| Positions after the Forum? 12:43 - Aug 4 with 4740 views | D_Alien |
After last night's forum, i'm wondering who might've changed their position - a change of heart maybe? Either way, might be useful to erm... gauge opinion
I'll set the ball rolling. Before the forum i was a definite No. I'm no longer a definite, but haven't quite moved to a Yes. Going to take some time to think and see what else transpires over the coming days |  |
| |  |
| Positions after the Forum? on 12:52 - Aug 4 with 4681 views | SuddenLad |
It's probably true to say that I was hovering between both options, but having been to the forum, I'm definitely in no doubt which way to vote, and I have done so. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Positions after the Forum? on 12:55 - Aug 4 with 4669 views | Dalenet |
Before the Forum I was a No, because we didn't know anything as to why
I will now vote Yes in the Trust poll as I think we have no choice. As for my shareholder vote - I still don't have the forms despite chasing |  | | |
| Positions after the Forum? on 13:03 - Aug 4 with 4635 views | James1980 |
Email from the trust says there will be no monthly repayments does that mean the interest will be added to the principle and compound? Or is it an interest only loan? | |
| |
| Positions after the Forum? on 13:15 - Aug 4 with 4549 views | Brierls |
I think a key point that many may have misinterpreted, but was clarified by SG when answering a question at the Forum, was this vote isn't to amend or bypass the 'Morris Clause' (or whatever we're calling it) or amend the articles.
I'm a 'yes' but I was before the forum. I agree with the many points made about the communication and information given around the vote, but I've been able to separate that from the underlying reason for the loan offer. Others might not be there yet or have different views entirely.
My gut feel is the motion won't be carried. My fear is that will force a change of direction much sooner than expected. |  | | |
| Positions after the Forum? on 13:43 - Aug 4 with 4423 views | fermin |
| Positions after the Forum? on 13:15 - Aug 4 by Brierls |
I think a key point that many may have misinterpreted, but was clarified by SG when answering a question at the Forum, was this vote isn't to amend or bypass the 'Morris Clause' (or whatever we're calling it) or amend the articles.
I'm a 'yes' but I was before the forum. I agree with the many points made about the communication and information given around the vote, but I've been able to separate that from the underlying reason for the loan offer. Others might not be there yet or have different views entirely.
My gut feel is the motion won't be carried. My fear is that will force a change of direction much sooner than expected. |
Does the fact that it is not to do with the Morris clause mean that it is a majority to pass rather than 75%?
I was on the fence before, but I am now inclining to yes, though I will probably make the trust my proxy as I can't be there.
I would have liked there to have been a bit more pushback on the lack of comms and where volunteers can and cannot help out to save money. People with relevant skills and/or time need to step forward and the club need to accept that help. A volunteer could be the organiser for volunteer help if staffing is an issue. It is not as if this does not happen already as TVOS, for example, is an unpaid volunteer by my understanding and the programme is a big job. |  | | |
| Positions after the Forum? on 13:49 - Aug 4 with 4399 views | D_Alien |
| Positions after the Forum? on 13:43 - Aug 4 by fermin |
Does the fact that it is not to do with the Morris clause mean that it is a majority to pass rather than 75%?
I was on the fence before, but I am now inclining to yes, though I will probably make the trust my proxy as I can't be there.
I would have liked there to have been a bit more pushback on the lack of comms and where volunteers can and cannot help out to save money. People with relevant skills and/or time need to step forward and the club need to accept that help. A volunteer could be the organiser for volunteer help if staffing is an issue. It is not as if this does not happen already as TVOS, for example, is an unpaid volunteer by my understanding and the programme is a big job. |
Great point about TVOS
I also wondered (in retrospect) about the requirement for a 50% +1 vote at the EGM. If, for instance, the club were to readily clarify this it would help with decision-making, but failure to do so ahead of the EGM will simply entrench it due to not having learned the comms lessons you refer to | |
| |
| Positions after the Forum? on 13:59 - Aug 4 with 4336 views | A_Newby |
| Positions after the Forum? on 13:03 - Aug 4 by James1980 |
Email from the trust says there will be no monthly repayments does that mean the interest will be added to the principle and compound? Or is it an interest only loan? |
That is a very good question James.
I would expect the club need to pay interest to Simon Gauge and Richard Knight each month.
If Simon has to borrow the money from a financial organisation (bank) to make the loan to the club. Say he borrows £200,000 it is likely that he will have monthly repayments to the bank on that loan. If he paid just interest payments on his loan then it could be over £1,000 per month. |  | | |
| Positions after the Forum? on 14:12 - Aug 4 with 4286 views | judd |
| Positions after the Forum? on 13:43 - Aug 4 by fermin |
Does the fact that it is not to do with the Morris clause mean that it is a majority to pass rather than 75%?
I was on the fence before, but I am now inclining to yes, though I will probably make the trust my proxy as I can't be there.
I would have liked there to have been a bit more pushback on the lack of comms and where volunteers can and cannot help out to save money. People with relevant skills and/or time need to step forward and the club need to accept that help. A volunteer could be the organiser for volunteer help if staffing is an issue. It is not as if this does not happen already as TVOS, for example, is an unpaid volunteer by my understanding and the programme is a big job. |
The fan engagement meeting in September re: volunteers was highlighted last night. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Positions after the Forum? on 15:55 - Aug 4 with 4055 views | DaleiLama |
I make no apologies for having a complete volte-face of my thoughts prior to yesterday evening’s pre-forum post, or to the length of this post.
I'll preface it with a comment that the reason the human race, in all its diversity, has become the dominant species on the planet, is that it is made up of so many different types of people, with so many skill sets, that have (mostly) all learned to co-operate for the greater good and the betterment of mankind. We question, we analyse and we make decisions for our futures based on what we learn, how things change and how we interpret that knowledge.
Yesterday, I was a confirmed No vote. I had no information so that had to be a default position. Now I have enough information to change that to a confirmed Yes vote, which I have done through the Trust and will do so at the EGM.
On the money side of things, we need it. It is small beer compared to the value of the asset it is being borrowed against (~10%) at a favourable rate. If it stops us hitting the buffers, great.
There are a great number of things that have made me change my mind and are all just one person's opinion.
With regards to the board, if I had free reign to choose one, would I choose this one? Almost certainly no. Nor would I give it 10% of the value of the ground to speculate with, but the thing is, this isn't a speculation fund. It's a lifeline to keep us going. I was extremely disappointed with Simon’s inability to make any stab at answering the question about our cash burn, since we must prepare management accounts and budgets, so there should have been some sort of attempt at a better answer than that given. That being said, however, I did take on board the “lumpy” nature of income and on the plus side, they have spoken to other clubs, and accountants for other clubs, to benchmark our situation and performance. Although it’s no consolation, we are not alone. Also, to our board’s credit, they are trying to do things the right way – not stop paying creditors and defaulting on debts, which is against the ethos of most Daleys.
In addition to this, the loan will give us further breathing space to try to get the 7/10 prospect (or another one of the 200+) over the line. Again credit to the board for weeding through the dross to try to find something worthwhile. It is clear that this has been a massively time and energy-sapping process, doing due diligence, having endless meetings, performing research etc. This from individuals who are working for nothing and have sunk £3/4M collectively into a club they have been accused of not caring about, had death threats and faeces through their letter boxes and to top it off last night, being accused of profiteering ffs. JS’s reaction was well out of order, but sometimes, when you poke an angry bear ……… Some people thought they looked tired an weary. Hmmmm. What’s the old adage about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes? Have they been negligent in communication – no doubt whatsoever. Is there even a “need to know” element to their communication style too – yes (wrongly). As there is a natural bunker mentality from them as a reaction to a lot of the sh1t (literally) they have had to put up with. My interpretation of last night was that Simon thought the communication was bordering on acceptable, meaning there is a gap between expectation from the fanbase and a “team-Rochdale” which BJ understands and needs to encourage in Simon. (and fwiw, I think RK was referencing the amount of his personal wealth he has tied up in RAFC when discussing inheritance, not specifically in relation to this loan proposal – just a gut feeling).
I have seen all sorts of stuff on-line and on here about sack the board, bring a new one in, let’s have it fan-led, let the Trust do it. It’s all very nebulous isn’t it? There is never a list of candidates, a summary of their qualifications, an amount of financial support they can offer and quantification of how much collective free time this as yet unassembled group has available. Just “get rid of this lot, bring something new in, because new must be better”.
Am I concerned about how much mire the club is in. Damn right I am. But Simon gave a long list of improvements this board has made, backed up with factual evidence (who knew the better training facility was cheaper than the previous one?), but we got relegated twice, we are cash-poor so the board is shit and needs replacing? Firstly, is there a viable replacement on offer? If there isn’t, I don’t know why that dead horse keeps being flogged. If there is, let’s have a look at some credentials and give it the same scrutiny the incumbent board gets.
With regards to finance, of course, as 442 has taken great pains to post about (with links) our fall from financial relative safety to a struggle is there for all to see. Too late to change that now. We made some bad managerial appointments, we signed some bad players and we have a major conflict in Ukraine which is causing financial hardship everywhere. None of that looks good on any board member’s CV, whether it is within or without our control, but nor can it be changed.
The board is looking for an exit strategy. It isn’t going to be sticking around come what may. As I see it, there are two paths our future may take us down. Either the board sells the club with the help of this lifeline, or RAFC in the current format is unsustainable in the medium-long term. Hearing that doubling the income and SC numbers would still give us more costs vs income, was quite the sobering announcement last night. Cutting staff numbers isn’t going to boost income either – usually quite the contrary
We have a binary decision to make on the loan – support it or don’t. Based on the above, I have decided a Yes vote is the lesser of two evils. |  |
| |
| Positions after the Forum? on 17:19 - Aug 4 with 3860 views | electricblue |
Based upon the amount to borrow in context with the value of the ground it is onlt about 12% of the value..
So in based on that alone then it is a yes vote but the BoD should be addressing the amount of employees other than the playing side..
It is important that cutting costs throughout the club isnt one side ie lets cut the players wages budget...
Some extremely hard decissions are needed and urgently to help keep their head above the water....
Also a good idea mentioned is to move home saturday matches to lunch time or could it even change to a sunday ko.... |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Positions after the Forum? on 17:44 - Aug 4 with 3780 views | D_Alien |
| Positions after the Forum? on 17:19 - Aug 4 by electricblue |
Based upon the amount to borrow in context with the value of the ground it is onlt about 12% of the value..
So in based on that alone then it is a yes vote but the BoD should be addressing the amount of employees other than the playing side..
It is important that cutting costs throughout the club isnt one side ie lets cut the players wages budget...
Some extremely hard decissions are needed and urgently to help keep their head above the water....
Also a good idea mentioned is to move home saturday matches to lunch time or could it even change to a sunday ko.... |
Can we please keep this thread to decision-making, rather than another general points thread, thanks
[Post edited 4 Aug 2023 17:47]
| |
| |
| Positions after the Forum? on 17:54 - Aug 4 with 3735 views | SaxonDale |
Was a no, now a yes. |  | | |
| Positions after the Forum? on 18:04 - Aug 4 with 3671 views | EllDale |
Was undecided.
Now a yes. | | | |
| Positions after the Forum? on 18:10 - Aug 4 with 3643 views | nordenblue |
If I ever get a vote last night cleared quite a bit up, amazing what a bit of communication can achieve | | | |
| Positions after the Forum? on 18:24 - Aug 4 with 3597 views | ThreeLions |
I was edging towards a No before last night but now it's a Yes and have voted accordingly through the trust. |  | | |
| Positions after the Forum? on 22:34 - Aug 4 with 3321 views | RAFCBLUE |
Was in favour before the additional detail given at the Fans Forum and will be voting yes. |  |
| |
| Positions after the Forum? on 22:46 - Aug 4 with 3290 views | _Windydale |
Yes before, and still yes. | | | |
| Positions after the Forum? on 05:35 - Aug 5 with 3110 views | frenzied |
| Positions after the Forum? on 18:24 - Aug 4 by ThreeLions |
I was edging towards a No before last night but now it's a Yes and have voted accordingly through the trust. |
Same for me | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.