| EGM + statement on 17:32 - Feb 21 with 4326 views | judd |
The Trust has not been made aware of any offer made to buy the club since the Lawrance debacle, and therefore has not met any one individual or group since. |  |
|  |
| EGM + statement on 17:33 - Feb 21 with 4313 views | Mundell |
When Simon Gauge became Chairman he was hopelessly naive, firm in his belief that running a 'fan owned' club would be relatively straightforward, but without having given any serious thought to what it might actually mean. He was, of course, egged on by the Trust and many of the club's fans who were equally delusional. Apologies for being so direct, but it needs saying.
When it became clear to him that the club was inherently loss making (having relied on windfall transfer income and income from cup runs to cover operating losses in the 'golden years'), that there was no easy way to increase revenues or cut costs and that Tracey Crouch wasn't going to ride to the rescue with immediate solutions, he sobered up and smelt the coffee.
Unfortunately, finding himself completely out of his depth and with no clear idea what to do, he chased the fantasy that an "investor" could be found who'd be willing to pay good money for a minority stake, and no control, in a business going nowhere without significant ongoing cash injections .... from the investor.
Once he'd understood that the only way forward was to cede control to a lead investor who would only want to 'invest' cash directly into the club (i.e. nobody sensible and without nefarious intent (eyes on the real estate) was ever going to pay a penny simply to buy out somebody's else's ownership stake) the reality dawned on him that almost everyone who invests in a club below Championship level loses every penny they've staked. Our shares have never been worth anything. This created a huge dilemma for him. How to keep the club afloat while also getting back some of the money he'd invested? He's not been able to solve that dilemma because there isn't a solution. The risk is that as result he's become ever more desperate.
I have every sympathy for the position Gauge has found himself in, "between a rock and a hard place" doesn't even come close. Nevertheless, sympathy doesn't translate to trust. Gauge has now lost all objectivity and even if he once had good judgement (and that's debatable) his latest proposal cannot be taken at face value. Shareholders (of which I am but one) should not even consider approving it without a lot more information. The proposal before the EGM could potentially be the worst of all possible worlds - the ceding of control to a completely unknown third party who, via liquidation of the Football Club, would have access to the real estate assets.
Unfortunately, there are now only bad options available but there is perhaps one that might be worth considering. In this option the club's existing shareholders retain ownership of the real estate assets (securing the future of the club) while selling the Football Club (the operating company) to an investor/operator for a nominal price.
This arrangement would include an arms length lease between the two legal entities and, ideally, an arrangement which would enable the Trust, acting on behalf of the shareholders, to have the ability to limit the freedoms of the new owner in a way similar to the deal Brentford's Trust agreed when Matthew Benham took majority ownership. This could prevent a move of stadium, change of club colours, name etc.
This might now be hard to organise, but I can't see how an arrangement of this kind could be worse than what is being proposed by Gauge, though it might reduce his own chances of ever getting any money back.
As noted, I have some sympathy with Gauge, but the fact that he's seriously conflicted means he shouldn't be making this decision. What happens next needs to be in the interests of the majority of shareholders and of the club and its fans, not of Simon Gauge and his family.
Once again, apologies for being so direct but desperate times demand honest communication and I wanted to share this perspective. Fair enough if people don't agree.
PS I am aware that shares in Rochdale FC have changed hands for significant sums in recent years, but these transactions are very much outliers in the football industry. Others will know much more than I do about the background to those sales/purchases, but they should be seen very much as exceptions and not likely to be repeated. |  | | |
| EGM + statement on 17:59 - Feb 21 with 4136 views | DorkingDale |
| EGM + statement on 17:12 - Feb 21 by NorthernDale |
As I have said, I suspect that somebody may be lined up, but wants total control or 90% control and that is why Simon is seeking to push it through by threats and I suspect he will get his way. But to be honest, the present board have the fan base and we possibly need a new board, I accept that they may be doggy and destroy the club in the long-term, but can we survive under the stewardship of Gauge and Knight. Whoever leaked the information about the club to the media, I personally find their behaviour is inexcusable, by threatening to liquidate the club and going public as well, it seriously undermines the club reputation and can never be forgiven.
As many have indicated we could potential get a loan based on the ground, I believe this as happened before during the covid pandemic, when the club got a loan from the council and again we could go back to the council, the question is why as this not occurred? |
What makes you think someone leaked this to the media? It was posted on the club website.
The National League has prevented the club raising money against the ground, so that's a no no.
In his statement SG stated that the council have been approached on a couple of points. | | | |
| EGM + statement on 18:12 - Feb 21 with 4021 views | D_Alien |
| EGM + statement on 17:33 - Feb 21 by Mundell |
When Simon Gauge became Chairman he was hopelessly naive, firm in his belief that running a 'fan owned' club would be relatively straightforward, but without having given any serious thought to what it might actually mean. He was, of course, egged on by the Trust and many of the club's fans who were equally delusional. Apologies for being so direct, but it needs saying.
When it became clear to him that the club was inherently loss making (having relied on windfall transfer income and income from cup runs to cover operating losses in the 'golden years'), that there was no easy way to increase revenues or cut costs and that Tracey Crouch wasn't going to ride to the rescue with immediate solutions, he sobered up and smelt the coffee.
Unfortunately, finding himself completely out of his depth and with no clear idea what to do, he chased the fantasy that an "investor" could be found who'd be willing to pay good money for a minority stake, and no control, in a business going nowhere without significant ongoing cash injections .... from the investor.
Once he'd understood that the only way forward was to cede control to a lead investor who would only want to 'invest' cash directly into the club (i.e. nobody sensible and without nefarious intent (eyes on the real estate) was ever going to pay a penny simply to buy out somebody's else's ownership stake) the reality dawned on him that almost everyone who invests in a club below Championship level loses every penny they've staked. Our shares have never been worth anything. This created a huge dilemma for him. How to keep the club afloat while also getting back some of the money he'd invested? He's not been able to solve that dilemma because there isn't a solution. The risk is that as result he's become ever more desperate.
I have every sympathy for the position Gauge has found himself in, "between a rock and a hard place" doesn't even come close. Nevertheless, sympathy doesn't translate to trust. Gauge has now lost all objectivity and even if he once had good judgement (and that's debatable) his latest proposal cannot be taken at face value. Shareholders (of which I am but one) should not even consider approving it without a lot more information. The proposal before the EGM could potentially be the worst of all possible worlds - the ceding of control to a completely unknown third party who, via liquidation of the Football Club, would have access to the real estate assets.
Unfortunately, there are now only bad options available but there is perhaps one that might be worth considering. In this option the club's existing shareholders retain ownership of the real estate assets (securing the future of the club) while selling the Football Club (the operating company) to an investor/operator for a nominal price.
This arrangement would include an arms length lease between the two legal entities and, ideally, an arrangement which would enable the Trust, acting on behalf of the shareholders, to have the ability to limit the freedoms of the new owner in a way similar to the deal Brentford's Trust agreed when Matthew Benham took majority ownership. This could prevent a move of stadium, change of club colours, name etc.
This might now be hard to organise, but I can't see how an arrangement of this kind could be worse than what is being proposed by Gauge, though it might reduce his own chances of ever getting any money back.
As noted, I have some sympathy with Gauge, but the fact that he's seriously conflicted means he shouldn't be making this decision. What happens next needs to be in the interests of the majority of shareholders and of the club and its fans, not of Simon Gauge and his family.
Once again, apologies for being so direct but desperate times demand honest communication and I wanted to share this perspective. Fair enough if people don't agree.
PS I am aware that shares in Rochdale FC have changed hands for significant sums in recent years, but these transactions are very much outliers in the football industry. Others will know much more than I do about the background to those sales/purchases, but they should be seen very much as exceptions and not likely to be repeated. |
Welcome perspective and i like 'direct' - not sure there's any other way, since too much bullshit gets bandied about
Your suggestions have merit, but in order to pursue any such options, the EGM must decline SG's proposals. I'm slowly but surely coming round to that way of thinking
Above all, i believe the EGM must go to a proper vote, not a show of hands. We can't be railroaded as we were last August
I'll be writing to the Trust to lead this process [Post edited 21 Feb 18:39]
|  |
| |
| EGM + statement on 18:49 - Feb 21 with 3775 views | 100notout |
| EGM + statement on 17:33 - Feb 21 by Mundell |
When Simon Gauge became Chairman he was hopelessly naive, firm in his belief that running a 'fan owned' club would be relatively straightforward, but without having given any serious thought to what it might actually mean. He was, of course, egged on by the Trust and many of the club's fans who were equally delusional. Apologies for being so direct, but it needs saying.
When it became clear to him that the club was inherently loss making (having relied on windfall transfer income and income from cup runs to cover operating losses in the 'golden years'), that there was no easy way to increase revenues or cut costs and that Tracey Crouch wasn't going to ride to the rescue with immediate solutions, he sobered up and smelt the coffee.
Unfortunately, finding himself completely out of his depth and with no clear idea what to do, he chased the fantasy that an "investor" could be found who'd be willing to pay good money for a minority stake, and no control, in a business going nowhere without significant ongoing cash injections .... from the investor.
Once he'd understood that the only way forward was to cede control to a lead investor who would only want to 'invest' cash directly into the club (i.e. nobody sensible and without nefarious intent (eyes on the real estate) was ever going to pay a penny simply to buy out somebody's else's ownership stake) the reality dawned on him that almost everyone who invests in a club below Championship level loses every penny they've staked. Our shares have never been worth anything. This created a huge dilemma for him. How to keep the club afloat while also getting back some of the money he'd invested? He's not been able to solve that dilemma because there isn't a solution. The risk is that as result he's become ever more desperate.
I have every sympathy for the position Gauge has found himself in, "between a rock and a hard place" doesn't even come close. Nevertheless, sympathy doesn't translate to trust. Gauge has now lost all objectivity and even if he once had good judgement (and that's debatable) his latest proposal cannot be taken at face value. Shareholders (of which I am but one) should not even consider approving it without a lot more information. The proposal before the EGM could potentially be the worst of all possible worlds - the ceding of control to a completely unknown third party who, via liquidation of the Football Club, would have access to the real estate assets.
Unfortunately, there are now only bad options available but there is perhaps one that might be worth considering. In this option the club's existing shareholders retain ownership of the real estate assets (securing the future of the club) while selling the Football Club (the operating company) to an investor/operator for a nominal price.
This arrangement would include an arms length lease between the two legal entities and, ideally, an arrangement which would enable the Trust, acting on behalf of the shareholders, to have the ability to limit the freedoms of the new owner in a way similar to the deal Brentford's Trust agreed when Matthew Benham took majority ownership. This could prevent a move of stadium, change of club colours, name etc.
This might now be hard to organise, but I can't see how an arrangement of this kind could be worse than what is being proposed by Gauge, though it might reduce his own chances of ever getting any money back.
As noted, I have some sympathy with Gauge, but the fact that he's seriously conflicted means he shouldn't be making this decision. What happens next needs to be in the interests of the majority of shareholders and of the club and its fans, not of Simon Gauge and his family.
Once again, apologies for being so direct but desperate times demand honest communication and I wanted to share this perspective. Fair enough if people don't agree.
PS I am aware that shares in Rochdale FC have changed hands for significant sums in recent years, but these transactions are very much outliers in the football industry. Others will know much more than I do about the background to those sales/purchases, but they should be seen very much as exceptions and not likely to be repeated. |
Agree with a lot of this - the crux of this is as you say ..............
"Gauge has now lost all objectivity and even if he once had good judgement (and that's debatable) his latest proposal cannot be taken at face value. Shareholders (of which I am but one) should not even consider approving it without a lot more information. The proposal before the EGM could potentially be the worst of all possible worlds - the ceding of control to a completely unknown third party who, via liquidation of the Football Club, would have access to the real estate assets."
I have no idea whether to support this resolution or not, but based purely on the above I would prefer to vote against it. Yes it would provide £2m gross cash (does SG's loan of £556k need to be deducted from this??? At the very least substantial transactional costs will be incurred) into the club but it could also be kicking the can down the road for 2 or 3 seasons. At that point, the investor may decide enough is enough and will have sufficient real estate to make a lot of profit - don't forget this proposal effectively removes the Morris clause.
Is it better to vote against the resolution? Ok this would probably lead to administration, a points deduction(?) and probable relegation but I would guess we could easily cut at least £500k off the wage bill in the summer by releasing a small number of out of contract players. Would we be better operating on a smaller scale, further down the footballing pyramid and cutting our cloth accordingly? I don't know the answer to these questions - a healthy, robust debate is required.
One final point, I don't like the ultimatum from SG - " If it isn’t passed, the threat of liquidation at the end of March is very real. " Sounds very similar to Neville Neville's words before Stewart Day and we all know how that ended. | |
| |
| EGM + statement on 19:28 - Feb 21 with 3482 views | 49thseason |
The question that needs answering is very simple.. " if not this, then what"?
The board has no more money to invest
They have tried and failed to sell the club at £2.35 per share.
The fans have little appetite for investing at the levels required
The ground has value but the Board has been denied the opportunity to set loans against it, despite shareholder agreement.
There is no money to invest in a lottery or other money making schemes.
There would be little change in outgoings next season but income from the EFL is halved leaving a large hole.
Clubs below Championship level that actually manage to break even are as rare as hens teeth. For most , in the current financial climate, relegation is the kiss of a lingering death.
So if there is indeed someone prepared to put £2m into the club, and the specificy of the chairmans demands points to that being a disctinct possibility, we are in no position to turn them down. Yes there needs to be some due diligence to make sure they have the funds and I guess the " fit and proper person tests" will apply. But beyond this we are in the lap of the Gods, we might manage 1 more season, we might manage another 100 seasons. The only certainty seems to be that without someone coming in with hard cash, there will be no next season. The board might be able to do some sort of equity deal to get some money back on their shares, I couldnt blame them if they did. The rest of us will lose all our " investment" but it was never really an " investment" was it?
Every company needs investors, particularly small companies that dont manufacture anything, so small football clubs get pulverised by big ones, small breweries and pub chains are in deep shit, theatres, cinemas, you name it...it's struggling. How many people can there be with a couple of million quid to waste on a football club?
We are at the arse end of a national football finance calamity. Rising costs, crappy overarching rules and regulations for governing bodies with unfair TV money splits and transfer rules / compensation and laughable " standards". Over-regulation by "safety" nutters, police costs, stupid levels of business and personal taxation.
If someone has £2m , take it, screw the consequences, it can hardly be worse. Lets try and have another couple of seasons and see how many others make it so far. Many will not. As Dickens' Mr Micawber often said.." something will turn up". |  | | |
| EGM + statement on 19:34 - Feb 21 with 3435 views | DaleFan7 |
Time to start planning for a Phoenix club. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| EGM + statement on 19:38 - Feb 21 with 3400 views | Dale2017 |
It’s a very concerning predicament we find ourselves in. It does feel like the voters are being held to ransom to accept this deal.
We should be walking to the right solution, not just running to a potentially fatally solution.
I felt for Gauge at one point and felt a lot of the stick he got online was a tad unfair. But as time has gone on my stance has definitely changed. He seems to want to recoup as much of the money he’s owed above anything else. Some might say that’s fair but when his inept leadership has dragged us to this point. He should be first and foremost securing the club the best investment opportunity and not the first chancer to brandish £2m in a briefcase. | | | |
| EGM + statement on 19:53 - Feb 21 with 3224 views | dingdangblue |
No fear. Richard the caller has contacted Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson on Twitter to come and save us. Well we are in a hard place. |  |
| |
| EGM + statement on 20:05 - Feb 21 with 3137 views | Salford_Dale |
Long time lurker (since before I bothered to register with a username) and long time sufferer, but a first time poster. Like a large number of supporters, I bought shares in November 2021 as part of the fight against MH but also because of wanting to support the idea of a fan-owned club both in theory and practice.
I bought 500 shares which, for me, was not an insignificant outlay at the time (it still isn't), but I did so knowing that I'd likely never see a return on my investment. That was never the point, of course. But what angers me with Gauge's latest announcement/threat, even though he's largely responsible for the downhill slide since Autumn 2021, is that his sacrifice is worth more than small fry shareholders like me. Not to mention the thousands of us, past and present, who aren't shareholders, but have piled thousands of quid into the club over years of support.
Yes, Gauge has put 500 times more money into the club, but it seems to me that this EGM is all about him being able to get his cash back, after his previous efforts have failed at the hands of those pesky kids doing research on potential investors. To hell with the club and to hell with the supporters.
If there is an investor lined-up, given his track record of (failed) due diligence, I have no trust that they'll be any different to the previous shysters that have been lined-up. And why should we, when Gauge's stated aim is to get out with all all his money paid back?
He's failed to get out by doing a deal in plain sight of the supporters, so now he's proposing to railroad through these new proposals at an EGM, after which he can do a deal with whoever he wants, behind the backs of supporters and us little, insignificant shareholders. Unless I see a persuasive argument to the contrary - and unless I'm missing something and being a bit dim - I'll be voting against at the EGM. | | | |
| EGM + statement on 20:06 - Feb 21 with 3125 views | nordenblue |
As a bookkeeper already I'd be surprised if he was silly enough to chuck some of his brass into a black hole, he's clearly decent with figures already | | | |
| EGM + statement on 20:07 - Feb 21 with 3119 views | Duckegg |
| EGM + statement on 19:28 - Feb 21 by 49thseason |
The question that needs answering is very simple.. " if not this, then what"?
The board has no more money to invest
They have tried and failed to sell the club at £2.35 per share.
The fans have little appetite for investing at the levels required
The ground has value but the Board has been denied the opportunity to set loans against it, despite shareholder agreement.
There is no money to invest in a lottery or other money making schemes.
There would be little change in outgoings next season but income from the EFL is halved leaving a large hole.
Clubs below Championship level that actually manage to break even are as rare as hens teeth. For most , in the current financial climate, relegation is the kiss of a lingering death.
So if there is indeed someone prepared to put £2m into the club, and the specificy of the chairmans demands points to that being a disctinct possibility, we are in no position to turn them down. Yes there needs to be some due diligence to make sure they have the funds and I guess the " fit and proper person tests" will apply. But beyond this we are in the lap of the Gods, we might manage 1 more season, we might manage another 100 seasons. The only certainty seems to be that without someone coming in with hard cash, there will be no next season. The board might be able to do some sort of equity deal to get some money back on their shares, I couldnt blame them if they did. The rest of us will lose all our " investment" but it was never really an " investment" was it?
Every company needs investors, particularly small companies that dont manufacture anything, so small football clubs get pulverised by big ones, small breweries and pub chains are in deep shit, theatres, cinemas, you name it...it's struggling. How many people can there be with a couple of million quid to waste on a football club?
We are at the arse end of a national football finance calamity. Rising costs, crappy overarching rules and regulations for governing bodies with unfair TV money splits and transfer rules / compensation and laughable " standards". Over-regulation by "safety" nutters, police costs, stupid levels of business and personal taxation.
If someone has £2m , take it, screw the consequences, it can hardly be worse. Lets try and have another couple of seasons and see how many others make it so far. Many will not. As Dickens' Mr Micawber often said.." something will turn up". |
But £2m is not really enough to help get Dale on onto an even keel infact lets double it or make ita round £5m.
As a so called investor needs money and a fair to get the club moving to make money.
There is a lottery to get up and running amongst other ideas by people within the trust and on this forum....
SG and the board need to take a walk to the main stand and take a long look at the David Clough statue sat in his beloved seat.
Then think just what this guy did for the club in his life time.. |  | | |
| EGM + statement on 20:10 - Feb 21 with 3086 views | judd |
| EGM + statement on 18:12 - Feb 21 by D_Alien |
Welcome perspective and i like 'direct' - not sure there's any other way, since too much bullshit gets bandied about
Your suggestions have merit, but in order to pursue any such options, the EGM must decline SG's proposals. I'm slowly but surely coming round to that way of thinking
Above all, i believe the EGM must go to a proper vote, not a show of hands. We can't be railroaded as we were last August
I'll be writing to the Trust to lead this process [Post edited 21 Feb 18:39]
|
Email received and responded to. | |
| |
| EGM + statement on 20:10 - Feb 21 with 3085 views | Mundell |
That BBC Radio Manchester interview is so depressing. Unfortunately, Gauge is desperate and apparently desperately confused. He ought to recuse himself from any discussion about new capital because he’s hopelessly conflicted.
The club doesn’t need anything like £2m. What’s needed is an immediate cash injection sufficient to cover current operating losses and, ideally, clear evidence that an investor has the secure funding available to cover losses for next season and the following season.
Gauge is only talking about £2m - and the complexity of issuing a new share class - because of the ownership structure paradigm he’s unable to escape from and, perhaps, because he’s desperate to recoup the monies he’s ‘invested’.
But Gauge’s structure simply isn’t necessary. The option I noted above is much cleaner and simpler and might be easier to sell to prospective investors than the fantasy Gauge has been peddling. It’s also likely to be less risky from a fans perspective. In summary,
“The club's existing shareholders retain ownership of the real estate assets (securing the future of the club) while selling the Football Club (the operating company) to an investor/operator for a nominal price.
This arrangement would include an arms length lease between the two legal entities and, ideally, an arrangement which would enable the Trust, acting on behalf of the shareholders, to have the ability to limit the freedoms of the new owner in a way similar to the deal Brentford's Trust agreed when Matthew Benham took majority ownership. This could prevent a move of stadium, change of club colours, name etc.”
The main downside of this is that Gauge would be left high and dry, perhaps with a loan to the real estate business (the one that would be owned by the club’s existing shareholders) which may never be repaid.
Gauge needs to step aside and let someone else deal with the mess he’s been unable to resolve and which he’s now entangled in. | | | |
| EGM + statement on 20:23 - Feb 21 with 2952 views | D_Alien |
| EGM + statement on 20:10 - Feb 21 by Mundell |
That BBC Radio Manchester interview is so depressing. Unfortunately, Gauge is desperate and apparently desperately confused. He ought to recuse himself from any discussion about new capital because he’s hopelessly conflicted.
The club doesn’t need anything like £2m. What’s needed is an immediate cash injection sufficient to cover current operating losses and, ideally, clear evidence that an investor has the secure funding available to cover losses for next season and the following season.
Gauge is only talking about £2m - and the complexity of issuing a new share class - because of the ownership structure paradigm he’s unable to escape from and, perhaps, because he’s desperate to recoup the monies he’s ‘invested’.
But Gauge’s structure simply isn’t necessary. The option I noted above is much cleaner and simpler and might be easier to sell to prospective investors than the fantasy Gauge has been peddling. It’s also likely to be less risky from a fans perspective. In summary,
“The club's existing shareholders retain ownership of the real estate assets (securing the future of the club) while selling the Football Club (the operating company) to an investor/operator for a nominal price.
This arrangement would include an arms length lease between the two legal entities and, ideally, an arrangement which would enable the Trust, acting on behalf of the shareholders, to have the ability to limit the freedoms of the new owner in a way similar to the deal Brentford's Trust agreed when Matthew Benham took majority ownership. This could prevent a move of stadium, change of club colours, name etc.”
The main downside of this is that Gauge would be left high and dry, perhaps with a loan to the real estate business (the one that would be owned by the club’s existing shareholders) which may never be repaid.
Gauge needs to step aside and let someone else deal with the mess he’s been unable to resolve and which he’s now entangled in. |
Just an enquiry, but are you a shareholder and/or member of the Trust? If you're in a position to do so, please feel free to put this forward
If not, i'd be happy to forward this alternative to the Trust as a counter-proposal; not necessarily as a sole alternative but in the first instance as a way of engaging the BoD and shareholders in an alternative narrative [Post edited 21 Feb 20:24]
| |
| |
| EGM + statement on 21:02 - Feb 21 with 2674 views | Mundell |
| EGM + statement on 20:23 - Feb 21 by D_Alien |
Just an enquiry, but are you a shareholder and/or member of the Trust? If you're in a position to do so, please feel free to put this forward
If not, i'd be happy to forward this alternative to the Trust as a counter-proposal; not necessarily as a sole alternative but in the first instance as a way of engaging the BoD and shareholders in an alternative narrative [Post edited 21 Feb 20:24]
|
I'm a shareholder and I'd be delighted if you can forward the option above for discussion. There may well be good reasons why it wouldn't work, but any objections should be articulated and tested. A genuinely open brainstorm about options can lead to much better outcomes, even if the idea that initially prompted the discussion is rejected.
With all due respect to Simon Gauge, it does appear that he's been playing catch up since day one and his thinking still appears to be very narrow. There must be a better alternative to his my way or goodbye way position.
PS Thanks. [Post edited 21 Feb 21:04]
| | | |
| EGM + statement on 21:08 - Feb 21 with 2617 views | D_Alien |
| EGM + statement on 21:02 - Feb 21 by Mundell |
I'm a shareholder and I'd be delighted if you can forward the option above for discussion. There may well be good reasons why it wouldn't work, but any objections should be articulated and tested. A genuinely open brainstorm about options can lead to much better outcomes, even if the idea that initially prompted the discussion is rejected.
With all due respect to Simon Gauge, it does appear that he's been playing catch up since day one and his thinking still appears to be very narrow. There must be a better alternative to his my way or goodbye way position.
PS Thanks. [Post edited 21 Feb 21:04]
|
Will do, on the basis that the provision of alternatives is necessary, even if they prove not to be sufficient
Thanks | |
| |
| EGM + statement on 21:11 - Feb 21 with 2593 views | sxdale |
| EGM + statement on 20:05 - Feb 21 by Salford_Dale |
Long time lurker (since before I bothered to register with a username) and long time sufferer, but a first time poster. Like a large number of supporters, I bought shares in November 2021 as part of the fight against MH but also because of wanting to support the idea of a fan-owned club both in theory and practice.
I bought 500 shares which, for me, was not an insignificant outlay at the time (it still isn't), but I did so knowing that I'd likely never see a return on my investment. That was never the point, of course. But what angers me with Gauge's latest announcement/threat, even though he's largely responsible for the downhill slide since Autumn 2021, is that his sacrifice is worth more than small fry shareholders like me. Not to mention the thousands of us, past and present, who aren't shareholders, but have piled thousands of quid into the club over years of support.
Yes, Gauge has put 500 times more money into the club, but it seems to me that this EGM is all about him being able to get his cash back, after his previous efforts have failed at the hands of those pesky kids doing research on potential investors. To hell with the club and to hell with the supporters.
If there is an investor lined-up, given his track record of (failed) due diligence, I have no trust that they'll be any different to the previous shysters that have been lined-up. And why should we, when Gauge's stated aim is to get out with all all his money paid back?
He's failed to get out by doing a deal in plain sight of the supporters, so now he's proposing to railroad through these new proposals at an EGM, after which he can do a deal with whoever he wants, behind the backs of supporters and us little, insignificant shareholders. Unless I see a persuasive argument to the contrary - and unless I'm missing something and being a bit dim - I'll be voting against at the EGM. |
Your post mirrors my situation and my thoughts, I bought the same amount of shares and, as you say, at not an inconsiderable cost for my financial circumstances and for the same reasons.
I share your anger at Mr Gauge, yes he did step up when needed along with the other board members, yes he has been dealt a s*** hand with the hostile takeover attempt but he forgets if it wasn't for the fans as well as the BoD then the takeover would in all probability have succeeded.
We, the fans were told we were in a good financial position, incompetent decisions and nieve recruitment resulted in the loss of our league status, nothing from the board at all simply nothing, no communication, no leadership, no information, no fight.
Then we, the fans get snide remarks directed our way for due diligence in preventing the board selling out to another bunch of shysters, basically trying to do a bottomley. Now they are at it again with gun to the head tactics to allow them to sell the club to some unknown party of their own choosing, sounds scarily familiar to what a previous CEO wanted to do at a egm.
This board under the stewardship of this chairman has in my opinion managed to rip the heart and soul out of the club. I was sat there in the Pearl Street on Saturday with Moors fans outsinging us throughout the entire match. The atmosphere was like a morgue and I couldn't even be bothered to get angry. Apathy has well and truly set in.
I want a vote of no confidence in the board at the egm, I would rather say f*** 'em and carry on without them at whatever level than put up with this s*** any longer.
Oh, and I supported Simon Gauge at the beginning of his tenure despite what some long standing friends and fellow Daley's were telling me when asking them why they would no longer attend matches. | | | |
| EGM + statement on 21:16 - Feb 21 with 2542 views | realisticdale33 |
| EGM + statement on 19:52 - Feb 20 by kel |
Saying “football is broken” will solve all our problems I’d imagine. |
Is there ever a time you don’t complain. | | | |
| EGM + statement on 21:24 - Feb 21 with 2477 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EGM + statement on 21:02 - Feb 21 by Mundell |
I'm a shareholder and I'd be delighted if you can forward the option above for discussion. There may well be good reasons why it wouldn't work, but any objections should be articulated and tested. A genuinely open brainstorm about options can lead to much better outcomes, even if the idea that initially prompted the discussion is rejected.
With all due respect to Simon Gauge, it does appear that he's been playing catch up since day one and his thinking still appears to be very narrow. There must be a better alternative to his my way or goodbye way position.
PS Thanks. [Post edited 21 Feb 21:04]
|
Welcome back Mundell.
I remember some of the points you made on this forum in early June 2021, after the EGM but before the 1st July 2021 sales of shares by individuals to a payroll company.
You made some interesting points then and a lot of water has gone on since.
I remember you saying at the time after the EGM something like Rochdale AFC still faced an existential threat despite us having had a fantastic run since 2009, outperforming on the pitch and benefitting of it from an unsustainable combination of transfer profits and windfall revenues from cup runs.
Even with these points in 2024 are you still of that thinking? |  |
| |
| EGM + statement on 21:34 - Feb 21 with 2396 views | 442Dale |
If someone was expecting others to answer questions, wouldn’t it be a start to do similar themselves?
This is the greatest show. |  |
| |
| EGM + statement on 22:39 - Feb 21 with 2110 views | Mundell |
| EGM + statement on 21:24 - Feb 21 by RAFCBLUE |
Welcome back Mundell.
I remember some of the points you made on this forum in early June 2021, after the EGM but before the 1st July 2021 sales of shares by individuals to a payroll company.
You made some interesting points then and a lot of water has gone on since.
I remember you saying at the time after the EGM something like Rochdale AFC still faced an existential threat despite us having had a fantastic run since 2009, outperforming on the pitch and benefitting of it from an unsustainable combination of transfer profits and windfall revenues from cup runs.
Even with these points in 2024 are you still of that thinking? |
Thanks RAFCBLUE. I can’t recall what I said back in mid 2021, but it was probably that I felt Dale would struggle to compete sustainably without access to some form of owner funding, even if that was simply to help manage the inevitable cycle of operating losses. I certainly felt strongly that the golden age of the 2010’s was not a useful benchmark when thinking about the future because the club benefited from windfall revenues from transfer fees and cup runs and the team significantly outperformed its wage bill on the field of play. I haven’t changed my mind about any of this and, unfortunately, I’m not surprised by where we’ve found ourselves.
The question, of course, was and is what to do about this. The answer, in my view, was not fan ownership, per se, but some form of owner funding. As Simon Gauge has discovered though this is only likely to work if the funder has control. It’s not realistic to expect someone to pay the bills and develop the club while being unable to steer the ship. The challenge then is how to arrange this without putting the club’s future at risk. How can we avoid a bad actor or reckless owner?
We might get lucky, like Wrexham and Notts County (or even Stockport), but there’s no guarantee of that and caution is understandable. A model where the current shareholders (fans) own the real estate and rent the infrastructure to an owner/funder/operator has always seemed a reasonable compromise to me. Not only does it protect the real estate, but it means a third party owner can only make money by progressing the club on the field of play, aligning interests and significantly reducing the risk of a bad actor acquiring the club.
I haven’t changed my view about any of this. The club needs to find that owner funder though and that would have been much easier in League One or League Two than in the National League or, god forbid, in National League North.
I really do believe there wouid be value in the Board and the Trust having a blank sheet of paper discussion about options. It’s hard to have any confidence in the current leadership. [Post edited 21 Feb 23:04]
| | | |
| EGM + statement on 22:45 - Feb 21 with 2080 views | DaleiLama |
| EGM + statement on 17:08 - Feb 21 by 442Dale |
The chairman is also on Radio Manchester at 6.30pm.
Meanwhile, this article states that shareholders will be “contacted directly within the next 24 hours”
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2024/february/noticeofegm_070324/
The notification of the news, as seen by the time of the tweet yesterday, was 4pm. Has anyone received anything yet?
|
Yes. Just checked my inbox and it's there. Not read it yet. |  |
| |
| EGM + statement on 22:47 - Feb 21 with 2068 views | A_Newby |
| EGM + statement on 22:45 - Feb 21 by DaleiLama |
Yes. Just checked my inbox and it's there. Not read it yet. |
I received mine 15 minutes ago. Just read the FAQs. Doesn't say much more. [Post edited 21 Feb 22:51]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.