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.
Is it the responsibility of the COO to maintain the shareholders’ register or that of the Company Secretary? Or does the same person hold both titles. If the club goes into liquidation he’ll be out of work anyway I suppose.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 18:55 - Feb 27 with 3373 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 17:27 - Feb 27 by TalkingSutty
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]
This club has been on its knees for years TS, if we were all brave enough to admit it.
In 2021, the price of a 50% controlling stake was set at £1.5m and £1.2m was quickly and efficiently deployed into the pockets of six then shareholders with only Andrew Kelly preventing a proper takeover.
Not a penny of that takeover attempt went anywhere near the club and nor did the EFL know anything of it until after it happened.
If it had not been the Essex lot it would have been someone else.
Since then, the club has issued shares and individuals and the Trust have bought then in 2021 and to a lesser extent in 2023 but the appetite for shares has deteriorated.
The BoD had to buy the sold shares for £0.5m which again didn't go into the club.
I think I am right in saying that right before the 1st June 2021 AGM/EGM that: * Gauge owned no shares. * Knight had 500 shares * Courtney had 100 shares * Pockney had 12,500 shares * Wormald owned no shares. * Sarfield owned no shares.
With cash they own 35% of the club between them so I don't think you can question why they got involved in 2021.
Then add in that Gauge and Knight have put in a level of Director loans (which went to a previous EGM) on top of being in that 35%.
Those six men could have left us to it in 2021 and we would have died as a club then, notwithstanding the business prowess that an elderly female septuagenarian residing 235 miles from Spotland might have brought to the club with her village energy.
We have to accept that is the current financial position and that the Board have all said that they can't continue subsidising a loss making football club.
We also have to accept that the club is not an attractive proposition in its current format to possible investors.
If this BoD didn't care about the club they would do exactly what the 2021 lot did and sell their shares privately and the openly available shares.
Their shares plus the available ones look like they'd cost an acquiring party a lot less than the £2m they are saying may go into the club on a change of capital structure.
This debate should have probably happened in the good times, or in 2020 or 2021 after Covid or even since; because there isn't one club that has its capital structure set up the way ours is that is successful or if there is I have yet to see it.
And that is not me saying all owners are good owners because they are not but if it is a choice between this current shareholding and possibly not continuing then that's the consideration.
RMBC will do nowt to support the club (why change the habits of the last 35 years) and generally the town will not come out to support the team unless its a big occasion like a trip to Old Trafford.
Wealdstone tonight, Ebbsfleet away on Saturday and Barnet away next Tuesday will be your die hards.
Whether we all see Southend pier remains to be see at this juncture.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
Something arose in conversation last night. Shareholders were told at the December 2023 AGM that the club had broke even during the first two quarters of the current financial year. Two months later, liquidation by the end of March is being touted by the chairman.
Were those two "break even" quarters caused by the club being economically viable, or subsidised by directors loans that shareholders weren't told about?
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 07:42 - Feb 28 with 2808 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 01:00 - Feb 28 by Sandyman
Something arose in conversation last night. Shareholders were told at the December 2023 AGM that the club had broke even during the first two quarters of the current financial year. Two months later, liquidation by the end of March is being touted by the chairman.
Were those two "break even" quarters caused by the club being economically viable, or subsidised by directors loans that shareholders weren't told about?
A good valid point that should be on the list of the Trust questions. So make that question number 28..
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 08:46 - Feb 28 with 2688 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 01:00 - Feb 28 by Sandyman
Something arose in conversation last night. Shareholders were told at the December 2023 AGM that the club had broke even during the first two quarters of the current financial year. Two months later, liquidation by the end of March is being touted by the chairman.
Were those two "break even" quarters caused by the club being economically viable, or subsidised by directors loans that shareholders weren't told about?
I would guess for the first part we had the season ticket monies , but as that run out the directors had to subsidise as incomes drop.
They also said that they had lent money to pay wages at the end of November and had lent a total of about 320k. Without money from transfers that would see us to end of January.
That figure has now rose to 566k so you can do rough fag packet calculation of about 70k a month.
That sort of tallies with the comment made at the EGM for the directors loan. The budget to get through this season includes 800k from sale of shares, that hasn’t happened. We have hit the point that we have used our cash reserves and there is nothing left.
You could guess we need approximately 300k to get us through this season.
I do get frustrated that when asked you never get a straight answer about the budget and the shortfall. I understand income in football can be fluid but outgoings should be forecasted. They should be able to say this is our forecasted shortfall for the remainder of the season,
It shouldn’t be a surprise now that we have used the directors loan and no money. To be fair they said it would only provide more time to find an investor
In light of the other thread about judd resigning as Trust Chairman and Board Member, this thread is probably the place for this sentiment...
I've had my run in's with judd, almost as many as D'Alien and TS, but I'm fully aware of the forensic work he did during the MH saga.
"Last night I had the uplifting pleasure of meeting a potential investor, and Simon Gauge has agreed for me to continue to pass on any details of the initiatives I have worked on in the past week. As I now write this as just a supporter, I would recommend that in the absence of any other option, shareholders vote in support of the board motions."
If you're going to listen to anybody on the credibility of the situation and/or investors, I suggest you listen to him.
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 12:29 - Feb 28 with 2429 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 17:27 - Feb 27 by TalkingSutty
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]
I'm not lauding SG and the BoD for how the club has been run. I am just of a very firm opinion that we have to deal with the here and now.
You know that respect is mutual.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 12:42 - Feb 28 with 2392 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 08:46 - Feb 28 by wozzrafc
I would guess for the first part we had the season ticket monies , but as that run out the directors had to subsidise as incomes drop.
They also said that they had lent money to pay wages at the end of November and had lent a total of about 320k. Without money from transfers that would see us to end of January.
That figure has now rose to 566k so you can do rough fag packet calculation of about 70k a month.
That sort of tallies with the comment made at the EGM for the directors loan. The budget to get through this season includes 800k from sale of shares, that hasn’t happened. We have hit the point that we have used our cash reserves and there is nothing left.
You could guess we need approximately 300k to get us through this season.
I do get frustrated that when asked you never get a straight answer about the budget and the shortfall. I understand income in football can be fluid but outgoings should be forecasted. They should be able to say this is our forecasted shortfall for the remainder of the season,
It shouldn’t be a surprise now that we have used the directors loan and no money. To be fair they said it would only provide more time to find an investor
[Post edited 28 Feb 10:05]
It's not clear either if the comment about break even is in either profit and loss or cash terms.
We know that the club makes a loss without one offs. There is always hope for cup runs and this years performances were particularly disappointing not just for the football, but the finances.
Additionally there was a lot of chatter about January 2024 player sales.
I may be wrong but I think this January no one was sold, nor is there a likelihood of anyone to be sold until the Summer.
This differs from 2022/23 - Charman was sold and so money in by the end of January and we'd sold Grant to MK Dons just before that. 2021/22 we had sold Beesley and Morley in the January window.
I think we have loss making club, flattered by one-offs of which we have not had any of those really since the hostile takeover attempt.
Projecting forward we may sell players in the Summer and should be in Cup competitions this Autumn but that is too far away for the here and now.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:51 - Feb 27 by blackdogblue
Your missing one…
Some not all?
I don't think I've missed anyone.
The Trust got a Director space (Murray Knight) given the size of their shareholding (13%) plus support from other shareholders. I may be wrong but I don't think (from what is at Companies House) that Murray owns any shares in his own name but represents the Trust's holding as a corporate body and represents circa 1,100 Trust members having been democratically elected.
My wider point - in 2021 people brought new money and new leadership following the removal of two directors of the club, which is exactly what the motions being put to shareholders are attempting to do now in 2024.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
EGM - which way are you voting? on 12:09 - Feb 28 by Brierls
In light of the other thread about judd resigning as Trust Chairman and Board Member, this thread is probably the place for this sentiment...
I've had my run in's with judd, almost as many as D'Alien and TS, but I'm fully aware of the forensic work he did during the MH saga.
"Last night I had the uplifting pleasure of meeting a potential investor, and Simon Gauge has agreed for me to continue to pass on any details of the initiatives I have worked on in the past week. As I now write this as just a supporter, I would recommend that in the absence of any other option, shareholders vote in support of the board motions."
If you're going to listen to anybody on the credibility of the situation and/or investors, I suggest you listen to him.
Agreed
As for run ins, what would Dale be without an occasional "exchange of pleasantries" especially at critical times? If we have more run ins in future it'll be a sign we've survived and live to fight another day
EGM - which way are you voting? on 01:00 - Feb 28 by Sandyman
Something arose in conversation last night. Shareholders were told at the December 2023 AGM that the club had broke even during the first two quarters of the current financial year. Two months later, liquidation by the end of March is being touted by the chairman.
Were those two "break even" quarters caused by the club being economically viable, or subsidised by directors loans that shareholders weren't told about?
The closest I recollect SG has come to showing his cards was in the radio interview I heard where he said "we are not that loss-making". Make of that what you will?
EGM - which way are you voting? on 14:43 - Feb 28 by DaleiLama
The closest I recollect SG has come to showing his cards was in the radio interview I heard where he said "we are not that loss-making". Make of that what you will?
We're back to the difference between profit & loss accounts, balance sheet and cash flow.
However much we might 'break even' for any part of a financial year overall we've been making annual operating losses for decades (intermittently funded by player sales and/or cup runs and 'legally' covered in the Balance Sheet by 'notional' assets) as others have pointed out; although in comparison with other lower league teams those losses have been historically small (we are not that loss-making).
But when it comes to paying bills you need actual cash in the bank which we don't have. We could potentially find that cash by raising capital through Directors loans (now run dry), share sales (offered but not bought) or selling players (none of current squad would make much) or selling our main asset - the Ground (but then there'd be a club but no football).
To me, the bottom line is that the ultimatum has come far too late to do anything about it. That's the bit that stinks in all of this. Couple this with selling at what appears to be the lowest end of the marketable value just adds salt to the wound. There's an awful lot of weight put on the ground as the 'asset rich' bit - it has value - there's no doubt about that - but it doesn't appear to be what shapes the sales value. SG talked on a recent clip about selling now whilst at least we have the value of National League status. That speaks volumes. I still don't like the 90% approach that we have to vote on - one can provide hard evidence that cash has run out but it's much more difficult to prove that all potential buyers require 90% ownership. I can see that we have no cash - and I have been concerned about the cash generation for some time. I could only see share option after share option being offered - and clearly that doesn't work. 90% sale in effect ends all negotiation whereas if we had had more time there may have been a way of negotiating the ground (or at least the playing surface) to be in the hands of the Trust - if necessary in exchange for the majority shareholding. Sadly though it is too late for 'what ifs' and once 90% has been signed away - too late for much further input at all. Sadly I'll likely abstain as I cannot vote for something that I don't believe in (90% mandatory ownership) - but nor can I vote for liquidating the club.
2
EGM - which way are you voting? on 20:33 - Feb 28 with 1789 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:52 - Feb 28 by Rehsad
To me, the bottom line is that the ultimatum has come far too late to do anything about it. That's the bit that stinks in all of this. Couple this with selling at what appears to be the lowest end of the marketable value just adds salt to the wound. There's an awful lot of weight put on the ground as the 'asset rich' bit - it has value - there's no doubt about that - but it doesn't appear to be what shapes the sales value. SG talked on a recent clip about selling now whilst at least we have the value of National League status. That speaks volumes. I still don't like the 90% approach that we have to vote on - one can provide hard evidence that cash has run out but it's much more difficult to prove that all potential buyers require 90% ownership. I can see that we have no cash - and I have been concerned about the cash generation for some time. I could only see share option after share option being offered - and clearly that doesn't work. 90% sale in effect ends all negotiation whereas if we had had more time there may have been a way of negotiating the ground (or at least the playing surface) to be in the hands of the Trust - if necessary in exchange for the majority shareholding. Sadly though it is too late for 'what ifs' and once 90% has been signed away - too late for much further input at all. Sadly I'll likely abstain as I cannot vote for something that I don't believe in (90% mandatory ownership) - but nor can I vote for liquidating the club.
I find myself with the same dilemma as you. I am not sure what to do and might abstain. I am hoping the forum tomorrow will give more clarity even if it is unwelcome clarity.
There should have been a more open debate months ago with time to discuss possible contingencies, particularly around the ground.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 21:38 - Feb 28 with 1663 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:52 - Feb 28 by Rehsad
To me, the bottom line is that the ultimatum has come far too late to do anything about it. That's the bit that stinks in all of this. Couple this with selling at what appears to be the lowest end of the marketable value just adds salt to the wound. There's an awful lot of weight put on the ground as the 'asset rich' bit - it has value - there's no doubt about that - but it doesn't appear to be what shapes the sales value. SG talked on a recent clip about selling now whilst at least we have the value of National League status. That speaks volumes. I still don't like the 90% approach that we have to vote on - one can provide hard evidence that cash has run out but it's much more difficult to prove that all potential buyers require 90% ownership. I can see that we have no cash - and I have been concerned about the cash generation for some time. I could only see share option after share option being offered - and clearly that doesn't work. 90% sale in effect ends all negotiation whereas if we had had more time there may have been a way of negotiating the ground (or at least the playing surface) to be in the hands of the Trust - if necessary in exchange for the majority shareholding. Sadly though it is too late for 'what ifs' and once 90% has been signed away - too late for much further input at all. Sadly I'll likely abstain as I cannot vote for something that I don't believe in (90% mandatory ownership) - but nor can I vote for liquidating the club.
A very heartfelt post and I'd guess your dilemma is shared by all, including SG (as RAFC quoted on the Dale Trust thread).
However i beg you to vote, even if I disagree with what you choose. The right of all to have a part in deciding what happens is one of the great things about any democracy, even for the future of a (sic) shitty little northern football club.
If it turns out mine or anyone's vote choice proves to be a mistake we won't be alone and if it turns out successful we can share in the glory.
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:52 - Feb 28 by Rehsad
To me, the bottom line is that the ultimatum has come far too late to do anything about it. That's the bit that stinks in all of this. Couple this with selling at what appears to be the lowest end of the marketable value just adds salt to the wound. There's an awful lot of weight put on the ground as the 'asset rich' bit - it has value - there's no doubt about that - but it doesn't appear to be what shapes the sales value. SG talked on a recent clip about selling now whilst at least we have the value of National League status. That speaks volumes. I still don't like the 90% approach that we have to vote on - one can provide hard evidence that cash has run out but it's much more difficult to prove that all potential buyers require 90% ownership. I can see that we have no cash - and I have been concerned about the cash generation for some time. I could only see share option after share option being offered - and clearly that doesn't work. 90% sale in effect ends all negotiation whereas if we had had more time there may have been a way of negotiating the ground (or at least the playing surface) to be in the hands of the Trust - if necessary in exchange for the majority shareholding. Sadly though it is too late for 'what ifs' and once 90% has been signed away - too late for much further input at all. Sadly I'll likely abstain as I cannot vote for something that I don't believe in (90% mandatory ownership) - but nor can I vote for liquidating the club.
Your penultimate sentence is the crux of this - its frustrating that it has come to this, time waits for no man (or woman! )
Interesting regarding the resolution vote - am I right in thinking there has to be 75% in favour for them to be approved? And is that 75% of the people actually voting (whether that be based on numbers of individuals or number of shares held by said individuals) or is it 75% of the total shareholders? Perhaps RAFC Blue can answer?
Looking at the numbers as at Jun 2023, the current BOD and their families own about 33%. The next 7 largest shareholders, including the Trust (c13%) Andrew Kelly (c9%) Graham Morris (c4.5%) and Jamie Sarsfield (c4.4%), collectively own c37%.
So IF all these voted in favour at the EGM, the threshold would almost be reached.
EGM - which way are you voting? on 11:44 - Mar 2 by 100notout
Your penultimate sentence is the crux of this - its frustrating that it has come to this, time waits for no man (or woman! )
Interesting regarding the resolution vote - am I right in thinking there has to be 75% in favour for them to be approved? And is that 75% of the people actually voting (whether that be based on numbers of individuals or number of shares held by said individuals) or is it 75% of the total shareholders? Perhaps RAFC Blue can answer?
Looking at the numbers as at Jun 2023, the current BOD and their families own about 33%. The next 7 largest shareholders, including the Trust (c13%) Andrew Kelly (c9%) Graham Morris (c4.5%) and Jamie Sarsfield (c4.4%), collectively own c37%.
So IF all these voted in favour at the EGM, the threshold would almost be reached.
Time might wait for no woman but men have to. Regularly. (Apologies in advance to female posters/readers but you know it's true )
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:52 - Feb 28 by Rehsad
To me, the bottom line is that the ultimatum has come far too late to do anything about it. That's the bit that stinks in all of this. Couple this with selling at what appears to be the lowest end of the marketable value just adds salt to the wound. There's an awful lot of weight put on the ground as the 'asset rich' bit - it has value - there's no doubt about that - but it doesn't appear to be what shapes the sales value. SG talked on a recent clip about selling now whilst at least we have the value of National League status. That speaks volumes. I still don't like the 90% approach that we have to vote on - one can provide hard evidence that cash has run out but it's much more difficult to prove that all potential buyers require 90% ownership. I can see that we have no cash - and I have been concerned about the cash generation for some time. I could only see share option after share option being offered - and clearly that doesn't work. 90% sale in effect ends all negotiation whereas if we had had more time there may have been a way of negotiating the ground (or at least the playing surface) to be in the hands of the Trust - if necessary in exchange for the majority shareholding. Sadly though it is too late for 'what ifs' and once 90% has been signed away - too late for much further input at all. Sadly I'll likely abstain as I cannot vote for something that I don't believe in (90% mandatory ownership) - but nor can I vote for liquidating the club.
Unfortunately, abstaining is the same as a vote to liquidate the club.. There has to be 75% in favour to progress the deal with the Americans, abstaining and voting against the proposal are the same thing if the 75% cannot be achieved. Imagine being at 74% in favour with enough abstentions to push it over the line to the required 75% and the proposal is defeated....., 3 weeks later the club is gone.... forever....
The cash is more or less gone, we cant borrow any money and you may not feel that surrendering 90% is ideal. nothing is ideal without cash. If there is no money for wages, electricity, rent on Platt Lane, travel, and 100s of other bills, it's over.
Please don't let the club die simply because you think something else might turn up in the next 29 days, its almost too late already. Vote for another season or two at least and give the club the chance it deserves. Even a toss of a coin is better than not having a coin in the first place.
1
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:12 - Mar 2 with 828 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 15:21 - Mar 2 by 49thseason
Unfortunately, abstaining is the same as a vote to liquidate the club.. There has to be 75% in favour to progress the deal with the Americans, abstaining and voting against the proposal are the same thing if the 75% cannot be achieved. Imagine being at 74% in favour with enough abstentions to push it over the line to the required 75% and the proposal is defeated....., 3 weeks later the club is gone.... forever....
The cash is more or less gone, we cant borrow any money and you may not feel that surrendering 90% is ideal. nothing is ideal without cash. If there is no money for wages, electricity, rent on Platt Lane, travel, and 100s of other bills, it's over.
Please don't let the club die simply because you think something else might turn up in the next 29 days, its almost too late already. Vote for another season or two at least and give the club the chance it deserves. Even a toss of a coin is better than not having a coin in the first place.
I shall be voting to save the club. I'm still not convinced where this 90% requirement comes from - given that the Americans only have 24% of Maastcht but we are where we are.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:59 - Mar 2 with 752 views
EGM - which way are you voting? on 19:12 - Mar 2 by Rehsad
I shall be voting to save the club. I'm still not convinced where this 90% requirement comes from - given that the Americans only have 24% of Maastcht but we are where we are.
Good man! ( a presumption, apols if not). I don't know if the option was there to buy all of the Maastricht club .. I guess we will find out more in due course, the first imperative is the stay in the game.. as our backs are at the wall and we are now in Hobsons Choice territory. Hopefully on and off pitch matters will start to improve quickly once there is some cash in the bank and some new enthusiasm around the ground.
0
EGM - which way are you voting? on 20:15 - Mar 2 with 716 views
Sorry for bringing up the idea I had but couldn't the split of ownership be 74.9% yanks and 25.1% trust that way the trust members would have the casting vote on any decision that requires a 75% or more. The reason for 90% was because the rest of the shareholders would be unlikely to subsidies the shortfall. If the shortfall is £70K a month 25.1% of that is £17570.
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
EGM - which way are you voting? on 20:15 - Mar 2 by James1980
Sorry for bringing up the idea I had but couldn't the split of ownership be 74.9% yanks and 25.1% trust that way the trust members would have the casting vote on any decision that requires a 75% or more. The reason for 90% was because the rest of the shareholders would be unlikely to subsidies the shortfall. If the shortfall is £70K a month 25.1% of that is £17570.
If the investors were prepared to do that it would have been done already.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
) 
) 