| Ballot Email From the Trust on 20:27 - May 22 with 4544 views | ncfc_chalky |
I didn't get one but I usually do get their emails,for some reason when I renewed it came back that I was a new member for some reason so maybe that's why |  |
|  |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 21:10 - May 22 with 4473 views | Sandyman |
Not got mine yet but happy to wait a few hours. |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 21:12 - May 22 with 4471 views | leedsdale |
Received mine earlier - it has gone to my junk folder which is unusual for emails from the Dale Trust. |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 23:21 - May 22 with 4298 views | nordenblue |
Not received an email either, but when I joined I just got a confirmation saying I'd joined and told a card would be on its way, last I heard |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 08:47 - May 23 with 4111 views | BigKindo |
Not arrived here and not in spam |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 08:53 - May 23 with 4098 views | kel |
Nothing for me either. |  | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:39 - May 23 with 4045 views | Sandyman |
Nothing here either | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:40 - May 23 with 4042 views | Sandyman |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:39 - May 23 by Sandyman |
Nothing here either |
As if by magic it's arrived! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:43 - May 23 with 4034 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:40 - May 23 by Sandyman |
As if by magic it's arrived! |
Mine has just arrived too; really easy to complete.
If anyone requires any of the four Companies Act resolutions outlining in simpler terms than the EGM documents then feel free to ask; there are a few people here who can explain them in a simpler way than they are written on the ballot paper. |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:44 - May 23 with 4028 views | ncfc_chalky |
Just got mine as well 👠| |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:53 - May 23 with 4000 views | BigKindo |
Just arrived | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:53 - May 23 with 3998 views | dawlishdale |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:43 - May 23 by RAFCBLUE |
Mine has just arrived too; really easy to complete.
If anyone requires any of the four Companies Act resolutions outlining in simpler terms than the EGM documents then feel free to ask; there are a few people here who can explain them in a simpler way than they are written on the ballot paper. |
Mine arrived today. it's really important for Trust members to vote on this.
I don't like what the club wants to do with future shares being restricted to only people that they choose to sell to, so I voted against the 4 club proposals.
As for voting for Bottomley out, that is the easiest decision I've taken in some time. | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:57 - May 23 with 3987 views | IOMDale |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:53 - May 23 by dawlishdale |
Mine arrived today. it's really important for Trust members to vote on this.
I don't like what the club wants to do with future shares being restricted to only people that they choose to sell to, so I voted against the 4 club proposals.
As for voting for Bottomley out, that is the easiest decision I've taken in some time. |
I’m with you there Dawlish, on all counts.
Certainly not comfortable with anybody owning a controlling stake but even 44% is far too large a share issue to be sat in any one person’s hands IMHO. |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:00 - May 23 with 3980 views | kel |
Agreed. If these resolutions go through just imagine the consequences of handing the keys to the club to a clown like Bottomley. I fear it would be the end of us. [Post edited 23 May 2021 10:01]
| | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:07 - May 23 with 3929 views | ncfc_chalky |
Even though I'm a member I wouldn't normally vote because Dale isn't my first club and I would feel like I was interfering on matters that don't concern me,BUT I know that there's strong feelings about this by posters on here so I've put my twopeneth in for you lads | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:14 - May 23 with 3908 views | boroblue |
I know that most trust members will probably be on this message board and will therefore know what the issues are with David Bottomley but for those that don't, it would perhaps be helpful if the trust specified why they are proposing the removal of him and particularly the removal of Graham Rawlinson - it is difficult to expect people to vote on these issues without knowing why that proposal is being made.
This isn't meant as a discussion on why they should go, I am saying that trust members who aren't on here should be given all the facts before being asked to vote. | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:18 - May 23 with 3898 views | electricblue |
Well mine arrived earlier and i did my duty as a Dale trust supporter.. |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:36 - May 23 with 3866 views | EllDale |
Received this morning and just voted.
The first question was soooo easy. | | | |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:37 - May 23 with 3861 views | 442Dale |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:07 - May 23 by ncfc_chalky |
Even though I'm a member I wouldn't normally vote because Dale isn't my first club and I would feel like I was interfering on matters that don't concern me,BUT I know that there's strong feelings about this by posters on here so I've put my twopeneth in for you lads |
Thanks, Chalky. Please know I voted against Munto twelve years ago. |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:40 - May 23 with 3860 views | blackdogblue |
Got mine ðŸ‘, interestingly 481 members now |  |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:52 - May 23 with 3840 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 09:53 - May 23 by dawlishdale |
Mine arrived today. it's really important for Trust members to vote on this.
I don't like what the club wants to do with future shares being restricted to only people that they choose to sell to, so I voted against the 4 club proposals.
As for voting for Bottomley out, that is the easiest decision I've taken in some time. |
The vote for whether you support the continuance of either Mr Bottomley or Mr Rawlinson as a Director is straightforward.
The other four Companies Act ones:
1. This would allow the Directors to uplift the number of shares in the club to an unlimited number as they saw fit. This would mean that there could be new shares sold. Given the current deadlock with 9 shareholders who have supported the club but do not want to put more money in, this is the quickest way for the Directors to get new money into the club, but it does mean a change in ownership structure - either more shares to existing shareholders or new shares to new shareholders.
2. If 1 passes, this then allows the Directors to unconditionally issue 697,042 new shares. This power would be valid for 5 years from June 2021 and could be done whenever the directors wanted.
3. If 1 is not passed, then this allows the Directors to unconditionally issue 397,042 new shares. This is permissable under existing arrangements and this power would be valid for 5 years from June 2021 and could be done whenever the directors wanted.
4. If either 2 or 3 passes then this is the Directors saying that they do not want to have to offer existing shareholders first dibs (called pre-emption rights) so that existing shareholders maintain their currently proportional shareholdings.
For example:
The Dale Trust owns 12,625 shares in the club out of the 502,957 (so 2.51%).
If there was a share issue WITH pre-emption rights for 697,042 shares, the Trust would have the right but not the obligation for 2.51% (so a further 17,496 shares). This would maintain the Trust's current percentage holding.
That does not mean they have to buy the shares, just they get the first right to do so.
If motion 4 passes, that would mean existing shareholder rights are waived and shareholders (including the Trust) will be diluted.
The ways to defeat this EGM are:
SCENARIO A:
* Vote against motion 1 - this limits the number of shares complete to the current number of 502,957. We move to Motion 3.
* Vote against motion 3 - this ends the proposal.
IF motion 3 was passed - then vote against 4 which means existing shareholders get the right to first buy any new shares under pre-emption.
SCENARIO B:
Motion 1 passes we move to motion 2 and motion 3.
* Votes against motion 2 or 3 end the proposal as in Scenario A.
IF motion 3 was passed - then vote against 4 which means existing shareholders get the right to first buy any new shares under pre-emption.
Summary:
The ownership of RAFC going back to 1910 and it Articles of Association has always been about RAFC supporters being heavily involved in the ownership of the club.
Whilst there is always a need for new investment in every business, the way this is being set-up does not fulfil that there is a guarantee that the club will be majority owned by people with RAFC's best interests at heart and allows unconditional overriding of the principles in place to protect against that.
I do not see what any of the four motions brings; there has been no explanation at all either in 2019 (when these were originally tabled) or subsequent as to WHO the shares might be sold to and Motion 4 removes the rights of all existing shareholders.
Regrettably, I have no option but to vote AGAINST all 4 motions on that basis. | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:53 - May 23 with 3840 views | ncfc_chalky |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:37 - May 23 by 442Dale |
Thanks, Chalky. Please know I voted against Munto twelve years ago. |
Cheers 442,how did that pan out?  | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:00 - May 23 with 3830 views | SuddenLad |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 10:52 - May 23 by RAFCBLUE |
The vote for whether you support the continuance of either Mr Bottomley or Mr Rawlinson as a Director is straightforward.
The other four Companies Act ones:
1. This would allow the Directors to uplift the number of shares in the club to an unlimited number as they saw fit. This would mean that there could be new shares sold. Given the current deadlock with 9 shareholders who have supported the club but do not want to put more money in, this is the quickest way for the Directors to get new money into the club, but it does mean a change in ownership structure - either more shares to existing shareholders or new shares to new shareholders.
2. If 1 passes, this then allows the Directors to unconditionally issue 697,042 new shares. This power would be valid for 5 years from June 2021 and could be done whenever the directors wanted.
3. If 1 is not passed, then this allows the Directors to unconditionally issue 397,042 new shares. This is permissable under existing arrangements and this power would be valid for 5 years from June 2021 and could be done whenever the directors wanted.
4. If either 2 or 3 passes then this is the Directors saying that they do not want to have to offer existing shareholders first dibs (called pre-emption rights) so that existing shareholders maintain their currently proportional shareholdings.
For example:
The Dale Trust owns 12,625 shares in the club out of the 502,957 (so 2.51%).
If there was a share issue WITH pre-emption rights for 697,042 shares, the Trust would have the right but not the obligation for 2.51% (so a further 17,496 shares). This would maintain the Trust's current percentage holding.
That does not mean they have to buy the shares, just they get the first right to do so.
If motion 4 passes, that would mean existing shareholder rights are waived and shareholders (including the Trust) will be diluted.
The ways to defeat this EGM are:
SCENARIO A:
* Vote against motion 1 - this limits the number of shares complete to the current number of 502,957. We move to Motion 3.
* Vote against motion 3 - this ends the proposal.
IF motion 3 was passed - then vote against 4 which means existing shareholders get the right to first buy any new shares under pre-emption.
SCENARIO B:
Motion 1 passes we move to motion 2 and motion 3.
* Votes against motion 2 or 3 end the proposal as in Scenario A.
IF motion 3 was passed - then vote against 4 which means existing shareholders get the right to first buy any new shares under pre-emption.
Summary:
The ownership of RAFC going back to 1910 and it Articles of Association has always been about RAFC supporters being heavily involved in the ownership of the club.
Whilst there is always a need for new investment in every business, the way this is being set-up does not fulfil that there is a guarantee that the club will be majority owned by people with RAFC's best interests at heart and allows unconditional overriding of the principles in place to protect against that.
I do not see what any of the four motions brings; there has been no explanation at all either in 2019 (when these were originally tabled) or subsequent as to WHO the shares might be sold to and Motion 4 removes the rights of all existing shareholders.
Regrettably, I have no option but to vote AGAINST all 4 motions on that basis. |
Why 'regrettably'? Isn't that what we are being advised to do? |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:23 - May 23 with 3782 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:00 - May 23 by SuddenLad |
Why 'regrettably'? Isn't that what we are being advised to do? |
"Regrettably" is IMO the way this has been done by the current Board and in a way that has not been explained. Before anyone tells me that the meeting hasn't happened yet, the Board have had 15 months to explain this from when they launched it last year, including a public fans forum where it wasn't even mentioned.
In the past, under previous Chairman I will add, the motions around raising additional capital have been accompanied by a clear, transparent explanation as to the reason WHY. The building of the WMG stand on Pearl Street was one such example.
There is not a support of RAFC who does not want to see it succeed and we all can debate and have a view of how that is possible.
This, IMO, is simply a way that the current Board can sell off the club - in the next 5 years - to someone of their choosing.
Without checks, without governance, without further review. Its the sort of thing I used to sneer at when I saw what was happening at buryfc and I cannot standby and see it happen here.
That's why its "regrettable"; we were a well run League 1 club just 36 months ago and we have fallen from League 1 and from being well run.
The most scandalous thing about it in my mind is the way that is isn't be talked about. All the Board have to do is explain WHY they want these resolutions passed.
If they have an investor already lined up they should introduce them, just in the same way that previous new blood has been introduced. They knew nothing about Altman and Marcelli until it had happened so that would indicate that they are acting in self-interest rather than best interest. | |
| |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:28 - May 23 with 3765 views | Dalenet |
| Ballot Email From the Trust on 11:00 - May 23 by SuddenLad |
Why 'regrettably'? Isn't that what we are being advised to do? |
I have no problem with the vote. But I have a few observations.
Taking Bottomley and Rawlinson out is driven by a perception that the club is being badly run. As fans we don't like the poor communication and the underhand ways. But the club has had to steer a course through a pandemic with reduced income. Will the AGMs and accounts show they did a bad job? I don't know but I would like our shareholder representatives to be clear on that - they have the AGM papers and accounts
The issuing of shares has always been a bone of contention. If the Board present some new ideas to shareholders at the EGM, that may involve new investment, will the Trust be guided by a members NO vote, or will they use their discretion if the investment doesn't translate into a change of control outcome? Or does everybody expect such a move to be blocked regardless - and then additional consultation will be required? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
