| Response to BBC article on 21:41 - Oct 14 with 8258 views | 442Dale |
Excellent update. |  |
|  |
| Response to BBC article on 22:16 - Oct 14 with 8130 views | ncfc_chalky |
As an outsider I'm constantly amazed at the amount of work that the Trust has put into the safeguarding of RAFC,it's truly amazing and 2021 has been a long,hard battle against shysters and charlatans who seem to have been circling the club recently, adding to that the research taking up by supporters on here has probably saved the club from unknown damage and I applaud you all  |  |
| |
| Response to BBC article on 22:38 - Oct 14 with 8075 views | 49thseason |
Well done the Trust! An excellent rebuttal of a poor piece of journalism. I would encourage people to spread this as far as possible. |  | | |
| Response to BBC article on 22:42 - Oct 14 with 8047 views | R17ALE |
And someone somewhere has lost a lot of money for fook all! |  |
| |
| Response to BBC article on 22:48 - Oct 14 with 8027 views | RAFCBLUE |
This is a comprehensive factual dismissal of Simon Stone's BBC article by the Dale Trust.
Key message - they did not hear from Simon Stone before the article was published.
I've got the screenshot where Simon Stone says to a Dale fan on Twitter that he contacted the club and the Trust.
This follows the club saying that there are factual inaccuracies in a BBC article.
In most large organisations, lying about something means a trip to see HR.
Both the club and the Trust have now said that they have not heard from Simon Stone.
Both the club and the Trust have noted factual inaccuracies in Simon Stone's journalism.
Either both the club and the Trust are wrong OR Simon Stone is lying.
If he has been foolish enough to publish any old rot then I suspect the trip to HR will follow. |  |
| |
| Response to BBC article on 23:00 - Oct 14 with 7982 views | Sandyman |
A brilliant reply. As usual. Thank you Dale Trust. |  | | |
| Response to BBC article on 14:06 - Oct 15 with 7499 views | wozzrafc |
The Article has been removed!!!
Shall we hold our breath for an apology or an amended more balanced article? The damage has been done just removing it is just as bad!!! |  | | |
| Response to BBC article on 21:00 - Oct 15 with 7257 views | 442Dale |
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Response to BBC article on 18:04 - Oct 18 with 6528 views | finberty |
Gone big time now, Simon Stone.
R5L - breaking news about England having to play behind closed doors.
Hope he's better informed this time. |  | | |
| Response to BBC article on 20:05 - Oct 18 with 6211 views | blackdogblue |
Reading the update, he should have a word with Fitzochris.. he’s a journalist 👠|  |
| |
| Response to BBC article on 21:07 - Oct 18 with 6065 views | RAFCBLUE |
"Stone said that he had written the piece with no pre-judged opinion, and had been surprised by the reaction to it.
How so?
Stone and the BBC wrote:
"It is estimated that between 2018 and 2021, between 15 and 25 non-disclosure agreements were issued to interested parties. The board thought they had found the right man in entrepreneur and motorbike team owner Martin Halsall. Another businessman Andrew Curran had been identified as "a very useful backstop".
Anyone with the ability to use Google should have been able to find out the way in which Martin Halsall and Andrew Curran have been viewed over the Summer. The direct quote is non-attributed but we know does not come from the club. So where did that "a very useful backstop" comment come from?
He and the BBC followed up:
The plan had been for Morton House to take a majority stake in Rochdale through private, independent deals with seven shareholders.
Plan? Not if you ask any supporter or shareholder who was actually in attendance at the AGM on 1st June.
If Morton House had been open and transparent, BBC Sport has been told, they would have been welcomed by Rochdale fans. But they were not.
Open and transparent? Does Simon Stone and the BBC not read the EFL websites?
There's always a risk that you don't judge the mood of the room.
Here the ability to use Google appears to have been lost.
Google "Alexander Jarvis Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/273836/page:2/
Google "David Bottomley Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/4/sport-news/141695/david-bottoml
Google "Andrew Curran Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/news/55266/who-is-andy-curran
Google "Morton House Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58292083
Stone and the BBC managed to publish this "piece with no pre-judged opinion" by actively missing all of the above.
Plausible excuse?
We will see if he is at the game on Saturday as invited by the Trust. | |
| |
| Response to BBC article on 21:23 - Oct 18 with 6009 views | Salegraham |
| Response to BBC article on 21:07 - Oct 18 by RAFCBLUE |
"Stone said that he had written the piece with no pre-judged opinion, and had been surprised by the reaction to it.
How so?
Stone and the BBC wrote:
"It is estimated that between 2018 and 2021, between 15 and 25 non-disclosure agreements were issued to interested parties. The board thought they had found the right man in entrepreneur and motorbike team owner Martin Halsall. Another businessman Andrew Curran had been identified as "a very useful backstop".
Anyone with the ability to use Google should have been able to find out the way in which Martin Halsall and Andrew Curran have been viewed over the Summer. The direct quote is non-attributed but we know does not come from the club. So where did that "a very useful backstop" comment come from?
He and the BBC followed up:
The plan had been for Morton House to take a majority stake in Rochdale through private, independent deals with seven shareholders.
Plan? Not if you ask any supporter or shareholder who was actually in attendance at the AGM on 1st June.
If Morton House had been open and transparent, BBC Sport has been told, they would have been welcomed by Rochdale fans. But they were not.
Open and transparent? Does Simon Stone and the BBC not read the EFL websites?
There's always a risk that you don't judge the mood of the room.
Here the ability to use Google appears to have been lost.
Google "Alexander Jarvis Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/273836/page:2/
Google "David Bottomley Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/4/sport-news/141695/david-bottoml
Google "Andrew Curran Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/news/55266/who-is-andy-curran
Google "Morton House Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58292083
Stone and the BBC managed to publish this "piece with no pre-judged opinion" by actively missing all of the above.
Plausible excuse?
We will see if he is at the game on Saturday as invited by the Trust. |
He'll be far to busy with the premiership, expect him sometime never ! | | | |
| Response to BBC article on 21:44 - Oct 18 with 5962 views | HullDale |
Our former CEO still has the email address 'david.bottomley@rochdaleafc.co.uk' alongside his mobile number as his main contact details on LinkedIn (freely available in the public domain).
It makes you wonder if any of the info in the article has come from him, and the email address listed adds credibility to his conversations with journos (if they happened). |  | | |
| Response to BBC article on 22:19 - Oct 18 with 5853 views | D_Alien |
Given the evasive facade that Stone seems to have put up, i can't say that his conversation with the Trust should've remained "amicable"
I get that it should be approached with that intention, but the outcome has been a whitewash and damage to the reputation of the club - and its fans - with no likelihood now of an apology or published retraction
Will any suggested follow-up giving an alternative view (i.e. the truth) be given similar prominence? Very much doubt that
In my opinion, "amicable" will have suited Stone but we've been the ones being rolled |  |
| |
| Response to BBC article on 22:27 - Oct 18 with 5811 views | EllDale |
Just out of interest, has anyone who made a formal complaint to the BBC received a reply yet other than the plain acknowledgement of receipt? | | | |
| Response to BBC article on 22:42 - Oct 18 with 5773 views | D_Alien |
| Response to BBC article on 22:27 - Oct 18 by EllDale |
Just out of interest, has anyone who made a formal complaint to the BBC received a reply yet other than the plain acknowledgement of receipt? |
Quite
I expect Stone and his managers now thinks its done and dusted, but i'd be happy to be proven wrong | |
| |
| Response to BBC article on 00:23 - Oct 19 with 5625 views | Sandyman |
| Response to BBC article on 22:27 - Oct 18 by EllDale |
Just out of interest, has anyone who made a formal complaint to the BBC received a reply yet other than the plain acknowledgement of receipt? |
No. Mine was sent on the 12th and the auto reply said,
"Thanks for contacting the BBC. This is to confirm we’ve received the attached complaint sent in this name. We’ve included the text of the complaint and a case reference for your records (see below).
Our normal aim is to reply at this stage within 10 working days (two weeks), but we hope you will understand that sometimes we are unable to respond by then. We will let you know beforehand if we think it may take us longer."
I'd predict we'll all get the same reply as we did over complaints about the bias towards Bolton live match commentary coverage on Radio Bolton. Maybe they will publish something else online in the light of learning what really has happened before then. Watch this space.... | | | |
| Response to BBC article on 00:47 - Oct 19 with 5596 views | 49thseason |
I find it interesting that the BBC seem to be so careless in its interactions with RAFC, they ignore the problem of Radio Bolton and coverage of local games and then permit the publication of such a poorly researched article. It leads me to the conclusion that there is very little managerial supervision over the reporters at the BBC be they radio presenters or internet journalists.
Their systems to accept complaints seem designed to frustrate attempts to get redress for their sloppiness. Many might conclude this is designed to equally confound those who have been the victims of more malicious reportage.
Has there been any attempt to investigate the "special deal" that the BBC presenters allegedly mentioned on air? And more simplisticly why is one club featured more than the others combined? Maybe there is a non-BBC reporter somewhere who might like to try and find out? | | | |
| Response to BBC article on 12:15 - Oct 19 with 5145 views | pioneer |
| Response to BBC article on 21:07 - Oct 18 by RAFCBLUE |
"Stone said that he had written the piece with no pre-judged opinion, and had been surprised by the reaction to it.
How so?
Stone and the BBC wrote:
"It is estimated that between 2018 and 2021, between 15 and 25 non-disclosure agreements were issued to interested parties. The board thought they had found the right man in entrepreneur and motorbike team owner Martin Halsall. Another businessman Andrew Curran had been identified as "a very useful backstop".
Anyone with the ability to use Google should have been able to find out the way in which Martin Halsall and Andrew Curran have been viewed over the Summer. The direct quote is non-attributed but we know does not come from the club. So where did that "a very useful backstop" comment come from?
He and the BBC followed up:
The plan had been for Morton House to take a majority stake in Rochdale through private, independent deals with seven shareholders.
Plan? Not if you ask any supporter or shareholder who was actually in attendance at the AGM on 1st June.
If Morton House had been open and transparent, BBC Sport has been told, they would have been welcomed by Rochdale fans. But they were not.
Open and transparent? Does Simon Stone and the BBC not read the EFL websites?
There's always a risk that you don't judge the mood of the room.
Here the ability to use Google appears to have been lost.
Google "Alexander Jarvis Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/273836/page:2/
Google "David Bottomley Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/4/sport-news/141695/david-bottoml
Google "Andrew Curran Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/news/55266/who-is-andy-curran
Google "Morton House Rochdale" - you get this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58292083
Stone and the BBC managed to publish this "piece with no pre-judged opinion" by actively missing all of the above.
Plausible excuse?
We will see if he is at the game on Saturday as invited by the Trust. |
If he does show, this weekend or another, make him pay for admission. He clearly doesnt qualify for a press pass. Knows as much about journalism as I know about nuclear physics | | | |
| Response to BBC article on 03:15 - Oct 21 with 4632 views | Sandyman |
Received 22:30 last night...
"Your Reference XXX-XXXX-XXX
Thanks for contacting the BBC recently. Please do not reply to this automated email: it is from an outgoing address which cannot handle replies.
This is an update to apologise to you that although we normally aim to reply to most complaints within 2 weeks, we are currently dealing with a higher than normal volume of cases. This means it will take a little longer to reply to you at present. We hope you understand that this is why we are unable to respond within our normal service times.
We will of course respond as soon as we can, but in the meantime ask you not to contact us further and apologise if you do experience further delay. For full details of our complaints process please visit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint.
Thank you for contacting us - we appreciate your patience in waiting for our response.
Kind regards
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints"
Funny how it was "a higher than normal volume of cases" when the Radio Bolton complaints went in and were delayed as well. What is "normal volume"? | | | |
| Response to BBC article on 05:58 - Oct 21 with 4582 views | DaleiLama |
| Response to BBC article on 03:15 - Oct 21 by Sandyman |
Received 22:30 last night...
"Your Reference XXX-XXXX-XXX
Thanks for contacting the BBC recently. Please do not reply to this automated email: it is from an outgoing address which cannot handle replies.
This is an update to apologise to you that although we normally aim to reply to most complaints within 2 weeks, we are currently dealing with a higher than normal volume of cases. This means it will take a little longer to reply to you at present. We hope you understand that this is why we are unable to respond within our normal service times.
We will of course respond as soon as we can, but in the meantime ask you not to contact us further and apologise if you do experience further delay. For full details of our complaints process please visit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint.
Thank you for contacting us - we appreciate your patience in waiting for our response.
Kind regards
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints"
Funny how it was "a higher than normal volume of cases" when the Radio Bolton complaints went in and were delayed as well. What is "normal volume"? |
Certainly not the Dale PA system  |  |
| |
| Response to BBC article on 07:42 - Oct 21 with 4492 views | boromat |
| Response to BBC article on 03:15 - Oct 21 by Sandyman |
Received 22:30 last night...
"Your Reference XXX-XXXX-XXX
Thanks for contacting the BBC recently. Please do not reply to this automated email: it is from an outgoing address which cannot handle replies.
This is an update to apologise to you that although we normally aim to reply to most complaints within 2 weeks, we are currently dealing with a higher than normal volume of cases. This means it will take a little longer to reply to you at present. We hope you understand that this is why we are unable to respond within our normal service times.
We will of course respond as soon as we can, but in the meantime ask you not to contact us further and apologise if you do experience further delay. For full details of our complaints process please visit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint.
Thank you for contacting us - we appreciate your patience in waiting for our response.
Kind regards
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints"
Funny how it was "a higher than normal volume of cases" when the Radio Bolton complaints went in and were delayed as well. What is "normal volume"? |
I also received that last night. | |
| |
| Response to BBC article on 07:51 - Oct 21 with 4459 views | kel |
| Response to BBC article on 07:42 - Oct 21 by boromat |
I also received that last night. |
Got it too.
It’s Radio Bolton all over again and eventually we’ll just be fobbed off when they can be bothered getting round to it. |  | | |
| Response to BBC article on 08:57 - Oct 21 with 4362 views | D_Alien |
Their robotic apology should just read:
"Thanks for contacting the BBC recently, which cannot handle replies." [Post edited 21 Oct 2021 9:17]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
