By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
EGM - which way are you voting? on 11:10 - Feb 27 by 100notout
I'm undecided at the moment.
Despite the obvious downsides, I'm leaning towards voting in favour of the proposals and the points that Brierls and Sandyman amongst others make perfect sense - there is a big financial hole at the moment and we have run out of cash.
Respectfully TS and DAlien, its one thing saying (effectively) lets dig deep, raise a few quid to get us through to the summer and then review the situation (and its a view that is entirely understandable) but who is going to fund that gap? Not SG or the BOD, not me, you?
To be fair, the big elephant in the room is roughly how much cash do we need to get from now till the summer. Apologies if its been said and I've missed but I don't think we know and until we have an idea, we cannot plan for anything. So on Thursday this must be the first and most important question to be asked. Is it £100k or nearer £500k? Until we know that and can discuss if/how we could subsidise such a shortfall, I wouldn't know how to vote.
Appreciate that perspective. TS has pointed out funding that will come our way (STs, EFL legacy, etc) but in addition, the EGM proposals don't mean an immediate influx of cash necessarily either
There are now quite a few more interested parties on the scene since the EGM proposals were announced (surprise, surprise) and therefore why would we jump at the first and possibly lowest bid?
They'd all take time to bring a deal to fruition, and therefore there's no reason this "end of March" deadline couldn't be pushed back if it really needed to be, at least to get us to the end of the season
It strikes me that the "end of March" is being weaponised to panic people, and to be fair, there's some who are being panicked
EGM - which way are you voting? on 11:33 - Feb 27 by D_Alien
Appreciate that perspective. TS has pointed out funding that will come our way (STs, EFL legacy, etc) but in addition, the EGM proposals don't mean an immediate influx of cash necessarily either
There are now quite a few more interested parties on the scene since the EGM proposals were announced (surprise, surprise) and therefore why would we jump at the first and possibly lowest bid?
They'd all take time to bring a deal to fruition, and therefore there's no reason this "end of March" deadline couldn't be pushed back if it really needed to be, at least to get us to the end of the season
It strikes me that the "end of March" is being weaponised to panic people, and to be fair, there's some who are being panicked
It could be as simple as the man who has been paying the wages, can't continue to pay the wages. That's a very valid, and real, reason why any deadline can't be pushed back. Writing "we can push it back if we need" on a messageboard doesn't pay the bills.
I'm not sure about weaponising that, but it certainly appears to have generated additional interest and national exposure. Which is positive.
TS has pointed out 'funding' that would come our way in the summer. We had all that in summer 2023, and we are where we are. We'll have half as much EFL parachute money this coming summer. I'm not sure getting through to the summer solves any of the underlying issues.
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 11:59 - Feb 27 with 2056 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 11:33 - Feb 27 by D_Alien
Appreciate that perspective. TS has pointed out funding that will come our way (STs, EFL legacy, etc) but in addition, the EGM proposals don't mean an immediate influx of cash necessarily either
There are now quite a few more interested parties on the scene since the EGM proposals were announced (surprise, surprise) and therefore why would we jump at the first and possibly lowest bid?
They'd all take time to bring a deal to fruition, and therefore there's no reason this "end of March" deadline couldn't be pushed back if it really needed to be, at least to get us to the end of the season
It strikes me that the "end of March" is being weaponised to panic people, and to be fair, there's some who are being panicked
"the EGM proposals don't mean an immediate influx of cash necessarily"
Yep excellent point - there is no purchase contract ready for signing (as I understand it) and no investor ready to sign it. So question number 2 on Thursday, once we understand the extent of the financial hole, how is it going to be funded until a takeover is completed?
EGM - which way are you voting? on 10:30 - Feb 27 by Brierls
The vote is to issue 9,000,000 new Ordinary A shares at a value of £2 Million. That provides realistic conditions for a sale, it doesn't mean a sale happens immediately without consideration and due diligence in interested parties.
Your points on Simon Gauge and the BoD are off the mark IMO. A sale of 9,000,000 new Ordinary A shares is money into the club, not money into Simon Gauge and the BoD. It makes their shares practically worthless. Talk of enhancing their investment is complete fantasy.
All the time that can be bought, has been bought. It's been bought by further investment and loans from Simon Gauge and Richard Knight. That pot has run dry.
Did you read the FAQ that was issued with the notice of the EGM?
Yes, somebody once said the moon was made of cream cheese but it didn't mean it was true. This board of Directors promised to keep the Trust fully informed regarding any potential investors but they haven't done. Look at the reaction of Gauge and the crappy statement he issued when fans had to intervene a couple of months ago to stop him brokering a sale with a bunch of chancers. They did him and the Directors up like a kipper. If you want to believe everything the Chairman tells you then that's your perogative but don't expect everybody to follow your lead and stop getting upset because others disagree with you, respect that not everybody has to agree. I don't trust any of them to be honest, they ride roughshod over everybody and just do as they please. Ultimately what you and I think is pretty irrelevant, the shareholders as a whole will decide, that's if the EGM actually takes place.
[Post edited 27 Feb 12:11]
3
EGM - which way are you voting? on 12:23 - Feb 27 with 1954 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 12:09 - Feb 27 by TalkingSutty
Yes, somebody once said the moon was made of cream cheese but it didn't mean it was true. This board of Directors promised to keep the Trust fully informed regarding any potential investors but they haven't done. Look at the reaction of Gauge and the crappy statement he issued when fans had to intervene a couple of months ago to stop him brokering a sale with a bunch of chancers. They did him and the Directors up like a kipper. If you want to believe everything the Chairman tells you then that's your perogative but don't expect everybody to follow your lead and stop getting upset because others disagree with you, respect that not everybody has to agree. I don't trust any of them to be honest, they ride roughshod over everybody and just do as they please. Ultimately what you and I think is pretty irrelevant, the shareholders as a whole will decide, that's if the EGM actually takes place.
[Post edited 27 Feb 12:11]
If you don't trust Simon Gauge and the BoD, vote Yes and allow the club to be sold. SG won't be in control of anything then.
The Lawrence 'takeover' was a shitshow. No doubt. This BoD also released the name(s) of potential investors to the Dale Trust, before any exclusivity agreement, so they could perform due diligence.
Which bit don't you believe? I'm genuinely interested.
I thought it was in the public domain that SG (and RK) were ploughing money into the club to keep it operating? The same people are saying they don't have any more money to put in, and without additional money the club won't operate.
I'm all for fans having different views, but surely some of that has to be based on reality.
[Post edited 27 Feb 12:29]
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 12:37 - Feb 27 with 1897 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 12:23 - Feb 27 by Brierls
If you don't trust Simon Gauge and the BoD, vote Yes and allow the club to be sold. SG won't be in control of anything then.
The Lawrence 'takeover' was a shitshow. No doubt. This BoD also released the name(s) of potential investors to the Dale Trust, before any exclusivity agreement, so they could perform due diligence.
Which bit don't you believe? I'm genuinely interested.
I thought it was in the public domain that SG (and RK) were ploughing money into the club to keep it operating? The same people are saying they don't have any more money to put in, and without additional money the club won't operate.
I'm all for fans having different views, but surely some of that has to be based on reality.
[Post edited 27 Feb 12:29]
So there needs to be a contingency plan (one or more) in place if - for whatever reason - we reach the end of March and a takeover deal hasn't been secured. Could be there's two or three bids which need to be finalised until a preferred bid emerges
It's really not just vote Yes or else... the BoD would have to be insane (literally) not to have made some kind of contingency for this scenario
Sure, the above would be dependent on a Yes vote... but the "end of March" needs to be further explored, i.e. one of the pesky "alternatives" that people seem all too keen to brush under the carpet
EGM - which way are you voting? on 12:37 - Feb 27 by D_Alien
So there needs to be a contingency plan (one or more) in place if - for whatever reason - we reach the end of March and a takeover deal hasn't been secured. Could be there's two or three bids which need to be finalised until a preferred bid emerges
It's really not just vote Yes or else... the BoD would have to be insane (literally) not to have made some kind of contingency for this scenario
Sure, the above would be dependent on a Yes vote... but the "end of March" needs to be further explored, i.e. one of the pesky "alternatives" that people seem all too keen to brush under the carpet
[Post edited 27 Feb 12:39]
My interpretation...
We've exhausted all options with the current share structure.
If the vote is 'Yes', this brings more credible (example in the Trust article) potential investors into the game. If a deal was in place but not yet completed, then money would have to be found. If this is SG, RK (both have said they're at their limit), fans or another method, I have no clue. In regrettable but real terms, it would probably mean outgoings deferred until a deal is concluded. If any of those options aren't feasible, then it's game over.
This is what I'm getting at re the reality of the situation.
Vote 'No' - we're gone. Vote 'Yes' - we have a chance, with credible investors, but even then we'd have to conclude a deal quickly.
The pack issued re the EGM pretty much says as much. I'm choosing to believe what was said in the FAQ.
[Post edited 27 Feb 13:16]
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:20 - Feb 27 with 1741 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 11:51 - Feb 27 by Brierls
It could be as simple as the man who has been paying the wages, can't continue to pay the wages. That's a very valid, and real, reason why any deadline can't be pushed back. Writing "we can push it back if we need" on a messageboard doesn't pay the bills.
I'm not sure about weaponising that, but it certainly appears to have generated additional interest and national exposure. Which is positive.
TS has pointed out 'funding' that would come our way in the summer. We had all that in summer 2023, and we are where we are. We'll have half as much EFL parachute money this coming summer. I'm not sure getting through to the summer solves any of the underlying issues.
Sadly this is the reality. I am just hoping that the town will be galvanised to save the club for future generations and turn up in their thousands over the next few games. Any unbudgeted ticket sales over the next few weeks could help us stave off extinction at the end of March and give the board breathing space to negotiate a deal with a preferred investor. Of course if heads of terms are agreed with somebody, there may be a commitment to help fund the club for the period of due diligence and contracts signing/National League permissions.
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:13 - Feb 27 by Brierls
My interpretation...
We've exhausted all options with the current share structure.
If the vote is 'Yes', this brings more credible (example in the Trust article) potential investors into the game. If a deal was in place but not yet completed, then money would have to be found. If this is SG, RK (both have said they're at their limit), fans or another method, I have no clue. In regrettable but real terms, it would probably mean outgoings deferred until a deal is concluded. If any of those options aren't feasible, then it's game over.
This is what I'm getting at re the reality of the situation.
Vote 'No' - we're gone. Vote 'Yes' - we have a chance, with credible investors, but even then we'd have to conclude a deal quickly.
The pack issued re the EGM pretty much says as much. I'm choosing to believe what was said in the FAQ.
[Post edited 27 Feb 13:16]
As you know, I’m a shareholder so could you forward the pack onto me please?
I’ve given up on waiting for the club to sort their shit out over which shareholders they bother to email.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:35 - Feb 27 with 1690 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 12:37 - Feb 27 by D_Alien
So there needs to be a contingency plan (one or more) in place if - for whatever reason - we reach the end of March and a takeover deal hasn't been secured. Could be there's two or three bids which need to be finalised until a preferred bid emerges
It's really not just vote Yes or else... the BoD would have to be insane (literally) not to have made some kind of contingency for this scenario
Sure, the above would be dependent on a Yes vote... but the "end of March" needs to be further explored, i.e. one of the pesky "alternatives" that people seem all too keen to brush under the carpet
[Post edited 27 Feb 12:39]
DA, the "contingency" was SG and RK putting in well over half a million quid of their own money. To do that , the club had to be short of cold, hard, cash. there is no more cash on the horizon and the Directors obviously can't keep pouring in money. they have covered the club for a number of weeks and months and done their best to preserve enough to be saleable, but the end has been reached and we are still well adrift. They could have made all the staff redundant but there would still be costs involved and so they have called time as I would have and you would have if we had that sort of money on the line with no prospect of ever getting a return. A few quid raised by fans isn't going to fix this. If the Board were to trade knowing they cant cover their bills they would be breaking the law and I can't blame them for not going there. The "insanity" was not doing this earlier.....and spending £100s of thousands propping up a dying business.
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:38 - Feb 27 with 1680 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:36 - Feb 27 by 49thseason
DA, the "contingency" was SG and RK putting in well over half a million quid of their own money. To do that , the club had to be short of cold, hard, cash. there is no more cash on the horizon and the Directors obviously can't keep pouring in money. they have covered the club for a number of weeks and months and done their best to preserve enough to be saleable, but the end has been reached and we are still well adrift. They could have made all the staff redundant but there would still be costs involved and so they have called time as I would have and you would have if we had that sort of money on the line with no prospect of ever getting a return. A few quid raised by fans isn't going to fix this. If the Board were to trade knowing they cant cover their bills they would be breaking the law and I can't blame them for not going there. The "insanity" was not doing this earlier.....and spending £100s of thousands propping up a dying business.
There has been a contingency, sell all the £2.35 shares
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:36 - Feb 27 by 49thseason
DA, the "contingency" was SG and RK putting in well over half a million quid of their own money. To do that , the club had to be short of cold, hard, cash. there is no more cash on the horizon and the Directors obviously can't keep pouring in money. they have covered the club for a number of weeks and months and done their best to preserve enough to be saleable, but the end has been reached and we are still well adrift. They could have made all the staff redundant but there would still be costs involved and so they have called time as I would have and you would have if we had that sort of money on the line with no prospect of ever getting a return. A few quid raised by fans isn't going to fix this. If the Board were to trade knowing they cant cover their bills they would be breaking the law and I can't blame them for not going there. The "insanity" was not doing this earlier.....and spending £100s of thousands propping up a dying business.
49th, all of this has been established, and needs no further repeating
You yourself have put forward a myriad of ideas during the last 12-15 months in an effort to generate income, during which time you and the rest of the fanbase have been wilfully ignored. That should need no further repeating either, but since we're here it didn't have to be like this
But here we are, and i've very little doubt we'll still be here after the end of March. This isn't a business that makes widgets, it's raison d'etre is people
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:38 - Feb 27 by Newbury_Dale
Hopefully if the motion is passed, and a takeover ensues, the current BODs will step aside completely.
There will be some sort of handover period I would imagine, hopefully it will be an amicable process, there is no reason why it wouldnt be. Some people are bothered that the sale may not be completed by the end of March, but there may well be a more or less immediate injection of funds if the vote concludes we have to accept an offer. if the buyers put 4 directors in place together with a signed Heads of Agreement to be followed by a full contract at a later date when the full purchase price has been met we should be able to carry on.. . Its in no ones interest not to keep trading legally with cash in the bank.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 14:36 - Feb 27 with 1464 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:35 - Feb 27 by Brierls
Done.
Cheers. I hope to be there on the night, but at least I know I now have the ability to appoint a proxy via the attached form should I not be able to. Like D’Alien pointed out on another thread, are the club breaking any kind of rule by not informing all shareholders? That stuff goes over my head.
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 14:50 - Feb 27 with 1400 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:13 - Feb 27 by Brierls
My interpretation...
We've exhausted all options with the current share structure.
If the vote is 'Yes', this brings more credible (example in the Trust article) potential investors into the game. If a deal was in place but not yet completed, then money would have to be found. If this is SG, RK (both have said they're at their limit), fans or another method, I have no clue. In regrettable but real terms, it would probably mean outgoings deferred until a deal is concluded. If any of those options aren't feasible, then it's game over.
This is what I'm getting at re the reality of the situation.
Vote 'No' - we're gone. Vote 'Yes' - we have a chance, with credible investors, but even then we'd have to conclude a deal quickly.
The pack issued re the EGM pretty much says as much. I'm choosing to believe what was said in the FAQ.
[Post edited 27 Feb 13:16]
Sums it up nicely.... one other scenario;
Vote Yes - BoD fail to land investment and refuse to fund the club anymore and await their recompense via liquidation.
Are we planning for that now?
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 14:54 - Feb 27 with 1382 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 13:38 - Feb 27 by Newbury_Dale
Hopefully if the motion is passed, and a takeover ensues, the current BODs will step aside completely.
This is where I’m at with this.
The “do we or don’t we trust the chairman and BOD” is a bit irrelevant.
In my view the club has not been properly run for years now, the club has been run down, off the pitch poor marketing, poor commercial decisions, complete failure to engage with a loyal customer base. Dreadful decisions on and off the pitch turning away genuine offers of help. It’s been a race to the bottom and we’re getting close to it.
We need a change of leadership, we need someone who understands football, fans and the town and knows how to run a modern business. We need the change now.
Up the Dale.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 15:15 - Feb 27 with 1330 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 14:54 - Feb 27 by Rodingdale
This is where I’m at with this.
The “do we or don’t we trust the chairman and BOD” is a bit irrelevant.
In my view the club has not been properly run for years now, the club has been run down, off the pitch poor marketing, poor commercial decisions, complete failure to engage with a loyal customer base. Dreadful decisions on and off the pitch turning away genuine offers of help. It’s been a race to the bottom and we’re getting close to it.
We need a change of leadership, we need someone who understands football, fans and the town and knows how to run a modern business. We need the change now.
Up the Dale.
"...we need someone who understands football, fans and the town..."
I'd say the chances of that happening are pretty remote, wouldn't you? If there was someone with sufficient financial clout to invest who met those criteria, where the hell have they been?
The reality is we'll be stuck with owners who'll pay all the lip service in the world to such values (and many will suck it up) and will by the very definition of the term be insincere. If Dale do well under their watch, it'll be despite their lack of understanding of "football, fans and the town". I'd rather they just came in, said "we've never been involved in sport before, haven't a clue about Rochdale as a town and who the hell are you lot in the stands?" I'd actually have more respect for that
EGM - which way are you voting? on 02:56 - Feb 27 by Sandyman
I get all that, but where's the money?
I think your point sandyman is the very crook of the matter.
I agree with the sentiment of TS and others that the club could be run as a sustainable business, that is what it’s been for the last 100 years. Yes we have had our moments but we always managed to find a way.
However during a large period of that time we had at the helm driven individuals, with the know how and a level of financial clout, Radcliffe, Kilpatrick, Morris, Dunphy and they were supported by like minded board members who could chuck in a few grand when needed, and staff at the club such as Colin Garlick, Steve Walmsley, Francis Collins, Richard wild and maureen Peacock.
However with the removal of Chris Dunphy and all that has happened since the club has been in managed decline under botters and then the current board have bad decisions in running of the club that have cost us. We have reached a point where we literally haven’t got no money and no time.
Two years ago when Morton house were beaten, £1 million pounds was raised in the share issue coupled with £1 million pounds being brought in from player transfers is when that structure could have and should have been built. We had the time and the buffer. We can debate the why’s and the why nots as to why it wasn’t put in place but the fact is to do that now given the seriousness of this financial crisis , then I personally don’t think is viable to rebuild the club back the way it was in the time and resources we have.
In the immediate here and now where the hell do the funds come from for March, April, Mays wages? Talk of conversations with the council or local businessmen doesn’t pay the clubs employees mortgages in the short term.
Who are the individuals with the drive, the know how to negotiate a deal to take over from the existing board, put together a plan to to rebuild the club, and provide the funding to support the club financially while all that is back in place and the club can once again become sustainable and pay back the current board. If that was such a person or group of individuals out there within our fan base why hasn’t it come forward and made a serious offer to take over the club. Do we have a another killie?
Yes we have a trust, but running the trust and running a club are two different things. That is not a criticism in any way the trust has been the one shining light in the last 5 years.
To be fair TS you have for a long time criticised the board and you may have well been proven right. However as I look at the sad state of affairs and weigh up our options I see no other alternative than to vote this resolution, with the hope that the type of people who the trust referred to in their statement indeed are our preferred new investors.
If anyone can come forward from within our own fanbase with a credible plan, backed up with the cash to see through the next three months and next season, and in the next 7 days then I Would vote NO with my head up high.
But it would be as much if not more of a risk to vote No without a plan in place.
I get it, and yes it stinks to high heaven, but we have reached the end of our realistic options to survive in our current model in my humble opinion.
[Post edited 27 Feb 18:18]
2
EGM - which way are you voting? on 15:44 - Feb 27 with 1226 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 15:15 - Feb 27 by D_Alien
"...we need someone who understands football, fans and the town..."
I'd say the chances of that happening are pretty remote, wouldn't you? If there was someone with sufficient financial clout to invest who met those criteria, where the hell have they been?
The reality is we'll be stuck with owners who'll pay all the lip service in the world to such values (and many will suck it up) and will by the very definition of the term be insincere. If Dale do well under their watch, it'll be despite their lack of understanding of "football, fans and the town". I'd rather they just came in, said "we've never been involved in sport before, haven't a clue about Rochdale as a town and who the hell are you lot in the stands?" I'd actually have more respect for that
[Post edited 27 Feb 15:17]
Doesn’t have to be one individual. A balanced board should have all the bases covered. Run the place better and the financials can look better, drive value from commercial activities, us the volunteer army to reduce costs, stewarding, behind the bar, turnstiles, kiosks, stewarding. Ground upkeep. Engage with the town - properly for a sustained period. Play interesting football, maybe at a lower level at first (will happen anyway the way we are going). Work with the local authority. Use the ground more, install a plastic pitch. Loads of things can be done, but the leadership needs to engage with innovation to build a sustainable model. Chucking money at the old model ain’t gonna do the job.
We need a change of tune.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 15:49 - Feb 27 with 1210 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 15:15 - Feb 27 by D_Alien
"...we need someone who understands football, fans and the town..."
I'd say the chances of that happening are pretty remote, wouldn't you? If there was someone with sufficient financial clout to invest who met those criteria, where the hell have they been?
The reality is we'll be stuck with owners who'll pay all the lip service in the world to such values (and many will suck it up) and will by the very definition of the term be insincere. If Dale do well under their watch, it'll be despite their lack of understanding of "football, fans and the town". I'd rather they just came in, said "we've never been involved in sport before, haven't a clue about Rochdale as a town and who the hell are you lot in the stands?" I'd actually have more respect for that
[Post edited 27 Feb 15:17]
Agreed. That's just not realistic.
We can hope for somebody who's got some money to invest, knows about running a football club and has a plan! The Trust article suggested at least one investor had those credentials.
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 15:54 - Feb 27 with 1183 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 15:44 - Feb 27 by Rodingdale
Doesn’t have to be one individual. A balanced board should have all the bases covered. Run the place better and the financials can look better, drive value from commercial activities, us the volunteer army to reduce costs, stewarding, behind the bar, turnstiles, kiosks, stewarding. Ground upkeep. Engage with the town - properly for a sustained period. Play interesting football, maybe at a lower level at first (will happen anyway the way we are going). Work with the local authority. Use the ground more, install a plastic pitch. Loads of things can be done, but the leadership needs to engage with innovation to build a sustainable model. Chucking money at the old model ain’t gonna do the job.
We need a change of tune.
I very much doubt any new owner of the club would operate in the same way. They will have their own ideas and model.
The tune will almost certainly change. If we can agree to facilitate that.
[Post edited 27 Feb 15:58]
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 17:27 - Feb 27 with 974 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 12:23 - Feb 27 by Brierls
If you don't trust Simon Gauge and the BoD, vote Yes and allow the club to be sold. SG won't be in control of anything then.
The Lawrence 'takeover' was a shitshow. No doubt. This BoD also released the name(s) of potential investors to the Dale Trust, before any exclusivity agreement, so they could perform due diligence.
Which bit don't you believe? I'm genuinely interested.
I thought it was in the public domain that SG (and RK) were ploughing money into the club to keep it operating? The same people are saying they don't have any more money to put in, and without additional money the club won't operate.
I'm all for fans having different views, but surely some of that has to be based on reality.
[Post edited 27 Feb 12:29]
The money that SG and other members of the board have sunk into the club is amazing really but it doesn't mean they should be lauded for how they have run it, the club is on its knees. I don't trust them to sell the club to the right people and I question whether the longevity of the club comes before their own personal interests when it comes to choosing the preferred investor. I say that because human nature comes into decision making and I don't accept at face value that those in the Boardroom will just wipe their mouths and write off their outlay. They won't all agree to do that and neither will their family's. I respect you very much as a lifelong Dale fan and I'm actually in awe of you and your friends who do much more than me when it comes to following our team, so let's not fall into the trap of creating a divide between the fans. We see this from a different alternative and neither of us are sure if we are right or wrong. We both care very much about what's going to happen to the club so we have that in common.
[Post edited 27 Feb 17:37]
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 18:17 - Feb 27 with 849 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 14:54 - Feb 27 by Rodingdale
This is where I’m at with this.
The “do we or don’t we trust the chairman and BOD” is a bit irrelevant.
In my view the club has not been properly run for years now, the club has been run down, off the pitch poor marketing, poor commercial decisions, complete failure to engage with a loyal customer base. Dreadful decisions on and off the pitch turning away genuine offers of help. It’s been a race to the bottom and we’re getting close to it.
We need a change of leadership, we need someone who understands football, fans and the town and knows how to run a modern business. We need the change now.
Up the Dale.
Hopefully the Chief Exec, who seemingly can't even effectively manage an Excel spreadsheet of shareholders' email addresses, is also part of the outgoings. I've arrived at the conclusion that it's going to be more dangerous to oppose this EGM motion because a continuation of what we're currently doing is going to put the club into extinction anyway.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
