| EGM on 17:12 - Aug 2 with 2314 views | 442Dale |
| EGM on 16:55 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
Any shareholder(s) can call an EGM providing they achieve a requisite threshold. It is a common tactic by activist shareholders.
The Trust have proved this is possible already in 2021 when they took on Bottomley and Rawlinson and the "law of the land" to prompt an EGM so it is wholly possible by small shareholders.
That said, the other shareholders get to vote so if something is proposed that is then voted against then it is a bit of a waste of everyone's time but well within a shareholders rights to try, if they so wished. |
Super.
Edit: and I meant the Trust call their own EGM for their own members. Not a club EGM, but ahead of the one by the club. This is what they did do in March 2020 but for COVID’s intervention.
What do think about the way the club have handled this and do you believe they should have held a shareholders AGM prior to this so they would be better aware of the situation that has developed over the last year?
Answers in less than 30,000 words if possible. [Post edited 2 Aug 2023 17:20]
|  |
|  |
| EGM on 17:20 - Aug 2 with 2252 views | Porlicks |
| EGM on 17:12 - Aug 2 by 442Dale |
Super.
Edit: and I meant the Trust call their own EGM for their own members. Not a club EGM, but ahead of the one by the club. This is what they did do in March 2020 but for COVID’s intervention.
What do think about the way the club have handled this and do you believe they should have held a shareholders AGM prior to this so they would be better aware of the situation that has developed over the last year?
Answers in less than 30,000 words if possible. [Post edited 2 Aug 2023 17:20]
|
This is what ChatGTP was made for |  |
| |
| EGM on 17:22 - Aug 2 with 2236 views | Sandyman |
So much for the value of the small shareholder that many of us were encouraged to be and duly became following The EGM of 6 October 2021, joining other small shareholders.
Sorry small fry, you don't matter now. Poll Vote > your show of hands.
PS: The EGM of 6 October 2021 was carried on a show of hands. |  | | |
| EGM on 17:53 - Aug 2 with 2122 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 17:22 - Aug 2 by Sandyman |
So much for the value of the small shareholder that many of us were encouraged to be and duly became following The EGM of 6 October 2021, joining other small shareholders.
Sorry small fry, you don't matter now. Poll Vote > your show of hands.
PS: The EGM of 6 October 2021 was carried on a show of hands. |
I'd disagree with that analysis Sandyman.
Small shareholders currently hold over 350,000 shares vs a current Board holding which I make to be 346,645. The balance of issued shares is then by 4 parties being held by the Dale Trust, the Community Trust, Andrew Kelly and Graham Morris.
The poll vote was called in June 2021 and the majority still voted Roger and Rawlinson off. That meeting started by only wanting the 50 biggest shareholders into the room, which was quickly challenged.
If that doesn't show the power of small shareholders against individual larger holders then I don't know what does. |  |
| |
| EGM on 17:58 - Aug 2 with 2092 views | 442Dale |
| EGM on 17:53 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
I'd disagree with that analysis Sandyman.
Small shareholders currently hold over 350,000 shares vs a current Board holding which I make to be 346,645. The balance of issued shares is then by 4 parties being held by the Dale Trust, the Community Trust, Andrew Kelly and Graham Morris.
The poll vote was called in June 2021 and the majority still voted Roger and Rawlinson off. That meeting started by only wanting the 50 biggest shareholders into the room, which was quickly challenged.
If that doesn't show the power of small shareholders against individual larger holders then I don't know what does. |
And how long did the Trust and various others have to put in the work to ensure they had the votes/proxies of the smaller shareholders on that occasion? | |
| |
| EGM on 18:12 - Aug 2 with 2030 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 17:12 - Aug 2 by 442Dale |
Super.
Edit: and I meant the Trust call their own EGM for their own members. Not a club EGM, but ahead of the one by the club. This is what they did do in March 2020 but for COVID’s intervention.
What do think about the way the club have handled this and do you believe they should have held a shareholders AGM prior to this so they would be better aware of the situation that has developed over the last year?
Answers in less than 30,000 words if possible. [Post edited 2 Aug 2023 17:20]
|
I personally don't see how an AGM before an EGM would help anything, the two meetings exist for completely different purposes.
The last AGM was held in November 2022, so the next one should be in November 2023 although the Articles give until 31st December as long as there is one in a calendar year. The business at the next one is likely to be:
1. Approve the minutes of the 2022 AGM
2. Re-elect any directors offering themselves up for reappointment
3. Authorise the directors to reappoint the auditors and fix their remuneration.
As I said elsewhere, it any shareholder(s) want an EGM on anything at all they can call for one, subject to having the right amount of support and have that motion desired openly debated and voted on by a called meeting of all shareholders. That looks to be a better method for anyone wanting a specific motion debated which falls outside the AGM.
On the administration of the EGM, the notice issued on the website if valid and binding.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/july/notice-of-egm/
The fact this thread has reached a buryesque 15 pages for a one topic motion with a Yes/No answer show a number of communication issues but none of that actively stops shareholders getting directly in touch with the club or turning up to vote next week. | |
| |
| EGM on 18:14 - Aug 2 with 2022 views | Sandyman |
| EGM on 17:53 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
I'd disagree with that analysis Sandyman.
Small shareholders currently hold over 350,000 shares vs a current Board holding which I make to be 346,645. The balance of issued shares is then by 4 parties being held by the Dale Trust, the Community Trust, Andrew Kelly and Graham Morris.
The poll vote was called in June 2021 and the majority still voted Roger and Rawlinson off. That meeting started by only wanting the 50 biggest shareholders into the room, which was quickly challenged.
If that doesn't show the power of small shareholders against individual larger holders then I don't know what does. |
As you are aware, the circumstances for the June 2021 EGM and now are different. The "law of the land" lecture had been delivered. There was ample time for small shareholders to organise themselves. As early as April 2021, an EGM was being touted to remove certain directors. It was inevitable there would be one. Plans were put in place.
For the August 2023 EGM called by RAFC, there has been just over two weeks notice, and a greater number of shareholders to reach. It just hasn't been feasible to organise "the power of small shareholders" this time round. | | | |
| EGM on 18:15 - Aug 2 with 2020 views | kel |
| EGM on 18:12 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
I personally don't see how an AGM before an EGM would help anything, the two meetings exist for completely different purposes.
The last AGM was held in November 2022, so the next one should be in November 2023 although the Articles give until 31st December as long as there is one in a calendar year. The business at the next one is likely to be:
1. Approve the minutes of the 2022 AGM
2. Re-elect any directors offering themselves up for reappointment
3. Authorise the directors to reappoint the auditors and fix their remuneration.
As I said elsewhere, it any shareholder(s) want an EGM on anything at all they can call for one, subject to having the right amount of support and have that motion desired openly debated and voted on by a called meeting of all shareholders. That looks to be a better method for anyone wanting a specific motion debated which falls outside the AGM.
On the administration of the EGM, the notice issued on the website if valid and binding.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/july/notice-of-egm/
The fact this thread has reached a buryesque 15 pages for a one topic motion with a Yes/No answer show a number of communication issues but none of that actively stops shareholders getting directly in touch with the club or turning up to vote next week. |
Shareholders have got in touch with the club though.
They've been ignored. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| EGM on 18:22 - Aug 2 with 2003 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 17:58 - Aug 2 by 442Dale |
And how long did the Trust and various others have to put in the work to ensure they had the votes/proxies of the smaller shareholders on that occasion? |
Loads of effort by literally hundreds of people, which is openly documented however the notice of date of the meeting to the actual vote was still the same time period of 21 days.
You only ever get 21 days between calling for the EGM meeting and the vote. That's the same here with next week's meeting and will be the case with every subsequent EGM.
I'd happily argue that in 2023 any Rochdale shareholder is much better engaged now than we were in 2021 prior to the hostile takeover attempt by Morton House.
Add to that the fact that the Trust is the biggest shareholder of the club so representative of the fans which wasn't the case in June 2021 and that represents circa 1,000 different people.
The vote next week will be like all the others based on shareholdings, including the Trust which will give ratification or rejection of the item being proposed. | |
| |
| EGM on 18:28 - Aug 2 with 1980 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 18:15 - Aug 2 by kel |
Shareholders have got in touch with the club though.
They've been ignored. |
I've received my paperwork and I know others who have too alongside others (and reports on here) that appear not to.
Regardless, there is still nothing legally stopping any shareholder turning up at a meeting with a proof of identity that they are a shareholder on the Companies House list.
The only thing you can't do is vote by proxy and then try to vote again on the night.
If anyone hasn't got the paperwork then if they email either the Club or Trust I suspect both would be in possession of the documents, notwithstanding I completely agree with the sentiments that shareholders of any organisation shouldn't have to chase down paperwork. | |
| |
| EGM on 18:30 - Aug 2 with 1965 views | 442Dale |
| EGM on 18:12 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
I personally don't see how an AGM before an EGM would help anything, the two meetings exist for completely different purposes.
The last AGM was held in November 2022, so the next one should be in November 2023 although the Articles give until 31st December as long as there is one in a calendar year. The business at the next one is likely to be:
1. Approve the minutes of the 2022 AGM
2. Re-elect any directors offering themselves up for reappointment
3. Authorise the directors to reappoint the auditors and fix their remuneration.
As I said elsewhere, it any shareholder(s) want an EGM on anything at all they can call for one, subject to having the right amount of support and have that motion desired openly debated and voted on by a called meeting of all shareholders. That looks to be a better method for anyone wanting a specific motion debated which falls outside the AGM.
On the administration of the EGM, the notice issued on the website if valid and binding.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/july/notice-of-egm/
The fact this thread has reached a buryesque 15 pages for a one topic motion with a Yes/No answer show a number of communication issues but none of that actively stops shareholders getting directly in touch with the club or turning up to vote next week. |
At no stage were any motions mentioned, I was talking about a Trust EGM along the lines of the one they called in 2020. An opportunity for supporters to meet and discuss issues and concerns. They don’t even have to call it an EGM as they did then.
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2020/03/trust-egm-21st-march-1130/
re. The club AGM: the Trust notified their members on the 29/6/23 : “No date in place at the moment but hope to announce something ahead of the new season.
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/07/meeting-with-the-club-29-6/
The Trust board would be able to further update their members on whether they were fully expecting that to take place before November.
You’re right on communication issues though. But a lot of that comes from not recognising how Rochdale supporters think or feel. It’s an attitude thing and we see through it immediately and always have done. [Post edited 2 Aug 2023 18:36]
| |
| |
| EGM on 18:33 - Aug 2 with 1949 views | Dalenet |
| EGM on 18:28 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
I've received my paperwork and I know others who have too alongside others (and reports on here) that appear not to.
Regardless, there is still nothing legally stopping any shareholder turning up at a meeting with a proof of identity that they are a shareholder on the Companies House list.
The only thing you can't do is vote by proxy and then try to vote again on the night.
If anyone hasn't got the paperwork then if they email either the Club or Trust I suspect both would be in possession of the documents, notwithstanding I completely agree with the sentiments that shareholders of any organisation shouldn't have to chase down paperwork. |
The club is ignoring said emails |  | | |
| EGM on 18:37 - Aug 2 with 1928 views | kel |
| EGM on 18:33 - Aug 2 by Dalenet |
The club is ignoring said emails |
Which was my point too. Talk of legally turning up etc is absolute nonsense as unless people have read this forum or the OS story (which quickly disappeared down the news feed) then they’ll have no idea it’s taking place.
Is Bottomley back? [Post edited 2 Aug 2023 18:38]
| | | |
| EGM on 18:39 - Aug 2 with 1921 views | D_Alien |
| EGM on 18:28 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
I've received my paperwork and I know others who have too alongside others (and reports on here) that appear not to.
Regardless, there is still nothing legally stopping any shareholder turning up at a meeting with a proof of identity that they are a shareholder on the Companies House list.
The only thing you can't do is vote by proxy and then try to vote again on the night.
If anyone hasn't got the paperwork then if they email either the Club or Trust I suspect both would be in possession of the documents, notwithstanding I completely agree with the sentiments that shareholders of any organisation shouldn't have to chase down paperwork. |
"...there is still nothing legally stopping any shareholder turning up at a meeting with a proof of identity that they are a shareholder on the Companies House list"
Shareholders who don't read this forum, haven't visited the Official website and haven't received the notice of EGM wouldn't agree with that. It's not their obligation to keep checking for notices of meetings
Edit: just read that this point has already been made; it's pretty obvious actually
[Post edited 2 Aug 2023 18:41]
|  |
| |
| EGM on 18:54 - Aug 2 with 1863 views | TomRAFC |
| EGM on 18:28 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
I've received my paperwork and I know others who have too alongside others (and reports on here) that appear not to.
Regardless, there is still nothing legally stopping any shareholder turning up at a meeting with a proof of identity that they are a shareholder on the Companies House list.
The only thing you can't do is vote by proxy and then try to vote again on the night.
If anyone hasn't got the paperwork then if they email either the Club or Trust I suspect both would be in possession of the documents, notwithstanding I completely agree with the sentiments that shareholders of any organisation shouldn't have to chase down paperwork. |
You're trying to argue the toss on every individual point, I'm sure you have your reasons. Oddly enough, it hasn't lead to consistent logic.
"Loads of effort by literally hundreds of people, which is openly documented however the notice of date of the meeting to the actual vote was still the same time period of 21 days."
As well you know, that loads of effort included tracking countless people down, from phone calls to doorsteps and everything in-between.
"If anyone hasn't got the paperwork then if they email either the Club or Trust."
Just an email and an announcement on the website will do it this time, aye? Or is this less publicised EGM magically more accessible ?
The reputation of your past contributions was based on their quality, not their quantity. | |
| |
| EGM on 19:09 - Aug 2 with 1788 views | 100notout |
| EGM on 18:12 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
I personally don't see how an AGM before an EGM would help anything, the two meetings exist for completely different purposes.
The last AGM was held in November 2022, so the next one should be in November 2023 although the Articles give until 31st December as long as there is one in a calendar year. The business at the next one is likely to be:
1. Approve the minutes of the 2022 AGM
2. Re-elect any directors offering themselves up for reappointment
3. Authorise the directors to reappoint the auditors and fix their remuneration.
As I said elsewhere, it any shareholder(s) want an EGM on anything at all they can call for one, subject to having the right amount of support and have that motion desired openly debated and voted on by a called meeting of all shareholders. That looks to be a better method for anyone wanting a specific motion debated which falls outside the AGM.
On the administration of the EGM, the notice issued on the website if valid and binding.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/july/notice-of-egm/
The fact this thread has reached a buryesque 15 pages for a one topic motion with a Yes/No answer show a number of communication issues but none of that actively stops shareholders getting directly in touch with the club or turning up to vote next week. |
And how do you suggest we vote when we don’t know the background to and finer details of the very thing we are being asked to approve.
Also, we don,t know what the implications of a no vote MIGHT be. Any ideas? | |
| |
| EGM on 19:12 - Aug 2 with 1779 views | 49thseason |
| EGM on 18:12 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
I personally don't see how an AGM before an EGM would help anything, the two meetings exist for completely different purposes.
The last AGM was held in November 2022, so the next one should be in November 2023 although the Articles give until 31st December as long as there is one in a calendar year. The business at the next one is likely to be:
1. Approve the minutes of the 2022 AGM
2. Re-elect any directors offering themselves up for reappointment
3. Authorise the directors to reappoint the auditors and fix their remuneration.
As I said elsewhere, it any shareholder(s) want an EGM on anything at all they can call for one, subject to having the right amount of support and have that motion desired openly debated and voted on by a called meeting of all shareholders. That looks to be a better method for anyone wanting a specific motion debated which falls outside the AGM.
On the administration of the EGM, the notice issued on the website if valid and binding.
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/july/notice-of-egm/
The fact this thread has reached a buryesque 15 pages for a one topic motion with a Yes/No answer show a number of communication issues but none of that actively stops shareholders getting directly in touch with the club or turning up to vote next week. |
I think you need 5% (of shares I presume) to call an EGM. Unless there is something different in the Articles , but 5% is my reading of the 2005 Companies Act? |  | | |
| EGM on 19:48 - Aug 2 with 1649 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 18:54 - Aug 2 by TomRAFC |
You're trying to argue the toss on every individual point, I'm sure you have your reasons. Oddly enough, it hasn't lead to consistent logic.
"Loads of effort by literally hundreds of people, which is openly documented however the notice of date of the meeting to the actual vote was still the same time period of 21 days."
As well you know, that loads of effort included tracking countless people down, from phone calls to doorsteps and everything in-between.
"If anyone hasn't got the paperwork then if they email either the Club or Trust."
Just an email and an announcement on the website will do it this time, aye? Or is this less publicised EGM magically more accessible ?
The reputation of your past contributions was based on their quality, not their quantity. |
I've zero emotion with regards to the outcome of this EGM and as I read the motion clearly there are only two binary options which are either:
(a) Shareholders will approve the proposal and the club will get a secured lending facility which in it's own words is for "the purpose of raising working capital"
or
(b) Shareholders do not approve it and things stay exactly as they are now.
Choice (a) clearly offers something the club doesn't currently have access to financially and raises more working capital whereas choice (b) maintains the status quo at the current working capital levels.
After collecting all of its revenue and paying all of its costs we all know that the club loses about £1m a year without one-off events such as an FA cup runs or a sizeable player transfer and has done for a number of years.
We first learned that loss of £1m number from Andrew Kelly in June 2020, so it must be considered (a) a fair statement and (b) nothing to do with the current board:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2020/june/statement--andrew-kelly/
"At the beginning of 2019, I received a call from our current Chairman asking me to return to the Board. During my absence I understand BG took responsibility for the Academy. As he had now left, I decided to return to ensure the Academy continued to have a voice at Board level.
After returning, 2019 proved to be a very difficult year. The Accounts showed losses in excess of £1.2m in the last year of CD’s stewardship. The Board in an effort to steady the ship reverted to the well worn path of player sales. I was personally very worried up until our cup run and the Craig Dawson deal, which between them in view of the previous losses, steadied the ship.
Two successive years in the National League (assuming we don't get back into the EFL this year at the first attempt which I think was last achieved in 2016) will mean the club has to find £2m to keep going until May 2025 and assuming in the meantime it doesn't draw Man United away in the FA Cup of find another Craig Dawson.
Teams that are relegated into the 5th tier find it difficult to find their way back out again.
Each shareholder will make up their own mind on how to vote but that £1m loss figure is a good working capital figure to keep in your mind; or another £500 a year per season ticket holder and that is just to stand still. | |
| |
| EGM on 19:58 - Aug 2 with 1615 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 19:09 - Aug 2 by 100notout |
And how do you suggest we vote when we don’t know the background to and finer details of the very thing we are being asked to approve.
Also, we don,t know what the implications of a no vote MIGHT be. Any ideas? |
No idea at all. However the Companies Act says that Directors have a statutory duty to promote the success of the company which given this is a formal shareholder notice would suggest that the collective Directors believe it to be in the best interest of the Company?
As I've just posted, two successive years in the National League (assuming we don't get back into the EFL this year at the first attempt which I think was last achieved in 2016) will mean the club has to find £2m to keep going until May 2025 and assuming in the meantime it doesn't draw Man United away in the FA Cup of find another Craig Dawson.
You can only vote for something if you openly support it and if you don't support it for whatever reason you, including feeling that you don't have all the information you need to decide then you should vote against it or abstain. | |
| |
| EGM on 20:02 - Aug 2 with 1595 views | 442Dale |
Sometimes seven words are enough. | |
| |
| EGM on 20:05 - Aug 2 with 1589 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 19:12 - Aug 2 by 49thseason |
I think you need 5% (of shares I presume) to call an EGM. Unless there is something different in the Articles , but 5% is my reading of the 2005 Companies Act? |
That's correct as I understand it.
That's under 50,000 shares needed to call an EGM however the other 925,000 may vote against you! | |
| |
| EGM on 20:16 - Aug 2 with 1548 views | HullDale |
This thread makes for interesting reading, not only about the stadium / security but also the value of shares.
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/286165/rochdale-afc-become
This forum was unanimous in its praise for the mortgage going, the security the 'Morris Clause' offers and how, since 1987, nobody has been able to take money out against the ground.
We're probably all guilty sometimes of recentism, so maybe worth remembering how we all felt a few short months ago too. |  | | |
| EGM on 20:27 - Aug 2 with 1472 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM on 20:16 - Aug 2 by HullDale |
This thread makes for interesting reading, not only about the stadium / security but also the value of shares.
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/rochdale/forum/286165/rochdale-afc-become
This forum was unanimous in its praise for the mortgage going, the security the 'Morris Clause' offers and how, since 1987, nobody has been able to take money out against the ground.
We're probably all guilty sometimes of recentism, so maybe worth remembering how we all felt a few short months ago too. |
A good point.
Also missing from this debate appears to be the point that between 1994 and 2016 in the 8 separate occasions where the then Board of the club did this previously, did the club not call the EGM.
All of the documents are on Companies House and pledge the ground to the lender many of them signed by serving Dale directors of the time:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02483618
Why were EGM's not called then I wonder given the existence of the Morris Resolution from the late 1980's? | |
| |
| EGM on 20:29 - Aug 2 with 1467 views | D_Alien |
| EGM on 19:48 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
I've zero emotion with regards to the outcome of this EGM and as I read the motion clearly there are only two binary options which are either:
(a) Shareholders will approve the proposal and the club will get a secured lending facility which in it's own words is for "the purpose of raising working capital"
or
(b) Shareholders do not approve it and things stay exactly as they are now.
Choice (a) clearly offers something the club doesn't currently have access to financially and raises more working capital whereas choice (b) maintains the status quo at the current working capital levels.
After collecting all of its revenue and paying all of its costs we all know that the club loses about £1m a year without one-off events such as an FA cup runs or a sizeable player transfer and has done for a number of years.
We first learned that loss of £1m number from Andrew Kelly in June 2020, so it must be considered (a) a fair statement and (b) nothing to do with the current board:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2020/june/statement--andrew-kelly/
"At the beginning of 2019, I received a call from our current Chairman asking me to return to the Board. During my absence I understand BG took responsibility for the Academy. As he had now left, I decided to return to ensure the Academy continued to have a voice at Board level.
After returning, 2019 proved to be a very difficult year. The Accounts showed losses in excess of £1.2m in the last year of CD’s stewardship. The Board in an effort to steady the ship reverted to the well worn path of player sales. I was personally very worried up until our cup run and the Craig Dawson deal, which between them in view of the previous losses, steadied the ship.
Two successive years in the National League (assuming we don't get back into the EFL this year at the first attempt which I think was last achieved in 2016) will mean the club has to find £2m to keep going until May 2025 and assuming in the meantime it doesn't draw Man United away in the FA Cup of find another Craig Dawson.
Teams that are relegated into the 5th tier find it difficult to find their way back out again.
Each shareholder will make up their own mind on how to vote but that £1m loss figure is a good working capital figure to keep in your mind; or another £500 a year per season ticket holder and that is just to stand still. |
That's all old information, already known and understood
SG & RK have presented their offer of a loan as a means of buying time to find a suitable external investor, or await the outcome of the Supporters Trust community asset fund bid
The facts and figures required by shareholders involve the loan, not our long-standing financial difficulties. Of course the two are very much linked but it's uptodate figures we need, and the EGM is too late to present those figures for many shareholders to be able to make a considered decision on the night, or advise their proxy beforehand
And of course, you know this
[Post edited 2 Aug 2023 20:33]
| |
| |
| EGM on 20:41 - Aug 2 with 1401 views | Rodingdale |
| EGM on 20:27 - Aug 2 by RAFCBLUE |
A good point.
Also missing from this debate appears to be the point that between 1994 and 2016 in the 8 separate occasions where the then Board of the club did this previously, did the club not call the EGM.
All of the documents are on Companies House and pledge the ground to the lender many of them signed by serving Dale directors of the time:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02483618
Why were EGM's not called then I wonder given the existence of the Morris Resolution from the late 1980's? |
In which case both lenders and directors would have been exposed if things had unraveled. We are where we are and as you say fans are now much more in tune with some of these things.
Out of interest- what’s your view on the way the club is being run at the moment. As a customer forum of sorts, the consensus is the club is being mismanaged at all levels, but the board remain resolutely impervious to feedback. Why do you think that is? [Post edited 2 Aug 2023 20:43]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
