| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... 08:58 - Jan 10 with 21103 views | RAFCBLUE |
https://www.efl.com/siteassets
When will the EFL get off the fence? That has to be a question worth asking hard now given the way in which events have unfolded with a failed hostile takeover by a faceless payroll company.
The threatening of Rochdale supporters and the Dale Trust with High Court legal action allows us to remind ourselves of the role of the EFL as regulator.
A regulator regulates. It is there to ensure that the rules and governance is upheld and not overridden to the detriment of the game.
To be fair to the EFL, the EFL HAVE already launched disciplinary actions against "multiple individuals" in August 2021 but that is it so far.
They also confirmed in a statement on 16 August 2021:
https://www.efl.com/news/2021/
Furthermore, Morton House MGT, its directors, and representatives, have confirmed to the League they are refusing to co-operate with the League’s ongoing investigations.
As we have highlighted before from the demise of bury fc was the criticisms in the Bird and Bird review, ordered by the Department of Culture Media and Sport.
It's a really good read and if you're interested in doing so make sure you have brew before you start!
The pertinent bit for Dale fans in challenging the EFL and the mockery of a process and our experience as fans so far is on Page 31 (of 33)
"8.3 This case has highlighted several issues with the EFL Regulations, in particular in relation to:
8.3.1 the OAD Test. There is no doubt that the EFL applied the OAD Test properly in relation to Mr Day and Mr Dale. The question is whether the test as currently written is fit for purpose. In particular,
it only looks at a narrow list of objective criteria, and does not take into account various other factors that speak to whether a new owner or director is a fit and proper person to own/run a member Club.
8.3.2 the regulations that apply to changes of ownership of a Club. Once again, the EFL applied those regulations when Mr Dale acquired Bury FC from Mr Day. However, the regulations do not prevent a new owner acquiring the Club before he or she has provided a business plan for the Club and proof of the funding required to underwrite that plan. I am aware that the EFL is already considering blocking changes in control until the new owner has provided adequate evidence of source and sufficiency of funding. For example, it could require the new owner to provide irrevocable financial guarantees of payment of any funding requirements for at least two seasons.
8.3.3 the regulations relating to ongoing monitoring of a Club's financial health. In particular, the Regulations do not currently require League One and Two clubs to submit annual business plans,
underwritten by adequate proof of funding, or half-yearly management accounts, and the SCMP submissions they are required to file were never intended to be and are not an adequate substitute.
NOW HERE ARE THE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS FOR THE EFL:
1. In the testing of Morton House, Andrew Curran, Matthew Southall and any other party are the EFL applying the narrow criteria or, as recommended, the wider consideration of the Bird and Bird review?
2. Have Morton Rose, Curran, Rose, Southall provided their business plan - as opposed to the Club's business plan. Testimony from the the EFL statement indicates this has not occurred. The Bird and Bird review suggests it should have done.
3. Who at the EFL is leading the EFL review? The Bird and Bird review suggested this should be a senior leader.
4. Have Morton House, Curran, Rose or Southall provided the "irrevocable financial guarantees"?
5. When do the EFL expect to conclude the disciplinary investigations?
6. What recommendations from the Bird and Bird review are the EFL applying to the circumstances that exist for Rochdale AFC with a failed hostile takeover by a faceless payroll company?
These are six very challenging question for the EFL and some more very good reasons why the EFL should kick out these folks into touch.
WHERE IS THE EFL IN ALL OF THIS?
As noted above, the EFL have started a disciplinary investigation that is currently ongoing.
The EFL though are deafening in their silence of movement and have provided no public statement since August 2021.
That's nearly FIVE months of silence from the EFL.
If anyone wanted to contact the EFL directly then the details on their website are:
https://www.efl.com/-more/efl-
Email: media@efl.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/EFL_Comms
[Post edited 10 Jan 2022 9:00]
|  |
| |  |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 13:11 - Jan 16 with 4184 views | wozzrafc |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 10:22 - Jan 16 by RAFCBLUE |
The EFL can't be referring from the EFL meeting in the Summer as they would have had that information when they charged "multiple individuals".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fo
The timeline seems to have been as follows:
27th July 2021 - EFL meeting held by Zoom (described by the 5th August 2021 Telegraph article as "last Tuesday's meeting"
5th August 2021 - Daily Telegraph publish article which has headline:
FA investigating homophobic slur accusation as part of 'hostile' Rochdale takeover
16th August 2021 - EFL launch disciplinary proceedings into "multiple individuals
21st August 2021 - EFL issue statement
https://www.efl.com/news/2021/
12th October 2021 - BBC journalist Simon Stone produces BBC Sport article which is quickly taken down and revised
26th October 2021 - Revised article by Simon Stone appears
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
29th October 2021 - Andrew Curran charged
https://www.rochdaleonline.co.
11th January 2022 - Andrew Curran suspended for 63 days
https://www.thefa.com/news/202
It can only be one of four things:
(1) One or more of the "multiple individuals" has informed the EFL what really happened and the EFL are investigating that. That "informing" you would think can only be in return for a lesser punishment given that the saga has rumbled on and on and on.
(2) That article from Simon Stone was really the trigger for the sudden release of information and the EFL have researched it. If you look at the timing of it, the revised article was published on 26th October 2021 and the FA Charged Curran on 29th October 2021, 72 hours later. Was there information in the original or revised BBC article which gave the EFL a line/lines of enquiry?
(3) Simon Stone/the BBC are the providers of information relevant to the disciplinary investigations to the EFL behind what was an extensive piece. The BBC "sources" could be evidence for the EFL/the EFL could have asked him/them for information that he/they has/have provided.
(4) Someone else has provided new information and the EFL are investigating that
Whichever it is, the EFL are saying to supporters who write in that they have "new" information. Reassuringly that means they are looking at that information as a regulator.
I do think we will know before the end of the season; it can't be that hard to work out a binary question "Were the rules broken?"
Yes - sanctions against individuals
No - no further action taken [Post edited 16 Jan 2022 10:23]
|
When was it known by the EFL that Matt Southall had been working with Curran in April and had been meeting at the club.
RAFCBLUE posted it on the message board on 9th December
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/
But had this been disclosed to the EFL earlier. Or did they only find this out in early December and Are the EFL investigating why Southall in October is stating he’s been asked to buy shares from Morton House by Javis, when in fact he’s been involved all along. Are they trying to see if Southall was trying to get around EFL rules. [Post edited 16 Jan 2022 13:14]
|  | | |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 13:35 - Jan 16 with 4136 views | RAFCBLUE |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 13:11 - Jan 16 by wozzrafc |
When was it known by the EFL that Matt Southall had been working with Curran in April and had been meeting at the club.
RAFCBLUE posted it on the message board on 9th December
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/
But had this been disclosed to the EFL earlier. Or did they only find this out in early December and Are the EFL investigating why Southall in October is stating he’s been asked to buy shares from Morton House by Javis, when in fact he’s been involved all along. Are they trying to see if Southall was trying to get around EFL rules. [Post edited 16 Jan 2022 13:14]
|
It's very early on in the Summer when Matthew Southall was first introduced as a character in the piece.
Matthew Southall and his involvement at Rochdale were featured by Kieran Maguire on the Price of Football podcast (Episode 162) on 3rd June 2021.
Here is the tweet from @KieranMaguire on 3rd June at 6.04AM:
If you look closely at the mindmap diagram it clearly says:
Rochdale - Accusations - Share Options and then dissects two names, one of which is Matthew Southall.
The other name you can see there is Glenn Thomas, who was involved at Bury prior to their demise.
That podcast is still downloadable and frames the characters and involvement well before any events of Summer 2021. The podcast was 48 hours after the AGM/EGM.
Based on Kieran Maguire's disclosures, the answer to your question is before 3rd June 2021.
Maguire suggested in September 2021 that he'd rather "have my testicles trodden on by an elephant than have Matt Southall near my club so watch out Rochdale fans."
Not a fan of Matthew Southall it appears. | |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 15:34 - Jan 30 with 3741 views | RAFCBLUE |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 13:02 - Jan 16 by D_Alien |
"...it can't be that hard to work out a binary question "Were the rules broken?" "
"Oh yes it is!"
"Oh no it isn't!"
The EFL pantomime goes on well after its Xmas sell-by date |
January 2022 update:
The EFL are still sitting on the fence.
Meanwhile Rochdale fans walk to Oldham, launch a crowdfund to raise £130,000 to defend a High Court Action launched by Morton House, a party who said in August 2021 to the EFL that they did not want to be a shareholder in the club.
This is the EFL who very clearly and publicly:
1. Listened to an approach for Rochdale AFC from Andrew Curran and Darrell Rose compared to the OADT in July 2021.
2. Report Andrew Curran to the FA for an aggravated breach of FA rules of which Andrew Curran was found guilty.
3. Charged Morton House and "multiple individuals" with disciplinary investigations in respect to the acquisition of shares in Rochdale Association Football Club announced on 21 August 2021
https://www.efl.com/news/2021/
4. Stated openly that Morton House planned "to divest the shares acquired in the Club at the earliest opportunity."; thereby confirming the breach of disciplinary rules AND confirming that Morton House did not want to be a shareholder of the club.
5. Is sitting on the fence watching a member club taken to court by the aforementioned Morton House who are, still, subject to disciplinary proceedings of the EFL.
We are getting the point where Rick Parry is going to be "Nero".
You can fiddle around the edges of this all you like but the EFL know the answer, we know the answer and football knows the answer.
It's not the supporters fault that this mess was allowed to occur by the lack of EFL balls to deal with the issue.
Perhaps February 2022 will be the month when the EFL get off the fence...... | |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 16:02 - Jan 30 with 3653 views | D_Alien |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 15:34 - Jan 30 by RAFCBLUE |
January 2022 update:
The EFL are still sitting on the fence.
Meanwhile Rochdale fans walk to Oldham, launch a crowdfund to raise £130,000 to defend a High Court Action launched by Morton House, a party who said in August 2021 to the EFL that they did not want to be a shareholder in the club.
This is the EFL who very clearly and publicly:
1. Listened to an approach for Rochdale AFC from Andrew Curran and Darrell Rose compared to the OADT in July 2021.
2. Report Andrew Curran to the FA for an aggravated breach of FA rules of which Andrew Curran was found guilty.
3. Charged Morton House and "multiple individuals" with disciplinary investigations in respect to the acquisition of shares in Rochdale Association Football Club announced on 21 August 2021
https://www.efl.com/news/2021/
4. Stated openly that Morton House planned "to divest the shares acquired in the Club at the earliest opportunity."; thereby confirming the breach of disciplinary rules AND confirming that Morton House did not want to be a shareholder of the club.
5. Is sitting on the fence watching a member club taken to court by the aforementioned Morton House who are, still, subject to disciplinary proceedings of the EFL.
We are getting the point where Rick Parry is going to be "Nero".
You can fiddle around the edges of this all you like but the EFL know the answer, we know the answer and football knows the answer.
It's not the supporters fault that this mess was allowed to occur by the lack of EFL balls to deal with the issue.
Perhaps February 2022 will be the month when the EFL get off the fence...... |
And the trouble is, this is now having financial implications for people who're looking after the club's best interests
Should those individuals subject to the Morton House legal challenge have to fork out a penny from their own pockets, imo they would have a very strong case (in a class action) to sue the EFL for administrative negligence
I'm sure that could be crowdfunded too |  |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 16:06 - Jan 30 with 3645 views | HullDale |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 15:34 - Jan 30 by RAFCBLUE |
January 2022 update:
The EFL are still sitting on the fence.
Meanwhile Rochdale fans walk to Oldham, launch a crowdfund to raise £130,000 to defend a High Court Action launched by Morton House, a party who said in August 2021 to the EFL that they did not want to be a shareholder in the club.
This is the EFL who very clearly and publicly:
1. Listened to an approach for Rochdale AFC from Andrew Curran and Darrell Rose compared to the OADT in July 2021.
2. Report Andrew Curran to the FA for an aggravated breach of FA rules of which Andrew Curran was found guilty.
3. Charged Morton House and "multiple individuals" with disciplinary investigations in respect to the acquisition of shares in Rochdale Association Football Club announced on 21 August 2021
https://www.efl.com/news/2021/
4. Stated openly that Morton House planned "to divest the shares acquired in the Club at the earliest opportunity."; thereby confirming the breach of disciplinary rules AND confirming that Morton House did not want to be a shareholder of the club.
5. Is sitting on the fence watching a member club taken to court by the aforementioned Morton House who are, still, subject to disciplinary proceedings of the EFL.
We are getting the point where Rick Parry is going to be "Nero".
You can fiddle around the edges of this all you like but the EFL know the answer, we know the answer and football knows the answer.
It's not the supporters fault that this mess was allowed to occur by the lack of EFL balls to deal with the issue.
Perhaps February 2022 will be the month when the EFL get off the fence...... |
Genuine question for anyone who knows how these things work...
Could the Trust / Directors call the EFL / FA as a witness if MH succeed in getting their spurious claims heard at the High Court? |  | | |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 16:20 - Jan 30 with 3596 views | RAFCBLUE |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 16:06 - Jan 30 by HullDale |
Genuine question for anyone who knows how these things work...
Could the Trust / Directors call the EFL / FA as a witness if MH succeed in getting their spurious claims heard at the High Court? |
Yes.
And that statement from 16th August 2021 will come back to haunt the EFL is the thing that they might have to be questioned on.
https://www.efl.com/news/2021/
On 16 August 2021, in accordance with its Regulations, the EFL issued notice to multiple individuals of the commencement of disciplinary investigations in respect to the acquisition of shares in Rochdale Association Football Club.
It is alleged that Morton House MGT acquired Control of the Club, and a number of individuals became Relevant Persons without the prior consent of the EFL in accordance with the Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT).
The EFL’s objective was to gather additional evidence as it continued to investigate whether the Club, any Official, any Relevant Person(s) and/or any Persons wishing to acquire Control of the Club complied with the requirements of the OADT and whether any Relevant Person(s) are subject to a Disqualifying Condition.
Having considered the request for information made of them, Morton House MGT, on behalf of its directors, and representatives, has now informed the League that it is formally withdrawing from the approval process and plans to divest the shares acquired in the Club at the earliest opportunity.
Furthermore, Morton House MGT, its directors, and representatives, have confirmed to the League they are refusing to co-operate with the League’s ongoing investigations. Despite these developments, the EFL will be continuing with its disciplinary investigations into this matter and will take the most appropriate action available to it under its Regulations.
More importantly, the EFL will continue to work with Rochdale AFC as we collectively seek to ensure a successful and sustainable long-term future for the Club and all those associated with it, particularly its players, staff, and supporters.
There are two elements to the requirement of unfair prejudice, and both must be present to succeed in a claim:
(1) the conduct must be prejudicial in the sense of causing prejudice or harm to the relevant interest of the members or some part of the members of the company (i.e. shareholders), and.
(2) it must be unfair
Morton House, it appears, told the EFL and the EFL has stated in a public statement on 16 August 2021:
"Morton House MGT, on behalf of its directors, and representatives, has now informed the League that it is formally withdrawing from the approval process and plans to divest the shares acquired in the Club at the earliest opportunity."
Very hard for the EFL to come and deny that in a court of law you'd think given they told the world that Morton House didn't actually want to be a shareholder.
And very hard to claim that anything after 16 August 2021 actually matters given the EFL and Morton House are clear that they have no interests in being shareholders.
In the meantime, supporters of RAFC continue to do a sterling job spreading the work to raise £130,000.
The latest comment on the Crowdfund website is from a Colchester United supporter:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/c
"Shoulder to Shoulder with Dale fans, Colu supporter against Corporate predators"
Quite. | |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 16:29 - Jan 30 with 3556 views | Dale_4_Life |
If Morton house lose the court case (likely) are they liable for ALL the costs?
Share purchase was a private transaction...
Board issue of new shares all above board. Call out these bullies and see them in court. This could be a landmark case in British football. | | | |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 16:35 - Jan 30 with 3533 views | RAFCBLUE |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 16:29 - Jan 30 by Dale_4_Life |
If Morton house lose the court case (likely) are they liable for ALL the costs?
Share purchase was a private transaction...
Board issue of new shares all above board. Call out these bullies and see them in court. This could be a landmark case in British football. |
It depends on what is asked for.
https://www.gabyhardwicke.co.u
Who is to pay costs
An award of costs in litigation (for example, to the winner) is always in the discretion of the court, save in very limited circumstances (for example, where a party discontinues its claim or where a settlement offer under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies).
It is, however, often open to the parties to agree provisions as to costs before an automatic rule applies or the court is asked to make an award.
It really depends what happens but the Supporters Trust do have the options of asking for the other side to pay the costs if they lose. That's a pretty common outcome to stop vexatious and pointless claims from happening which take up time and costs of the courts. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 16:39 - Jan 30 with 3522 views | Dale_4_Life |
Call their bluff.. 100% See them in court and when they lose do everything to put the costs firmly in their hands.
Morton house are not just taking on RAFC they are poking a sleeping bear that is the whole football league. | | | |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 16:43 - Jan 30 with 3500 views | RAFCBLUE |
Same link:
https://www.gabyhardwicke.co.u
Discontinuing a claim
If you instigate but then discontinue a claim, the standard rule is that you will be liable to pay all of your opponent’s costs. This rule can sometimes be displaced, but only in exceptional circumstances. It is important to be aware of and to understand this rule before issuing and serving a claim.
The claim has been served.
The standard rule is in play. | |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 19:12 - Jan 30 with 3337 views | finberty |
Could be tricky for them now.
Withdrawing from the action is one thing - persuading the Court they've no money to pay the costs will stand badly from an organisation trying to buy an EFL club.
The Court will see right through that.
However it will be necessary for MH to try to maintain that fiction for when HMRC commence their enquiries into the source of these peoples' funds. |  | | |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 19:34 - Jan 30 with 3294 views | EllDale |
They must think that they have a fair chance of coming out of this with something otherwise surely they wouldn’t have instigated proceedings?
And surely this is also costing them potentially £130k in fees?
Someone surely really needs to ask where such a moribund company is getting the money from.
They must have convinced their solicitors that they had the dosh. | | | |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 19:42 - Jan 30 with 3268 views | RAFCBLUE |
https://find-and-update.compan
If you look at the statutory accounts filings, the "no money to pay" argument doesn't wash.
In July 2021, the filed accounts by Morton House directors state that there is £1,784,449 of cash in the business at 31 July 2021.
Note 7 does note a sizeable taxation and social security creditor at that point of £638,403 at that point so the £1,784,449 is not all their own cash but some they are holding on behalf of the Revenue pending it being paid over.
That's still £1.1m to go at as as the Trust's own estimates on the crowdfunding are that our costs will be £130,000.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/c
On the subject of their solicitors it really does depend how they are going about it.
They may have engaged traditional solicitors who charge by the hour and run the bill up based on how many hours are consumed (win or lose).
Or they may have gone down the "no win, no fee" route which is where the solicitor will do the work on the basis of a share of the proceeds which are contingent on success.
If the latter, that is a LOT of work for their solicitors to do to prepare and present on the risk they won't actually be paid - either due to no success or a lack of ability to pay by their client.
These things can drag on for years so are not a quick exercise. | |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 20:18 - Jan 30 with 3197 views | DorkingDale |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 19:42 - Jan 30 by RAFCBLUE |
https://find-and-update.compan
If you look at the statutory accounts filings, the "no money to pay" argument doesn't wash.
In July 2021, the filed accounts by Morton House directors state that there is £1,784,449 of cash in the business at 31 July 2021.
Note 7 does note a sizeable taxation and social security creditor at that point of £638,403 at that point so the £1,784,449 is not all their own cash but some they are holding on behalf of the Revenue pending it being paid over.
That's still £1.1m to go at as as the Trust's own estimates on the crowdfunding are that our costs will be £130,000.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/c
On the subject of their solicitors it really does depend how they are going about it.
They may have engaged traditional solicitors who charge by the hour and run the bill up based on how many hours are consumed (win or lose).
Or they may have gone down the "no win, no fee" route which is where the solicitor will do the work on the basis of a share of the proceeds which are contingent on success.
If the latter, that is a LOT of work for their solicitors to do to prepare and present on the risk they won't actually be paid - either due to no success or a lack of ability to pay by their client.
These things can drag on for years so are not a quick exercise. |
Seems to me that it's just a last, desperate attempt to get something back from their very ill-advised investment. Maybe they are hoping that the Board will make some kind of pay off for them to go away....but that ain't going to happen. | | | |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 20:37 - Jan 30 with 3148 views | DaleiLama |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 20:18 - Jan 30 by DorkingDale |
Seems to me that it's just a last, desperate attempt to get something back from their very ill-advised investment. Maybe they are hoping that the Board will make some kind of pay off for them to go away....but that ain't going to happen. |
My gut says they've got 2 of clubs and 6 of spades in the hole and have gone all in before any more cards have been turned over.  |  |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 20:54 - Jan 30 with 3096 views | D_Alien |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 20:18 - Jan 30 by DorkingDale |
Seems to me that it's just a last, desperate attempt to get something back from their very ill-advised investment. Maybe they are hoping that the Board will make some kind of pay off for them to go away....but that ain't going to happen. |
In a way, their biggest failing has been misjudgement of character
Bottomley's character, and our character in particular
No surprise though, given their shite-set of values | |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 22:17 - Jan 30 with 2981 views | RAFCBLUE |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 20:18 - Jan 30 by DorkingDale |
Seems to me that it's just a last, desperate attempt to get something back from their very ill-advised investment. Maybe they are hoping that the Board will make some kind of pay off for them to go away....but that ain't going to happen. |
The really difficult thing when you buy a share of something is what happens with that share after you have bought it.
If you look at shares in Rochdale over 25 years there have been very little in terms of traded shares. And by very little I mean, you can count on the fingers of one hand.
Before the events of Summer 2021 and the EFL's investigation the only two of size I can remember being mentioned were:
1) Chris Dunphy selling to North Yard Analytics (Dan Altman and Emre Marcelli)
2) Andrew Kelly buying up some shares that were considered "vulnerable"
On that basis ANY party wanting to buy ANY large shareholding is completely unusual, almost saying that it is unprecedented.
I think that is why the Bottomley efforts of the Summer finding investment were botched - no investor could really get their head around how to deal with over 330 existing shareholders.
Even with a small number of previously shareholders that managed to con a buyer to parting with hard earned cash at a massively over inflated value there are still over 320 existing shareholders, all holding the same class of shares.
There's no obvious capital for the club to buy back its own shares from anyone and such a resolution (depending on wording) would need shareholder approval in any case - and another EGM!
Mark Hodkinson wrote in an article that Dale share certificates are effectively "souvenirs" and to an extent he was and is definitely right with that description.
Couple with the EFL approval issue (as Morton House found out) they are unsalable IMO for any value.
And nor could anyone go around 320+ shareholders without word getting out which it did once some of them sold. | |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 22:21 - Jan 30 with 2957 views | mikehunt |
For what it’s worth and for all the good it will do, I have written to the EFL asking them for some clarification on this matter; whether they are aware of the legal action being taken by MH and whether they had a barrister we could use. And what was taking them so long, amongst other things.
I mentioned that this now impinges on myself as having purchased shares.
Only wrote on Friday but not holding my breath. [Post edited 30 Jan 2022 22:22]
|  |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 23:00 - Jan 30 with 2881 views | 49thseason |
Its also worth bearing in mind that these are shares in a private company and therefore difficult to value. I have read that a court will sometimes look at similar quoted companies to compare private ones with . Well good luck with that, Manchester United is local and in the same business, it turns over £500m a year and has a share price of about £13.50 last time I looked. RAFC has a turnover of £5m or there abouts, making it 1% of Man Utd or about 13 p or 14p a share... a crude comparison , but even so, the £2 a share looks relatively expensive and £6-10 a share just ridiculous.
So back to the question I raised when this whole charade started. Why did MH, a company with very limited funds to pump in, no employees and no synergy with football want to buy Rochdale AFC? There is no legal reason that I can fathom, and even the illegal reasons are risky in the extreme given the Owners and Directors Test, the inquisitive nature of the fanbase and local press following the Bury and Macclesfield debacles. And now MH seems to want to double down and try and convince the High Court that they are an above-board company run by honest and trustworthy people who just wanted somewhere to "enjoy a drink" and were thwarted by a gang of "Nancy Boys".
Oh! my aching sides! |  | | |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 21:12 - Feb 4 with 2480 views | RAFCBLUE |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 23:00 - Jan 30 by 49thseason |
Its also worth bearing in mind that these are shares in a private company and therefore difficult to value. I have read that a court will sometimes look at similar quoted companies to compare private ones with . Well good luck with that, Manchester United is local and in the same business, it turns over £500m a year and has a share price of about £13.50 last time I looked. RAFC has a turnover of £5m or there abouts, making it 1% of Man Utd or about 13 p or 14p a share... a crude comparison , but even so, the £2 a share looks relatively expensive and £6-10 a share just ridiculous.
So back to the question I raised when this whole charade started. Why did MH, a company with very limited funds to pump in, no employees and no synergy with football want to buy Rochdale AFC? There is no legal reason that I can fathom, and even the illegal reasons are risky in the extreme given the Owners and Directors Test, the inquisitive nature of the fanbase and local press following the Bury and Macclesfield debacles. And now MH seems to want to double down and try and convince the High Court that they are an above-board company run by honest and trustworthy people who just wanted somewhere to "enjoy a drink" and were thwarted by a gang of "Nancy Boys".
Oh! my aching sides! |
Great post 49th.
Another week where the EFL stay sat firmly on the fence.
Are they not sure yet that the meeting on 29th April 2021 frames all of the key characters?
Even the Charlton Dossier says:
"It is now known that Southall was associated with Jarvis’ involvement as an intermediary in the attempted hostile take-over of Rochdale AFC as early as 29 April 2021, when the two of them, along with Andy Curran (self-styled consultant to Morton House Mgt Group), were caught on CCTV at RAFC. All three were also seen together the same day outside Wilbutts Lane Chippy in Rochdale.
This brings into question Southall’s exact part in the whole Rochdale venture, which now seems more pivotal than he suggested to Dale Trust in September. Jarvis’ cack-handed input at Rochdale has been well documented by Dale fans. The details of the role Southall credits him as having at Charlton remain, for the time being, a minor mystery.
And before anyone gets their crayons out, it says so here:
https://thecharltondossier.com
Perhaps we need to put Charlton fans in charge of the EFL; they've got some perception skills! | |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 22:13 - Feb 4 with 2368 views | James1980 |
Maybe a person or person's at the EFL are guinea pigs for a new 'payroll' system Morton House are trialing. Or could it be someone 'connected' to MH has Tardis like pockets in which an EFL representative might neatly fit. | |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 22:41 - Feb 4 with 2311 views | Toffeemanc |
The lack of any action or updates from the EFL given the current situation one of its member clubs finds itself in is frankly unbelievable and just proof that they are not fit for purpose.
Hopefully they will eventually be replaced by the Independent regulator recommended in the Fan led review by Tracy Crouch and can then peacefully vanish and die with the fence still very firmly wedged between their useless arse cheeks. |  |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 06:35 - Feb 5 with 2130 views | D_Alien |
Whilst its understandable why both our BoDs and Dale Trust have sought to stay onside with the EFL, part of me wishes either or both had somehow been able to tell them straight - to their shameful faces - exactly what they needed to do, with the evidence available to them
They need to be publicly shamed for negligence. I don't buy their "We're conducting an investigation" line, a perennial excuse for passing the buck (or buckets, as it were)
Even if by some miracle they reach a conclusion and state the bleeding obvious, its too late. Damage has been done. Damage to our finances, damage to individual stress levels, terminal damage to other clubs; avoidable damage
The EFL can stick whatever 'conclusions' they might reach - its already too late
Be gone, you set of useless tossers | |
| |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 09:47 - Feb 5 with 1980 views | wozzrafc |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 06:35 - Feb 5 by D_Alien |
Whilst its understandable why both our BoDs and Dale Trust have sought to stay onside with the EFL, part of me wishes either or both had somehow been able to tell them straight - to their shameful faces - exactly what they needed to do, with the evidence available to them
They need to be publicly shamed for negligence. I don't buy their "We're conducting an investigation" line, a perennial excuse for passing the buck (or buckets, as it were)
Even if by some miracle they reach a conclusion and state the bleeding obvious, its too late. Damage has been done. Damage to our finances, damage to individual stress levels, terminal damage to other clubs; avoidable damage
The EFL can stick whatever 'conclusions' they might reach - its already too late
Be gone, you set of useless tossers |
I see the EFL made numerous statements on Derbys situation yesterday. Maybe a club has to go right to the edge before they get off there fat backsides and try to look like they give a toss!!!
It’s not fit for purpose
Let’s not forget they were shamed on national tv as to how easy it was to get past their rules. The chairman of derby was open and complicit!! What come of that…….. [Post edited 5 Feb 2022 9:52]
| | | |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 10:17 - Feb 5 with 1902 views | RAFCBLUE |
| MORTON HOUSE / Why the EFL MUST get off the fence soon... on 09:47 - Feb 5 by wozzrafc |
I see the EFL made numerous statements on Derbys situation yesterday. Maybe a club has to go right to the edge before they get off there fat backsides and try to look like they give a toss!!!
It’s not fit for purpose
Let’s not forget they were shamed on national tv as to how easy it was to get past their rules. The chairman of derby was open and complicit!! What come of that…….. [Post edited 5 Feb 2022 9:52]
|
You're right Wozz - its not fit for purpose.
As Lloyd Grossman would say lets look at the evidence:
(1) On 29th April 2021, Fat Pat witnesses David Bottomley hosting four people at the Ground. Three of these four people are Matthew Southall, Alexander Jarvis and Andrew Curran.
(2) On 1 June 2021 Board withdraw their motions for "investment" at an EGM at the very last minute. This is because the selected investor Martin Halsall withdraws. There was no investment at that point as told to shareholders by the then Board on the night. Had Bottomley persisted he would have been heavily beaten in the vote by shareholders.
(3) 20 minutes later in another EGM the former CEO David Bottomley is voted off the Board for good. Shareholders vote 60% to remove him - meaning that the big shareholders either removed him OR didn't want him to stay.
(4) On 28 June 2021 the former CEO David Bottomley leave the club via "mutual consent". In the football world we know what that "mutual consent" means "SACKED"
(5) Alexander Jarvis turns up in July 2021 with Curran at the Ground in early July and they meet with the Trust and the club.
The Trust published an article here:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/20
The Trust say that the EFL made them change a statement they made on Curran and Rose buying shares.
(6) Alexander Jarvis tells a private investigator that the takeover is on.
The private investigator then sticks that on this forum:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/
Alexander Jarvis sends to the private investigator a PowerPoint presentation that has David Bottomley's signoff on it!!
This links Southall, Jarvis, Bottomley, Curran and Rose AFTER the 1 June AGM because the Powerpoint is sent to Jarvis by Bottomley afer that and Bottomley has been removed as a Director from that point.
(7) On 29th July the EFL hold a meeting where Andrew Curran uses the term "Nancy Boys". This is witnessed by the EFL, the solicitors acting for Curran and Jarvis and the club.
The club make a complaint and Curran is charged and later found guilty of making a homophobic comment. Curran is banned from football for 63 days.
(8) On 5th August 2021, Jarvis tells the Daily Telegraph its a hostile takeover and links Curran (by introducing him to the journalist) and the takeover (so to Bottomley and the Powerpoint Presentation). The Telegraph reported as follows:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fo
Curran did not respond to requests for comment after the claims against him were put to him via text message.
That followed a bizarre phone call with Telegraph Sport in which he said he had “nothing to do with Rochdale”.
The call nevertheless prompted a WhatsApp message from Alexander Jarvis, who described himself as an adviser to what he admitted was a “hostile takeover” and said that Curran was “a bit of a recluse”.
Jarvis said he himself had been on the “heated” Zoom call and that he could not recall the alleged comments being made by Curran, adding: “I don’t think, if he did say it, that he meant it in the way that it would be perceived.”
Jarvis said he was “waiting for a call from the FA” about Rochdale’s complaint, which could see it take action if Curran was deemed a participant in football.
(9) On 16th August 2021, the EFL charged "multiple individuals" with breaches of rules. Morton House refuse to cooperate.
https://www.efl.com/news/2021/
(10) On 1st October, Dale Trust report a meeting with Matthew Southall:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/20
Southall began by stating that he was contacted by Alexander Jarvis on behalf of Morton House with a view to a purchase of the shares. He said that he had known Jarvis for a few years and the pair had worked together before including at Charlton. Jarvis had told him that he had a deal that had “gone wrong” that might be of interest Southall.
This links Southall to Jarvis and thus to Curran and Rose.
(11) On 3rd October is was reported that non-shareholder Matthew Southall wrote to the club telling them to cancel a legally arranged EGM.
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/
This links Matthew Southall to Morton House.
(12) In January 2022, Morton House have launched a petition for unfair prejudice and the EFL now see that volunteers have to raise £130,000 for something that they could have dealt with in August.
"The Dale Supporters Trust and 8 members of the board of RAFC are facing a High Court legal action brought by a company named Morton House MGT and First Form Construction Ltd (‘Morton House’). It is alleged by Morton House that the Dale Trust and the board have unlawfully caused prejudice to Morton House as a shareholder in RAFC; something which the Dale Trust and the board strenuously deny.
Owing to this being a dispute between shareholders, the litigation cannot be funded by RAFC itself which means that the Dale Trust (a not-for-profit organisation) and the RAFC board (all of whom are unpaid for their work at RAFC) must bear the cost of defending what is often a notoriously expensive legal claim."
WHO DO THE EFL NEED TO CHARGE (in my opinion)?
David Bottomley
Alexander Jarvis
Andrew Curran
Darrell Rose
Denise Valarie Courtnell - as statutory director and owner of Morton House in July 2021
Faical Safounae - as statutory director and owner of Morton House in July 2021
Matthew Francis Southall
We can see it. The timeline and evidence proves it.
The world can see it
So WHY the f*ck can the EFL (a) not see it and (b) do something about it?
The case for the prosecution rests. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
