the cash to take control of a club, they cannot pass the debt onto the clubs books. Sadly the EFL is not fit for purpose, in that far too many dodgy people have been allowed to take clubs over or become directors of clubs. |
It's a well established business practice - not just confined to football. It doesn't sit well tho'....ask Man U & Charlton supporters. | | | |
| Trust update email.. on 22:17 - May 18 with 3542 views | tony_roch975 |
| Trust update email.. on 20:38 - May 18 by judd |
What did he stick up for? |
If I recall the figures correctly circa 321,000 Share votes were cast on the DB removal vote & circa 317,000 on the GR vote whereas there were 471,000 Share votes cast in the TP re-appointment vote - so there were 150,000 / 154000 abstentions on removing the two directors! | |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 22:28 - May 18 with 3525 views | R17ALE |
| Trust update email.. on 20:06 - May 18 by RAFCBLUE |
What I will always remember about those EGM motions was the crude way that they sought to generate however many "new" shares - in the words of Bottomley - "putting money into the club" - but then with those new shares and in cohoots with the potential buyer of those new shares partnering with a small number of existing key individual shareholders (Andrew Kilpatrick etc) could then do a deal and cash in themselves.
The price of that March 2020 and then June 2021 EGM motion was £6 per share which effectively valued the club at £5.4m - absolutely ludicrous.
That £6 EGM motion valuation valued Kilpatrick's holding at a notional £660,000 which is not insubstantial given he + the new shares would effectively have gained control of the club with new shares.
What then is telling is this.
On the evening in question - 1 June 2021 - the Directors withdrew their motions. Bottomley sense the mood in the room and didn't fancy being voted down.
Halsall had withdrawn so there was no chance of Bottomley having a buyer lined up that was Board supported - we know that because the Board asked the Trust to meet Halsall and as far as we know they did not ask the Trust to meet anyone else.
There being no buyer was actually the reason - if the motions had been passed Bottomley would have looked really stupid that he couldn't get £5.4m for the club, which let us remember had just enjoyed a "controlled relegation."
Bottomley was removed from the Board by the Trust's motion just before the clock struck midnight and then the whole plan is up in smoke.
Andrew Kilpatrick had gone in February 2021. Andrew Kilpatrick's nominated CEO had gone.
How was the plan going to be enacted?
How would Andrew Kilpatrick get his £660,000 (the EGM valuation)?
Bottomley left the club by "mutual consent" in June 2021. Days later in July 2021 shares are traded to a faceless payroll company.
Given the scale of the alleged trades from Captain Sabotage and co, Andrew Kilpatrick was one of the traders in July 2021.
Now you have to think that Andrew Kilpatrick did not vote for Bottomley staying on the Board. If he had done, there was very little chance of the Trust ousting Roger. Roger would still be in post and actually, it all might have gone very differently.
So why did Andrew Kilpatrick not stick up for his mate?
And days later sell his shares, off the cuff, to a faceless payroll company, alongside some other shareholders?
It stinks. |
I suspect, as 49th has said, that Roger was on a % of whatever he could get for A Kilpatrick's shares.
Roger, being Roger, would sense pounds over integrity, and who the shares were sold to mattered not to him, as long as he was paid. If he was on 10% he could have trousered £50,000. A Kilpatrick* should have behaved better, respecting his Father's legacy. But he's clearly a vain, selfish oik only interested in wealth and Montenegro. He should have kept his trap shut on that subject when talking to Andrew Curran of Morton House, who happily told our lot all about it.
"What I will always remember about those EGM motions was the crude way that they sought to generate however many "new" shares - in the words of Bottomley - "putting money into the club" - but then with those new shares and in cohoots with the potential buyer of those new shares partnering with a small number of existing key individual shareholders (Andrew Kilpatrick etc) could then do a deal and cash in themselves."
We all remember the core message at that time. "Don't buy shares from other shareholders. Buy them from the club as the money goes to the club".
This was oft repeated, and is probably somewhere on the OS from Roger.
Now Roger has clearly studied Joseph Goebbels, the architect of propaganda. His teachings were: "Always accuse your opponent of what you intend to do yourself".
So Roger is now in keeping with Goebbels, (and Putin more recently). Some company!
*In the interests of honesty, Cloughies executors emailed A Kilpatrick offering to discuss buying his shares using Cloughies estate. To this date, we are still awaiting a reply. I'm guessing our olive branch was sent circa late 2020. [Post edited 18 May 2022 22:33]
|  |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 00:20 - May 19 with 3390 views | James1980 |
| Trust update email.. on 10:18 - May 18 by rafc1977 |
I think he definitely wanted it passed at EGM. Its likely he would have stayed on and overseen whatever MH, Curran, Rose, Southall et al had in mind for the club.
Whilst staying on and for whatever period of time it'd taken to execute the plan for the club, he was allegedly drawing a 6 figure annual salary and theres every chance that he had agreed a increase to this with the potential new owners.
I think he had 12500 shares, so at £6 each thats £75k whereas if he had hung around for 3 or 4 years on an increased salary he stood to make a lot more than £75k. Even if he had of recieved £10 a share I still believe he would have wanted to stay on, he loved the kudos of his self appointed role.
As many on here have said....all roads lead to Roger and sooner or later it will all come out in the wash, it always does.
The overcoat men are mentioned and rightly so remembered a lot on here for their keeping the club alive through the 80's & 90's. We have the equivilent now in those like RAFCBLUE, JUDD, R17ALE, UTDNFS, DaleTrust and the many others. Now I havent got a name for them, but by god they will be remembered for generations to come as equally an important piece of fabric in our history. |
My guess is that if MH had gained control of the club by either method DRB would've been kept on/reinstated as CEO.
Totally agree with your last paragraph. Those with aliases and others saved our club from the brink | |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 08:23 - May 19 with 3190 views | wozzrafc |
One thing that hasn’t been highlighted is the emergence of the alternative plan.
On the night of the EGM Graham Morris argued the point eloquently about how he had put forward alternative investors in the Rochdale mould.
The installation of the new directors and ultimately a new board and direction for the club so quickly has been crucial. It provided leadership at a time when the club needed it most, and stopped Roger having free reign in plotting The Curran/Rose takeover from within and still in control of the club.
Ultimately the club has not been so united, board, trust and fans. [Post edited 19 May 2022 8:24]
| | | |
| Trust update email.. on 09:02 - May 19 with 3120 views | TalkingSutty |
That is spot on WozzRafc. The fact that a new Chairman and Directors were installed so quickly was nothing short of a miracle, without that the club would have been a rudderless ship with no day to day leadership and would have probably sunk very quickly. A lot of water has passed under the bridge over the last 12 months but the boardroom recruitment and the speed at which it happened was pivotal...the likes of Bottomley and his merry men could never have envisaged that happening, it must have sickened them.
Over the years Chairman and Directors come and go but no matter what, our current custodians will always be looked on as saviours of the club. They didn’t have to step up to the plate and take on all the off field hassle but they have done...every Dale fan owes them a big debt of gratitude for that. Those behind the boardroom recruitment also need thanking, it was a absolute masterstroke. These are our modern day Overcoat Men, there is no doubt about that. [Post edited 19 May 2022 9:04]
|  | | |
| Trust update email.. on 14:44 - May 19 with 2908 views | TomRAFC |
| Trust update email.. on 00:20 - May 19 by James1980 |
My guess is that if MH had gained control of the club by either method DRB would've been kept on/reinstated as CEO.
Totally agree with your last paragraph. Those with aliases and others saved our club from the brink |
Whether Botters would have been kept on depends on why you think Morton House were interested in the club.
Given that Curran, Southall and Jarvis attended those games as a trio, I think there was a bit more to the deal.
Southall wanted back into football but was never going to be allowed in under his own name. Morton House agreed to be the front for the deal, with a view to Southall taking the reigns once the deal was complete. In exchange, Southall would let Morton House use the club to get their laundry done.
Southall would only have room for one balding egomaniac, and bitter Botters would have soon been kicked to the kerb. | |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 22:28 - May 19 with 2701 views | R17ALE |
| Trust update email.. on 14:44 - May 19 by TomRAFC |
Whether Botters would have been kept on depends on why you think Morton House were interested in the club.
Given that Curran, Southall and Jarvis attended those games as a trio, I think there was a bit more to the deal.
Southall wanted back into football but was never going to be allowed in under his own name. Morton House agreed to be the front for the deal, with a view to Southall taking the reigns once the deal was complete. In exchange, Southall would let Morton House use the club to get their laundry done.
Southall would only have room for one balding egomaniac, and bitter Botters would have soon been kicked to the kerb. |
Bitter botters would have eventually have been kicked out, but he'd have held cards that needed paying off. A man driven by money and profile. Not a friend of Dale. He's been found out, and forever is wary of us lot! | |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 23:10 - May 19 with 2656 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust update email.. on 14:44 - May 19 by TomRAFC |
Whether Botters would have been kept on depends on why you think Morton House were interested in the club.
Given that Curran, Southall and Jarvis attended those games as a trio, I think there was a bit more to the deal.
Southall wanted back into football but was never going to be allowed in under his own name. Morton House agreed to be the front for the deal, with a view to Southall taking the reigns once the deal was complete. In exchange, Southall would let Morton House use the club to get their laundry done.
Southall would only have room for one balding egomaniac, and bitter Botters would have soon been kicked to the kerb. |
I think TomRAFC it comes back to what you think the investment objective was from Morton House AND how Morton House link to Andrew Curran and Alexander Jarvis.
Curran and Jarvis were absolute minnows in football terms; low profile and low risk. To be honest until Jarvis persuaded Curran to let him arrive at Spotland in the back of a Rolls Royce Cullinan sold to him by his family member Darrell Rose of LKC Motors in Worksop. Jarvo could not believe his luck!
Curran and Jarvis are NOT Morton House.
No involvement, no shareholdings, no directorships. On the face of it no payroll management experience. Completely clean.
Enter Morton House. Payroll company run by a pensioner in her 70's and a man traced to Casablanca in Faical Safouane. Neither have any experience in sport and are about as far away as you can get from a little North West football team.
No big profile. Modest. Run out of London.
Somehow the bit that makes no sense is that they are somehow joined together.
Curran and Jarvis and Courtnell and Safouane. All linked by Bottomley.
You then start to Google Morton House and find that this company called Village Energy Solutions Limited is under investigation from HMRC because of a missing £1.8m that no one can ever explain and that Morton House was its owner at the time the money went missing.
Best case for Morton House; this was an opportunistic investment that went wrong. But that only explains Courtnell and Safouane. It doesn't explain Curran and Jarvis.
Worst case for Morton House; this £1.8m that went missing on their watch owning Village Energy Solutions Limited has been spent with excited selling Rochdale shareholders who could not believe their luck when Alexander Jarvis was running around offering any kind of money for any number of Rochdale shares. But again that only explains Courtnell and Safouane and it doesn't explain Curran and Jarvis.
Southall is something else and I think a lot smarter than the other 4, to the point that I don't actually think he was there are the beginning but then gets brought in by Jarvo when it all goes wrong.
There's no money in lower league football and Southall is rumoured to be on the verge of helping the takeover at Birmingham City; much more his size and style of club and if that was the case he would want to drop any tenuous associations with Rochdale because the EFL will not let him anywhere near a much more lucrative opportunity if they think he is involved in two club and will have been watching him like a hawk since the Manchester Evening News leaked he had a deal with Morton House. I bet Southall really wishes the MEN hadn't written that.
Bottomley was in it for himself - something everyone now knows. Had Morton House got in they would have needed someone who know how to make the club tick and Bottomley looks the part, even if - as we all know - underneath the surface was a pile of sh*t.
Bottomley has the hardest role of all now. Voted off by supporters who despise him, he has to somehow see Morton House succeed as his paymasters have spent a lot of money and haven't got very far.
It still doesn't explain how Curran and Jarvis link to Courtnell and Safouane.
What you can bet is that with £1.8m of HMRC money lost to Village Energy Solutions Limited missing, presumed stolen, HMRC won't be giving up the fight until all of the perpetrators are brought to justice.
The Proceeds of Crime Act, various anti-laundering bits of legislation and a general scrutiny on ownership means Bottomley has his work cut out.
Personally I still think that Curran and Jarvis were fed a massive pile of bullsh*t by Bottomley after he was voted off by supporters at the EGM.
If that is the case, I can't see Curran being too forgiving given his love of the boxing ring. | |
| |
| Trust update email.. on 14:00 - May 21 with 2240 views | DorkingDale |
| Trust update email.. on 23:10 - May 19 by RAFCBLUE |
I think TomRAFC it comes back to what you think the investment objective was from Morton House AND how Morton House link to Andrew Curran and Alexander Jarvis.
Curran and Jarvis were absolute minnows in football terms; low profile and low risk. To be honest until Jarvis persuaded Curran to let him arrive at Spotland in the back of a Rolls Royce Cullinan sold to him by his family member Darrell Rose of LKC Motors in Worksop. Jarvo could not believe his luck!
Curran and Jarvis are NOT Morton House.
No involvement, no shareholdings, no directorships. On the face of it no payroll management experience. Completely clean.
Enter Morton House. Payroll company run by a pensioner in her 70's and a man traced to Casablanca in Faical Safouane. Neither have any experience in sport and are about as far away as you can get from a little North West football team.
No big profile. Modest. Run out of London.
Somehow the bit that makes no sense is that they are somehow joined together.
Curran and Jarvis and Courtnell and Safouane. All linked by Bottomley.
You then start to Google Morton House and find that this company called Village Energy Solutions Limited is under investigation from HMRC because of a missing £1.8m that no one can ever explain and that Morton House was its owner at the time the money went missing.
Best case for Morton House; this was an opportunistic investment that went wrong. But that only explains Courtnell and Safouane. It doesn't explain Curran and Jarvis.
Worst case for Morton House; this £1.8m that went missing on their watch owning Village Energy Solutions Limited has been spent with excited selling Rochdale shareholders who could not believe their luck when Alexander Jarvis was running around offering any kind of money for any number of Rochdale shares. But again that only explains Courtnell and Safouane and it doesn't explain Curran and Jarvis.
Southall is something else and I think a lot smarter than the other 4, to the point that I don't actually think he was there are the beginning but then gets brought in by Jarvo when it all goes wrong.
There's no money in lower league football and Southall is rumoured to be on the verge of helping the takeover at Birmingham City; much more his size and style of club and if that was the case he would want to drop any tenuous associations with Rochdale because the EFL will not let him anywhere near a much more lucrative opportunity if they think he is involved in two club and will have been watching him like a hawk since the Manchester Evening News leaked he had a deal with Morton House. I bet Southall really wishes the MEN hadn't written that.
Bottomley was in it for himself - something everyone now knows. Had Morton House got in they would have needed someone who know how to make the club tick and Bottomley looks the part, even if - as we all know - underneath the surface was a pile of sh*t.
Bottomley has the hardest role of all now. Voted off by supporters who despise him, he has to somehow see Morton House succeed as his paymasters have spent a lot of money and haven't got very far.
It still doesn't explain how Curran and Jarvis link to Courtnell and Safouane.
What you can bet is that with £1.8m of HMRC money lost to Village Energy Solutions Limited missing, presumed stolen, HMRC won't be giving up the fight until all of the perpetrators are brought to justice.
The Proceeds of Crime Act, various anti-laundering bits of legislation and a general scrutiny on ownership means Bottomley has his work cut out.
Personally I still think that Curran and Jarvis were fed a massive pile of bullsh*t by Bottomley after he was voted off by supporters at the EGM.
If that is the case, I can't see Curran being too forgiving given his love of the boxing ring. |
Southall must've been involved from the start - he was spotted on CCTV with Curran Rose & Bottomley back in April 2021...... | | | |
| Trust update email.. on 15:56 - May 21 with 2102 views | NorthernDale |
I have suggested on other posts, that Denise and the other person are naive front cover, the real power lies with the people behind the scenes, that may or may not include Curran and Southall. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
