| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) 19:44 - May 27 with 28566 views | IOMDale |
Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere but the club have issued this statement tonight:
Rochdale AFC & Denehurst Park (Rochdale)
STATEMENT FROM CHAIRMAN ANDREW KELLY AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO RAFC SHAREHOLDERS
1. Update on Recent Developments
Ahead of the AGMs and EGMs to be held on Tuesday 1st June 2021, the board of directors would like to update shareholders with some important information.
Over the last two years, the board has held the view that to move the club forwards there is a need for outside investment. To have done nothing would have been negligent and would have placed the continuing existence of our proud football club at risk.
The Covid-19 pandemic has reset the world financially and, as a result, sustainability in the world of football is more challenging than ever. Even before that, as a Football Club operating at an elite level of professional football, we could not compete and thrive without the injection of significant amounts of money that are not open to us in the traditional way that we have been funded for 114 years.
We are currently one of less than ten percent of Football League clubs that isn’t owner-funded or major shareholder-controlled.
As a responsible board representing the Dale shareholders, who number over 300, we have looked at many outside parties who have presented varying levels of interest and associated proposals to become that new owner/investor.
Until very recently, none of the proposals tabled have been sufficiently detailed, credible or funded to a level necessary to ensure that the club is stabilised and developed to move us forwards.
The current board, in line with the wonderful previous board custodians over the past 114 years, only have the interests in the development and success of the club at heart and would not contemplate entering into an agreement that could potentially take us down the unsustainable path that other football clubs have sadly found themselves on.
Furthermore, the stringent tests now imposed by the EFL, with regards to owners and directors, are in place to ensure that such unsustainable situations like at those other clubs will never arise again. Not only is proof of funds required for any potential new owners and shareholders, but there are requirements to demonstrate how those funds were acquired and how they will sustain the club going forward. All of the parties that we are engaged in talks with fulfil those EFL requirements.
There has been a concentration by the board in the last four months to bring a conclusion to talks with genuinely interested parties that, if they were to acquire the club, would be to the betterment of RAFC. Commensurate with that, there has been a period of exclusivity with one interested party.
All parties involved wish to continue negotiations and due diligence in a confidential manner which is out of respect for the club. As a responsible board, we understand and respect this situation, but suffice it to say that throughout all the recent and continuing negotiations, we have been greatly impressed by the professional and knowledgeable approach taken at all times.
We can report that the level of investment and the short, medium and long-term plans that have been put forward represent something that this board has been seeking and the club has been in need of for several years.
We are aware of the current criticisms levelled at the existing board, but any potential new owners have confirmed that there will be a new structure introduced throughout the club should the negotiations continue to a successful conclusion. This new structure will be put in place as and when a full assessment has been concluded.
Relegation to EFL League 2 will undoubtedly influence important and immediate short-term planning but has not diminished the enthusiasm and desire to stabilise and develop RAFC over the next 5 years and to press the reset button to bring the club into the modern, post-covid, football world.
The plans discussed to date have featured greatly the urgent need to invest in Club facilities. Primarily, this includes developing first team training facilities, which can ideally become a first team, Academy and Community complex.
The second area of requirement is to invest in stadium refurbishments, both for football and non- football related development, with the third area of investment in on-the-field matters to achieve our ambitions of an immediate return to League One and to achieve greater sustainability as a football club.
At all times during the ongoing negotiations, we have been impressed by each party’s total understanding and respect for the fact that the supporters are the lifeblood of any football club.
2. The Next Steps
Due to the existing constitution of Rochdale Association Football Club Limited, there is currently no practical method of introducing the level of funding and associated control that is a pre-requisite of further negotiations.
This situation arises out of the fact that the present shareholding is so diverse, with the single largest holding representing only 21.87% of the current issued share capital.
In order to allow negotiations with the interested party to be taken to the next level, Resolutions 1, 2 and 4 need to be passed by shareholders at the EGM on 1st June.
Resolution 3 has previously been within the control of the board, but the authority to issue these shares expired in 2016, and was not renewed at that time.
Resolutions 1 and 2 would ensure that any investment will come directly into Rochdale AFC through the issue of new shares. If the board is unable to issue new shares, prospective shareholders could instead approach individual shareholders, which would see significant shareholdings being acquired with monies not benefitting the football club. This has happened in the last two years where a significant amount of money for shares has been transacted without benefit to RAFC. The new investment that is required would be put directly into achieving previously mentioned ambitions.
The board considers that this is an essential next step to allow development of the discussions with interested parties, who, with their vision, professionalism and passion, will be exactly what RAFC needs to not only secure the future, but to develop the club for the benefit of the supporters, the community and the town of Rochdale. Without having the authority to issue new shares, the board is effectively stifled in its ability to seek new investment and we are left in a situation where the status quo prevails.
Whilst the sensitivity and confidential nature of these ongoing negotiations needs to be maintained at this present time, the future transparency and engagement with the supporters on any offer can only benefit all concerned with RAFC.
If we can all work together to bring the passion, vision and investment on offer to the club, we are sure that RAFC will be in a very different place in years to come.
EGM Resolutions 1, 2, 3 & 4
1. THAT, in accordance with paragraph 42(2)(b) of Schedule 2 of the Companies Act 2006 (Commencement No. 8, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2008, the restriction on the authorised share capital of the Company be revoked and deleted from the Company’s memorandum of association.
2. THAT, subject to the passing of resolution 1, in accordance with section 551 of the Companies Act 2006, the directors of the Company (Directors) be generally and unconditionally authorised to allot shares in the Company up to an aggregate nominal amount of £348,521 (697,042 shares @ £0.50 per share) provided that —
a. this authority shall, unless renewed, varied or revoked by the Company, expire at not less than 5 years from the date this resolution is passed; and
b. all shares allotted pursuant to the authorisation hereby conferred shall be so allotted at no less than £6 per share.
3. AND, in the event that resolution 1 is not passed, in accordance with section 551 of the Companies Act 2006, the Directors be generally and unconditionally authorised to allot shares in the Company up to an aggregate nominal amount of £198,521 (397,042 shares @ £0.50 per share), which is the limit of the Company’s authorised share capital, provided that —
a. this authority shall, unless renewed, varied or revoked by the Company, expire at not less than 5 years from the date this resolution is passed; and
b. all shares allotted pursuant to the authorisation hereby conferred shall be so allotted at no less than £6 per share.
Special resolution
4. That, subject to the passing of resolution 2 or 3 and, in accordance with section 570 of the Companies Act 2006, the Directors be generally empowered to allot equity securities (as defined in section 560 of the Companies Act 2006) pursuant to the authority conferred by resolution 2, as if section 561(1) of the CA 2006 did not apply to any such allotment.
|  | | |  |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:02 - May 28 with 1948 views | kel |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 09:57 - May 28 by James1980 |
only have the interests in the development and success of the club at heart and would not contemplate entering into an agreement that could potentially take us down the unsustainable path that other football clubs have sadly found themselves on.
Furthermore, the stringent tests now imposed by the EFL, with regards to owners and directors, are in place to ensure that such unsustainable situations like at those other clubs will never arise again. Not only is proof of funds required for any potential new owners and shareholders, but there are requirements to demonstrate how those funds were acquired and how they will sustain the club going forward. All of the parties that we are engaged in talks with fulfil those EFL requirements.
Does this not allay some of the fears? |
Not really, no.
I’m sure I read somewhere (might have been the bury board - #obsessed) that somebody would only need to show proof of funds for a couple of years. What would happen after that? |  | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:15 - May 28 with 1888 views | AtThePeake |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 09:34 - May 28 by dalefan |
So what would it take for people to support the proposal, or will it be opposed no matter what, even if people have no viable alternative |
Any actual information on who and what the 'proposal' involves might be a start? How can we be expected to support it when we have no idea who is behind and where their funds have come from? Like Kel said, Bury fans were dazzled by bullshit but we haven't even been offered any bullshit here, we've got news that the board are in negotiations with someone. That's it.
At the moment, we're being asked to trust the board's belief that this is a 'viable' option and after the last couple of years, it would be incredibly brave to completely trust the board to make the right call on something this important IMO.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:20 - May 28 with 1873 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 09:42 - May 28 by dalefan |
No I didn’t miss it.
Dunphy doesn’t have the funds to take the club forward though. |
So you accept there are alternatives.
If I remember the coverage Chris Dunphy was fronting a consortium so how you can say that doesn't have the funds can't be right unless you are inside the club and privy to more than the public domain?
There's no credibility to any investor until they are named.
How can the Board be certain their party is credible and more crucial is how do they convince all shareholders that they are credible? |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:28 - May 28 with 1859 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 09:57 - May 28 by James1980 |
only have the interests in the development and success of the club at heart and would not contemplate entering into an agreement that could potentially take us down the unsustainable path that other football clubs have sadly found themselves on.
Furthermore, the stringent tests now imposed by the EFL, with regards to owners and directors, are in place to ensure that such unsustainable situations like at those other clubs will never arise again. Not only is proof of funds required for any potential new owners and shareholders, but there are requirements to demonstrate how those funds were acquired and how they will sustain the club going forward. All of the parties that we are engaged in talks with fulfil those EFL requirements.
Does this not allay some of the fears? |
It's a no from me.
A buyer for 50.1% of existing shares can be found via proper presentation, dialogue and negotiation.
Existing shareholders can sell to that individual privately to support their stake building towards ownership. It is clear the current Board support the idea of a majority owner.
It does not need these resolutions that effectively give 75% of the club to the new investor, Mr Bottomley, Mr Rawlinson, Mr Pockney and Mr Kelly - alongside the shares of the former Chairman Mr A. Kilpatrick - with all other shareholders being overridden. | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:29 - May 28 with 1856 views | R17ALE |
The club should spell out what they are trying to achieve and how much it's going to cost and let people make their own minds up and have the chance to invest if they wish - the secrecy should rightly make everybody suspicious.
Football has moved on, and for Rochdale to become a Championship club it would need a very rich owner who was prepared to bankroll the club and who was able to get around the FFP restrictions (e.g. Bournemouth). If somebody is trying to acquire the club on the cheap they clearly do not have that level of resources.
The reality is: playing at the next level is the dream of all 92 league clubs. They can’t all succeed so it needs to be done prudently.
Hopefully nobody gets swayed by this waffley statement, obviously written by DB though purported to be written by AK.
My eyes and ears in this town don't miss much, and I've been amused by the blundering of two directors who just happen to be named in the Trust's EGM. I've come to the conclusion with the help of this statement, and their actions, that they think we're thick!" |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:35 - May 28 with 1834 views | tony_roch975 |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:20 - May 28 by RAFCBLUE |
So you accept there are alternatives.
If I remember the coverage Chris Dunphy was fronting a consortium so how you can say that doesn't have the funds can't be right unless you are inside the club and privy to more than the public domain?
There's no credibility to any investor until they are named.
How can the Board be certain their party is credible and more crucial is how do they convince all shareholders that they are credible? |
Dunphy's public answer to the Trust shows he doesn't have the funds - he expects "along with others" to have about £255,000. The Board's proposal can be criticised on several grounds but at least they're seeking £2m- £4M |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:35 - May 28 with 1828 views | James1980 |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:02 - May 28 by kel |
Not really, no.
I’m sure I read somewhere (might have been the bury board - #obsessed) that somebody would only need to show proof of funds for a couple of years. What would happen after that? |
Aren't the checks and balances designed to prevent a Bury situation occurring again? Are the not sufficient to do so? | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:42 - May 28 with 1808 views | kel |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:35 - May 28 by James1980 |
Aren't the checks and balances designed to prevent a Bury situation occurring again? Are the not sufficient to do so? |
Well if the EFL can guarantee it will never, ever happen again then let’s go for it.
They can’t though really can they? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:43 - May 28 with 1808 views | DaleiLama |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:35 - May 28 by James1980 |
Aren't the checks and balances designed to prevent a Bury situation occurring again? Are the not sufficient to do so? |
The checks and balances were clearly not fit for purpose with SD1. Then SD2 got our neighbours for a quid (probably done with a receipt written on a serviette). Potential investors must be quaking in their boots under such scrutiny. Were Dan and Emre approved before buying CDs shares? Could others change hands just as easily? Hmmmmmmm. |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:44 - May 28 with 1802 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:35 - May 28 by tony_roch975 |
Dunphy's public answer to the Trust shows he doesn't have the funds - he expects "along with others" to have about £255,000. The Board's proposal can be criticised on several grounds but at least they're seeking £2m- £4M |
I think every Board since the David Kilpatrick / Graham Morris board has sought that level of investment.
None has been able to deliver it.
There is no surety that this investor will have that level of funds. If you've £4m to invest then broadly your going to be worth £20m. I'd shudder if someone told me someone was worth £4m and was investing all that into Dale.
Equally I'd shudder if they told me the £4m would be debt. We've seen that at bury and we all know how it ends.
The club isn't worth £4m on paper so our investor is either massively overpaying or there is something else afoot. I suspect the latter. | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:46 - May 28 with 1791 views | dawlishdale |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 09:57 - May 28 by James1980 |
only have the interests in the development and success of the club at heart and would not contemplate entering into an agreement that could potentially take us down the unsustainable path that other football clubs have sadly found themselves on.
Furthermore, the stringent tests now imposed by the EFL, with regards to owners and directors, are in place to ensure that such unsustainable situations like at those other clubs will never arise again. Not only is proof of funds required for any potential new owners and shareholders, but there are requirements to demonstrate how those funds were acquired and how they will sustain the club going forward. All of the parties that we are engaged in talks with fulfil those EFL requirements.
Does this not allay some of the fears? |
It really doesn't James.
A couple of things for you (and everyone else ) to note.
We don't know who this potential investor is. Thus; shareholders are being asked to basically give away their right to buy shares should more be issued by the club. This would be to make it easier for someone to gain overall control of the club. This person could very well be using money secured on assets (i.e. the stadium) and thus, we would be heavily in debt overnight.
It follows therefore that any shares owned by anyone else other than the person with overall control will become worthless , as no matter how many people vote against their wishes, they would not be defeated.
Ask yourself why the existing Directors would want this? They would in effect lose all the money they have invested by way of shares. It just doesn't add up.
The only way around this would be for a potential investor to do a secret deal with certain shareholders (Perhaps the current Board...plus a recent departee) to buy their shares alongside some previously unissued ones to gain control.
This , imho, is underhand from the Board and must be stopped. Otherwise, we would be handing the club over to persons unknown whilst the Board get a nice payoff and exit strategy.
We can't let it happen.
Of course, the potential investor might be a cash rich billionaire and all our fears are unfounded....in which case; my spidey senses are out of tune. | | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:47 - May 28 with 1783 views | James1980 |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:43 - May 28 by DaleiLama |
The checks and balances were clearly not fit for purpose with SD1. Then SD2 got our neighbours for a quid (probably done with a receipt written on a serviette). Potential investors must be quaking in their boots under such scrutiny. Were Dan and Emre approved before buying CDs shares? Could others change hands just as easily? Hmmmmmmm. |
I was under the impression they were introduced post the collapse of Bury | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:05 - May 28 with 1720 views | Stourdale |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 07:20 - May 28 by RAFCBLUE |
With the greatest respect, I don't think you could be more wrong Stour Dale.
Q. What do these large shareholders have to gain?
A. Hundreds of thousands of pounds if the club is taken over from disposal of their shares to the new owner.
The briefing says - we do not have a majority owner.
To get a majority owner this mystery investor needs 50.1% of the shares.
The largest shareholder is 21% so you currently need the top 9 shareholders to vote for it:
Here is the breakdown:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/news/54603/mark-hodkinson-inside
If the Board get their way:
1. A mass of new shares are issued not to anyone on that list because they want pre-emption rights waived.
2. There is to be a "new structure"
3. My reading is that some or all of the current board will exit selling their shares to this new investor.
The Articles of Association say that the Directors have to ratify share transfers so that closed shop practice would mean ultimately the private sales to the new investor that are being so heavily criticised. |
Thanks for clarifying RAFCBLUE and all the other posts which explain the whole thing a lot better.
I hadn't picked up on the exit strategy of the existing board which makes sense now. | | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:10 - May 28 with 1709 views | tony_roch975 |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:44 - May 28 by RAFCBLUE |
I think every Board since the David Kilpatrick / Graham Morris board has sought that level of investment.
None has been able to deliver it.
There is no surety that this investor will have that level of funds. If you've £4m to invest then broadly your going to be worth £20m. I'd shudder if someone told me someone was worth £4m and was investing all that into Dale.
Equally I'd shudder if they told me the £4m would be debt. We've seen that at bury and we all know how it ends.
The club isn't worth £4m on paper so our investor is either massively overpaying or there is something else afoot. I suspect the latter. |
All that may be true - I wasn't arguing about whether the Board's financial target was achievable. I was giving evidence in support of dalefan's comment that CD didn't have the funds which you had attacked with an unnecessary innuendo about being a Club insider. The Board may not be trusted for having the Club's best interest at heart but let's accept all we fans do, whether we agree or not about DB, the Board, the EGM resolutions etc | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:23 - May 28 with 1660 views | ncfc_chalky |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 10:02 - May 28 by kel |
Not really, no.
I’m sure I read somewhere (might have been the bury board - #obsessed) that somebody would only need to show proof of funds for a couple of years. What would happen after that? |
Munto (Russell King) gave proof of funds and also showed that they had £5million put in a bank account specifically for immediate use by Notts County and passed the FA's fit and proper check,I'm not saying that any investors in Dale are going to con you but don't believe all that you read or get told as they are unlikely to give you all of the facts anyway |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:33 - May 28 with 1628 views | kel |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:23 - May 28 by ncfc_chalky |
Munto (Russell King) gave proof of funds and also showed that they had £5million put in a bank account specifically for immediate use by Notts County and passed the FA's fit and proper check,I'm not saying that any investors in Dale are going to con you but don't believe all that you read or get told as they are unlikely to give you all of the facts anyway |
Excally (8) | | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:43 - May 28 with 1590 views | electricblue |
What i dont understand is why would somebody be willing to pay £6pr share when in all probability they are worth 50p or even a £ if that.
Its like going to a supermarket and at the checkout and at the end the cost is 6 times the amount.
You just would not pay it..
My question is.
Are they only interested because the club own their own ground!
It stinks to high heaven |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:48 - May 28 with 1578 views | RAFCBLUE |
Having done some research this morning I think IF the Board get their way and these resolutions are passed (1, 2 and 4 as per their statement), this is how it will work
STEP 1:
The club has 502,957 shares currently and proposes to issue 697,042 to investor A. If that goes ahead then there are 1,199,999 shares in issue.
This means:
Investor A owns 697,042 (58%)
Existing shareholders own 502,957 (42%)
STEP 2:
Five shareholders sell their shares privately to investor A.
(1) A. Kilpatrick - 110,000 shares - receives £660,000 (£6 a share)
(2) A. Kelly - 58,250 shares - receives £351,000 (£6 a share)
(3) D. Bottomley - 13,100 shares - receives £78,600
(4) T. Pockney - 12,500 shares - receives £75,000
Investor A now has 890,892 shares (74%)
Other investors have 309,107 shares (26%) and will get nothing.
At 74%, there is no say for anyone else who is an existing shareholder - 339 parties our of the 343 shareholders.
I've not seen such a blatant and falsely advertised power grab which disadvantages the existing shareholders and noting that this power lasts for 5 years - so until June 2026.
EDIT:
75% in a significant threshold in company law as it is the level needed for a special resolution. Once you reach that threshold you have effective control of the company in all practical regards. [Post edited 28 May 2021 12:09]
| |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:52 - May 28 with 1552 views | James1980 |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:23 - May 28 by ncfc_chalky |
Munto (Russell King) gave proof of funds and also showed that they had £5million put in a bank account specifically for immediate use by Notts County and passed the FA's fit and proper check,I'm not saying that any investors in Dale are going to con you but don't believe all that you read or get told as they are unlikely to give you all of the facts anyway |
Crikey if the procedures aren't vastly more stringent after the debacles at Bury and your lot Chalky that is very very worrying. | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:57 - May 28 with 1537 views | D_Alien |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:52 - May 28 by James1980 |
Crikey if the procedures aren't vastly more stringent after the debacles at Bury and your lot Chalky that is very very worrying. |
It's unlikely the EFL would have the time and resources to undertake more than just a basic process of due diligence. Those with underhand intent wouldn't find it at all difficult to circumvent all but the most stringent scrutiny, and the people with the knowledge and experience to undertake such scrutiny would be very expensive to either hire or pay a commensurate salary |  |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 12:08 - May 28 with 1470 views | Stourdale |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 11:43 - May 28 by electricblue |
What i dont understand is why would somebody be willing to pay £6pr share when in all probability they are worth 50p or even a £ if that.
Its like going to a supermarket and at the checkout and at the end the cost is 6 times the amount.
You just would not pay it..
My question is.
Are they only interested because the club own their own ground!
It stinks to high heaven |
But would it not be a case of Mr Investor wants to buy available shares at £1 and promised to invest x amount into the club on top.
Instead the club say well if you want to invest that amount buy the shares at £6. This guarantees the money comes into the club and isn't just a false promise of liquidity?
I doubt they truly value the club at £6 a share. | | | |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 12:12 - May 28 with 1437 views | electricblue |
The board should take the ownership of the ground away from the what they propose.
Keeping the ground ownership in the hands of custodians will safe guard the future and not have a Bury situation.... | |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 12:13 - May 28 with 1433 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 12:08 - May 28 by Stourdale |
But would it not be a case of Mr Investor wants to buy available shares at £1 and promised to invest x amount into the club on top.
Instead the club say well if you want to invest that amount buy the shares at £6. This guarantees the money comes into the club and isn't just a false promise of liquidity?
I doubt they truly value the club at £6 a share. |
Based on the accounts that they are asking shareholders to recommend Stourdale each share is worth £5.41 at 31 May 2020
(A) Net assets belonging to shareholders - £2,720,401
(B) Number of shares - 502,957
(C = A divided by B) £5.41 | |
| |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 12:15 - May 28 with 1428 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Club Statement (for shareholders, via email) on 12:12 - May 28 by electricblue |
The board should take the ownership of the ground away from the what they propose.
Keeping the ground ownership in the hands of custodians will safe guard the future and not have a Bury situation.... |
They can't do that EB. That is the problem.
The ground is owned by the Company and they are offering a change of ownership of the Company.
I doubt any investor would pay £6 a share if the club's biggest asset was excluded. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
