| Share sale 11:34 - Jun 3 with 57593 views | fitzochris |
I understand the shares owned by Chris Dunphy, Bill Goodwin and Paul Hazelhurst have been sold to a US-based concern.
Keep an eye on Companies House over the coming weeks. |  |
| |  |
| Share sale on 08:31 - Jun 8 with 2139 views | tony_roch975 |
| Share sale on 03:55 - Jun 8 by TalkingSutty |
Thank you. The comparison between our last two Chairman speaks volumes, one absolutely loved the Club and still does. Anyway he was ushered out of the Club without very much concern, some seemed to welcome his departure,we have a habit of doing that when it comes to Club legends though.
There are some very obvious questions that need asking and it doesn’t need the Supporters Trust to do it neither because the answers aren’t rocket science.
Who instigated the change of Chairman?
Who was behind the introduction of Andrew Kilpatrick as Chairman?
Why did two long standing Directors allow it to happen and why do they let a junior member of the Board jump into the job as CEO and act as the club spokesman?
Who has already gained financially out of all of this and who stands to gain financially when investors are found?
The new training ground project is something that we can never afford but acts as a reason to bring in outside investors, is it really that imperative...haven’t we prospered without one?
The Club is viable without a outside investor being introduced isn’t it, we’ve always had to buy and sell players so what’s changed?
There is likely to be a salary cap introduced following the pandemic, that in itself will financially benefit the Club long term won’t it.?
Are outside investors being sought so Chairman and Directors can sell up their shares and if so they will want the highest price won’t they?
In the 18 months since the Boardroom takeover we have generated approximately £4 million ( more i think) from the sale of players,add ons*, FA Cup and League Cup gate receipts, FA Cup television payments, prize money...all of this is money that wasn’t budgeted for so is a bonus. We’ve never had such a influx of money over such a short period. Taking into account the losses that the Club announced as a result of paying off the management team etc, the bank balance should still be a healthy one shouldn’t it? Have we really generated millions of pounds of excess debt in a 18 month period?
* Players sold...Magahey, Rafferty, Cannon, Adshead, Matheson, Dawson add on. ( nearly £3 million,irrespective if we receive it all in a lump sum or not)
[Post edited 8 Jun 2020 7:36]
|
I get that you are a fan of Chris Dunphy, and completely disrespect the current Board, but based on the number of shares sold (if that is confirmed) - Chris Dunphy has already gained most financially. If investors are attracted through the sale of NEW shares, none of the existing shareholders will benefit financially; indeed, if it works, we fans would benefit. Many on here, including fitzochris, have argued for the benefits of a training ground. There is dispute about whether the financial success of 2019/20 is an annually repeatable business model - you think it is, many of us disagree. |  |
| |
| Share sale on 09:18 - Jun 8 with 2045 views | DaleiLama |
| Share sale on 08:31 - Jun 8 by tony_roch975 |
I get that you are a fan of Chris Dunphy, and completely disrespect the current Board, but based on the number of shares sold (if that is confirmed) - Chris Dunphy has already gained most financially. If investors are attracted through the sale of NEW shares, none of the existing shareholders will benefit financially; indeed, if it works, we fans would benefit. Many on here, including fitzochris, have argued for the benefits of a training ground. There is dispute about whether the financial success of 2019/20 is an annually repeatable business model - you think it is, many of us disagree. |
Taking the share-holding shenanigans and politics out of the equation (not because I am dis-interested, but because we know so little in detail yet), I can see a lot in what you say Tony. Past success is no guarantee of future success, especially with a new, as yet unproven board, stepping into what is bound to be a very uncertain future . Furthermore, even though we flirted with the fringe of the play-offs at our historical best, there is an undoubted glass-ceiling sitting over our ability to improve using the existing business model.
If, and it's a big if, money can come into the club sustainably combined with ambition, to allow us to safely break through the glass-ceiling and allow us to reach the next level, bring it on. Growth and "progress" has to be safe and sustainable though. Otherwise we could just come crashing back to earth and end up worse off than we were before. Look what happened up the road.
Certainly, we need to learn more about this new "opportunity". Then we need to establish whether the devil we don't yet know is better than the one we do? [Post edited 8 Jun 2020 9:22]
|  |
| |
| Share sale on 09:25 - Jun 8 with 2018 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Share sale on 17:47 - Jun 7 by 442Dale |
That’s a good point about how “moneyball” or a variation of it fits with young talent. So many players who become a success often don’t stand out at a younger age for various reasons, so could these be missed when stats becomes the focus? |
It’s not just young players with me. How would Chris O’Grady end up at Dale in a system that tracks a player’s analytics? O’Grady was literally going nowhere prior to Hill taking a punt on him. He had a poor goal scoring record and he had a bit of a reputation of being ineffective. You’d have to search very hard to find a fan of one of his previous clubs who had anything positive to say about him.
By definition, a ‘broken toy’ is a player whose analytics are, for whatever reason, not what they should be. [Post edited 8 Jun 2020 9:33]
| |
| |
| Share sale on 09:32 - Jun 8 with 2007 views | judd |
| Share sale on 09:18 - Jun 8 by DaleiLama |
Taking the share-holding shenanigans and politics out of the equation (not because I am dis-interested, but because we know so little in detail yet), I can see a lot in what you say Tony. Past success is no guarantee of future success, especially with a new, as yet unproven board, stepping into what is bound to be a very uncertain future . Furthermore, even though we flirted with the fringe of the play-offs at our historical best, there is an undoubted glass-ceiling sitting over our ability to improve using the existing business model.
If, and it's a big if, money can come into the club sustainably combined with ambition, to allow us to safely break through the glass-ceiling and allow us to reach the next level, bring it on. Growth and "progress" has to be safe and sustainable though. Otherwise we could just come crashing back to earth and end up worse off than we were before. Look what happened up the road.
Certainly, we need to learn more about this new "opportunity". Then we need to establish whether the devil we don't yet know is better than the one we do? [Post edited 8 Jun 2020 9:22]
|
I don't think TalkingSutty is talking about the repeatability of the past 12 months at all.
I think he is referring to our cash position after reserves were used to fund £1.4m or so losses in the previous 2 seasons and the amount of income generated in the past 12 months.
I have seen a message that refers to "A P&L YTD from 1st June last year that shows amazing performance..." dated 25th March 2020. |  |
| |
| Share sale on 09:35 - Jun 8 with 2003 views | TalkingSutty |
| Share sale on 08:31 - Jun 8 by tony_roch975 |
I get that you are a fan of Chris Dunphy, and completely disrespect the current Board, but based on the number of shares sold (if that is confirmed) - Chris Dunphy has already gained most financially. If investors are attracted through the sale of NEW shares, none of the existing shareholders will benefit financially; indeed, if it works, we fans would benefit. Many on here, including fitzochris, have argued for the benefits of a training ground. There is dispute about whether the financial success of 2019/20 is an annually repeatable business model - you think it is, many of us disagree. |
You're correct i do disrespect the current Board. Have any of the current Directors offered to sell their shares or even been accumulating shares along the way? It's possible we could find out. It's up to Fitzochris what he thinks but I disagree with him, a training complex will be a financial noose around our neck and will take money away from first team recruitment. We could bring in investors to fund it but obviously they will want a place on the top table, we probably have that option now but it doesn't suit the current boardroom. You can't have major investment and not expect to hand over part control of the Club.
Finances fluctuate from one season to the next, it's never been any different, we've been buying and selling players and having a bit of luck in the cup for decades, it's been proven to work for us. Mosr of the last 10 years has seen us competing in L1 and we've done all of this and produced and sold players without the use of our own training facility.
If the trade off for a training ground is to bring in outside investors and fans think it's worth the risk then that's up to them but I don't. Irrespective of all that I will be happy when we have a proper Chairman and Directors who are open with the fans and not underhanded and who have a drive and desire to keep progressing the first team. Some discipline in the day to day running of the Club and how individuals conduct themselves would also be nice, you get sick to death of hearing stuff which seems to constantly drip out of the place. Some professionalism would be good. [Post edited 8 Jun 2020 9:55]
|  | | |
| Share sale on 10:13 - Jun 8 with 1908 views | DaleiLama |
| Share sale on 09:32 - Jun 8 by judd |
I don't think TalkingSutty is talking about the repeatability of the past 12 months at all.
I think he is referring to our cash position after reserves were used to fund £1.4m or so losses in the previous 2 seasons and the amount of income generated in the past 12 months.
I have seen a message that refers to "A P&L YTD from 1st June last year that shows amazing performance..." dated 25th March 2020. |
Fair enough - I wasn't thinking TS was implying that - my point was a more general one that the club has survived ups and downs in income over a recent period of time (which is how TS's post read to me) and despite low gates, it has managed to sell players and buy the ground and stay much more solvent than many others in the past (certainly linked with KH being at the club). That model can't be relied upon as much as guaranteed money. Nor am I saying that there is an offer of guaranteed money either.
My feeling is that this board has walked into a "Bob Paisley" situation after Shanks left. Anyway, the melting pot is very fluid to say the least | |
| |
| Share sale on 10:15 - Jun 8 with 1902 views | judd |
| Share sale on 10:13 - Jun 8 by DaleiLama |
Fair enough - I wasn't thinking TS was implying that - my point was a more general one that the club has survived ups and downs in income over a recent period of time (which is how TS's post read to me) and despite low gates, it has managed to sell players and buy the ground and stay much more solvent than many others in the past (certainly linked with KH being at the club). That model can't be relied upon as much as guaranteed money. Nor am I saying that there is an offer of guaranteed money either.
My feeling is that this board has walked into a "Bob Paisley" situation after Shanks left. Anyway, the melting pot is very fluid to say the least |
Sorry - I should have replied to Tony_Roch | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Share sale on 10:23 - Jun 8 with 1876 views | DaleiLama |
| Share sale on 10:15 - Jun 8 by judd |
Sorry - I should have replied to Tony_Roch |
No probs. | |
| |
| Share sale on 10:25 - Jun 8 with 1874 views | fitzochris |
Not sure why I've been brought into the training ground debate but, for what it's worth, my opinion, based on speaking to our managers from the past 20 years or so, is that we need one. All of them have lamented our training facilities and have advocated that better ones would lead to a better overall structure. I caveat this with the point TS makes - it should not come as a financial milstone. It needs to be affordable. | |
| |
| Share sale on 10:32 - Jun 8 with 1853 views | SuddenLad |
| Share sale on 10:25 - Jun 8 by fitzochris |
Not sure why I've been brought into the training ground debate but, for what it's worth, my opinion, based on speaking to our managers from the past 20 years or so, is that we need one. All of them have lamented our training facilities and have advocated that better ones would lead to a better overall structure. I caveat this with the point TS makes - it should not come as a financial milstone. It needs to be affordable. |
You make a good point, Fitzo. There are undoubtedly players who we have missed out on, who decided to sign elsewhere because our training facilities were sh!te, compared to club 'X'. A succession of ex-managers have said so.
We definitely need better facilities, no question about that, but not at any cost. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Share sale on 10:42 - Jun 8 with 1825 views | fitzochris |
Sorry, but I'm actually getting a bit annoyed with the dismissive attitude of the Trust. I had kept quiet so far, but some of those responses have irked me.
The board were under no obligation to keep the private sale of Dunphy's shares to Altman to themselves, only their own negotiations with Altman.
While the sale of Dunphy's shares didn't need a massive press statement from the board, the Trust should certainly have been told. They weren't. They didn't have a Scooby until Wednesday.
True, it would've been made public in a couple of weeks anyway, but only if anybody bothered to check in with Companies House. The club wouldn't have volunteered the new info. Dan Altman even admitted in his previous Q&A with the Trust that the news was revealed earlier than he had expected because I found out about it. He wasn't even on the Trust's radar until Wednesday FFS, so don't be so dismissive.
Then there is this: "It is our understanding from discussions over the last few days that there not been any developments to this story for many months other than news of the share purchase entering the public domain."
Dan's proposal for the club is both bold and ambitious and it absolutely needed to be brought into the public domain. The fact he made them "many months ago", but I only discovered them last week is absolutely irrelevant. Again, it reiterates the fact that people who should have known about this, didn't. [Post edited 8 Jun 2020 10:44]
| |
| |
| Share sale on 10:54 - Jun 8 with 1798 views | Sandyman |
Well worth reading. |  | | |
| Share sale on 10:54 - Jun 8 with 1798 views | jonahwhereru |
| Share sale on 18:45 - Jun 7 by Nigeriamark |
These statistic based systems are based on entering data on established players into a system. Younger players especially those we take at 16 would not really figure so an academy could run as it always has alongside any new system & I can't see why we wouldn't do so.
The new system is just an alternative to purely having a manager use his judgement. Again it is not either/or. For example it won't just pick 2 players who we must buy at all costs, but will generate a pool of options. The manager could additionally add players he likes and the data could be pulled up on those players too. In the end it will still come down to who's available, how much will they cost, what salaries and agent fees are involved, which no computer based system can answer. |
Nigeria, Altman has a product to market. His chosen vehicle to market that product is Rochdale. The product covers adult leagues. He wants to sell it to the masses, I fail to see where producing players through a youth system sells the virtues of his product.
Would he not prefer to work with a sporting director to redirect acadamy expenditure into bringing players to the club that his system has highlighted. Like has been suggested about other shareholders he is in it for the short term if Rochdale did reach the promised land of the Championship he would look to sell the club and continue to hawk his product across the world.
On another note I am not the sharpest tool in the box so bear with me. At the moment the Americans have bought less than 15% of the issued shares privately. So the club is no better of financially. In isolation that shareholding is not sufficient for them to get their product adopted. They have funds to invest either in unissued or private shares. They could also invest some directly on a club priority to sweeten the shareholders and the fans, but that is probably unlikely without achieving a controlling interest.
When they do achieve that I expect the first investment will be a director of football, to oversee their chosen player acquisitions and sales. Personally I don’t believe SD’s bring a positive result for most clubs.
A penny for BBM’s thoughts!! His position at the club and in football could be diminishing. By that I mean he will have less control. If things go well people will say it’s because “robotics” do the recruitment and BBM won’t get his due credit. | | | |
| Share sale on 11:23 - Jun 8 with 1709 views | D_Alien |
| Share sale on 10:54 - Jun 8 by jonahwhereru |
Nigeria, Altman has a product to market. His chosen vehicle to market that product is Rochdale. The product covers adult leagues. He wants to sell it to the masses, I fail to see where producing players through a youth system sells the virtues of his product.
Would he not prefer to work with a sporting director to redirect acadamy expenditure into bringing players to the club that his system has highlighted. Like has been suggested about other shareholders he is in it for the short term if Rochdale did reach the promised land of the Championship he would look to sell the club and continue to hawk his product across the world.
On another note I am not the sharpest tool in the box so bear with me. At the moment the Americans have bought less than 15% of the issued shares privately. So the club is no better of financially. In isolation that shareholding is not sufficient for them to get their product adopted. They have funds to invest either in unissued or private shares. They could also invest some directly on a club priority to sweeten the shareholders and the fans, but that is probably unlikely without achieving a controlling interest.
When they do achieve that I expect the first investment will be a director of football, to oversee their chosen player acquisitions and sales. Personally I don’t believe SD’s bring a positive result for most clubs.
A penny for BBM’s thoughts!! His position at the club and in football could be diminishing. By that I mean he will have less control. If things go well people will say it’s because “robotics” do the recruitment and BBM won’t get his due credit. |
Whilst in no way comparing Dale with Liverpool, having a Sporting Director doesn't seem to be harming Jürgen Klopp's reputation in the game
A great deal, as always would depend on the chemistry between the two. Otherwise it could be like having a SD3 |  |
| |
| Share sale on 11:47 - Jun 8 with 1650 views | TalkingSutty |
| Share sale on 10:42 - Jun 8 by fitzochris |
Sorry, but I'm actually getting a bit annoyed with the dismissive attitude of the Trust. I had kept quiet so far, but some of those responses have irked me.
The board were under no obligation to keep the private sale of Dunphy's shares to Altman to themselves, only their own negotiations with Altman.
While the sale of Dunphy's shares didn't need a massive press statement from the board, the Trust should certainly have been told. They weren't. They didn't have a Scooby until Wednesday.
True, it would've been made public in a couple of weeks anyway, but only if anybody bothered to check in with Companies House. The club wouldn't have volunteered the new info. Dan Altman even admitted in his previous Q&A with the Trust that the news was revealed earlier than he had expected because I found out about it. He wasn't even on the Trust's radar until Wednesday FFS, so don't be so dismissive.
Then there is this: "It is our understanding from discussions over the last few days that there not been any developments to this story for many months other than news of the share purchase entering the public domain."
Dan's proposal for the club is both bold and ambitious and it absolutely needed to be brought into the public domain. The fact he made them "many months ago", but I only discovered them last week is absolutely irrelevant. Again, it reiterates the fact that people who should have known about this, didn't. [Post edited 8 Jun 2020 10:44]
|
Try not to get annoyed you did the fans a great service, if you don't keep an eye on things you can end up with no Club. Plenty have thanked you for your efforts and I'll add mine. Nobody would have been any wiser if it wasn't down to you bringing it to our attention. [Post edited 8 Jun 2020 11:48]
| | | |
| Share sale on 11:55 - Jun 8 with 1619 views | AtThePeake |
| Share sale on 09:25 - Jun 8 by BigDaveMyCock |
It’s not just young players with me. How would Chris O’Grady end up at Dale in a system that tracks a player’s analytics? O’Grady was literally going nowhere prior to Hill taking a punt on him. He had a poor goal scoring record and he had a bit of a reputation of being ineffective. You’d have to search very hard to find a fan of one of his previous clubs who had anything positive to say about him.
By definition, a ‘broken toy’ is a player whose analytics are, for whatever reason, not what they should be. [Post edited 8 Jun 2020 9:33]
|
Not sure I agree there as these systems are often designed to see things that the naked eye doesn't always see or appreciate. Someone like O'Grady may have popped up if searching for a player with high numbers in less obvious metrics than goals scored - maybe stuff like aerial balls won, successful first touches, successful passes in the final third. (They'd actually be more far more nuanced and in-depth than these but these are just a few that I've looked at for work in the past).
Some of the players that Brentford have signed will not have been particularly obvious successes at Championship level based on their records at previous clubs but have been bought for very reasonable fees as a result, utilised correctly in their first team and then seen their value rise dramatically. They've made millions in profit on the likes of Maupay, Konsa, Woods and indeed Scott Hogan and would likely make huge profit on the likes of Benrahma and Jeanvier if they were to move on now.
They signed Dru Yearwood from Southend at the start of the season - a diminutive central midfielder with no career goals in over 50 games who wasn't particularly being talked about as a star at League One level. Judging on the two games I've seen him play I suspect he ranks very highly in pass completion, ground covered, tackles won etc and I wouldn't be surprised to see him eventually nail down a first-team place and leave Brentford for a lot more than the £450k they signed him for. |  |
| |
| Share sale on 12:11 - Jun 8 with 1582 views | tony_roch975 |
| Share sale on 10:42 - Jun 8 by fitzochris |
Sorry, but I'm actually getting a bit annoyed with the dismissive attitude of the Trust. I had kept quiet so far, but some of those responses have irked me.
The board were under no obligation to keep the private sale of Dunphy's shares to Altman to themselves, only their own negotiations with Altman.
While the sale of Dunphy's shares didn't need a massive press statement from the board, the Trust should certainly have been told. They weren't. They didn't have a Scooby until Wednesday.
True, it would've been made public in a couple of weeks anyway, but only if anybody bothered to check in with Companies House. The club wouldn't have volunteered the new info. Dan Altman even admitted in his previous Q&A with the Trust that the news was revealed earlier than he had expected because I found out about it. He wasn't even on the Trust's radar until Wednesday FFS, so don't be so dismissive.
Then there is this: "It is our understanding from discussions over the last few days that there not been any developments to this story for many months other than news of the share purchase entering the public domain."
Dan's proposal for the club is both bold and ambitious and it absolutely needed to be brought into the public domain. The fact he made them "many months ago", but I only discovered them last week is absolutely irrelevant. Again, it reiterates the fact that people who should have known about this, didn't. [Post edited 8 Jun 2020 10:44]
|
Apologies for naming you in the training debate but as this is very much your thread I felt it was appropriate in disagreeing with TS to evidence there were 'well informed' fans who did welcome it and thanks for confirming that.
I'm confused about your feeling that the Trust is being dismissive over not being told by the Board about the private sale and Dan Altman's proposal - surely the 'private sale' is confidential to the parties involved until the new share register is published and the Altman proposal is in essence what the Board announced at the Fans Forum they were investigating (including specifically a training ground), it's just the ID of the investor which was not declared, rightly as you say, cos it was the subject of an NDA. The Trust appear to be correct that there has been no further development for some months?
Is there another agenda here which I'm missing or sorry if I've misunderstood.
ps - many of us would have been checking the new Share Register anyway - I posted in March about one of the 3 private sellers no longer owning shares for example. | |
| |
| Share sale on 12:14 - Jun 8 with 1575 views | fitzochris |
| Share sale on 12:11 - Jun 8 by tony_roch975 |
Apologies for naming you in the training debate but as this is very much your thread I felt it was appropriate in disagreeing with TS to evidence there were 'well informed' fans who did welcome it and thanks for confirming that.
I'm confused about your feeling that the Trust is being dismissive over not being told by the Board about the private sale and Dan Altman's proposal - surely the 'private sale' is confidential to the parties involved until the new share register is published and the Altman proposal is in essence what the Board announced at the Fans Forum they were investigating (including specifically a training ground), it's just the ID of the investor which was not declared, rightly as you say, cos it was the subject of an NDA. The Trust appear to be correct that there has been no further development for some months?
Is there another agenda here which I'm missing or sorry if I've misunderstood.
ps - many of us would have been checking the new Share Register anyway - I posted in March about one of the 3 private sellers no longer owning shares for example. |
My only agenda is to inform supporters of what is going on in a fashion I myself would like to be informed. Nothing more, nothing less. | |
| |
| Share sale on 12:14 - Jun 8 with 1567 views | judd |
| Share sale on 11:47 - Jun 8 by TalkingSutty |
Try not to get annoyed you did the fans a great service, if you don't keep an eye on things you can end up with no Club. Plenty have thanked you for your efforts and I'll add mine. Nobody would have been any wiser if it wasn't down to you bringing it to our attention. [Post edited 8 Jun 2020 11:48]
|
I'll second that.
I fully appreciate the amount of effort that has gone into the Trust's response but would add that I thought Fitzo's endeavours are worthy of praise by the Trust and not dismissed as something that appeared on a messageboard. | |
| |
| Share sale on 12:19 - Jun 8 with 1531 views | funkkk |
| Share sale on 11:55 - Jun 8 by AtThePeake |
Not sure I agree there as these systems are often designed to see things that the naked eye doesn't always see or appreciate. Someone like O'Grady may have popped up if searching for a player with high numbers in less obvious metrics than goals scored - maybe stuff like aerial balls won, successful first touches, successful passes in the final third. (They'd actually be more far more nuanced and in-depth than these but these are just a few that I've looked at for work in the past).
Some of the players that Brentford have signed will not have been particularly obvious successes at Championship level based on their records at previous clubs but have been bought for very reasonable fees as a result, utilised correctly in their first team and then seen their value rise dramatically. They've made millions in profit on the likes of Maupay, Konsa, Woods and indeed Scott Hogan and would likely make huge profit on the likes of Benrahma and Jeanvier if they were to move on now.
They signed Dru Yearwood from Southend at the start of the season - a diminutive central midfielder with no career goals in over 50 games who wasn't particularly being talked about as a star at League One level. Judging on the two games I've seen him play I suspect he ranks very highly in pass completion, ground covered, tackles won etc and I wouldn't be surprised to see him eventually nail down a first-team place and leave Brentford for a lot more than the £450k they signed him for. |
Agreed, O'Grady is exactly the sort of player an effective system might pick up. From memory I believe he was also playing in LG1 and we were in LG2 when he signed, the system is weighted to pick up on the impact a player might have at different levels. |  | | |
| Share sale on 12:20 - Jun 8 with 1524 views | DaleyBrent |
| Share sale on 11:55 - Jun 8 by AtThePeake |
Not sure I agree there as these systems are often designed to see things that the naked eye doesn't always see or appreciate. Someone like O'Grady may have popped up if searching for a player with high numbers in less obvious metrics than goals scored - maybe stuff like aerial balls won, successful first touches, successful passes in the final third. (They'd actually be more far more nuanced and in-depth than these but these are just a few that I've looked at for work in the past).
Some of the players that Brentford have signed will not have been particularly obvious successes at Championship level based on their records at previous clubs but have been bought for very reasonable fees as a result, utilised correctly in their first team and then seen their value rise dramatically. They've made millions in profit on the likes of Maupay, Konsa, Woods and indeed Scott Hogan and would likely make huge profit on the likes of Benrahma and Jeanvier if they were to move on now.
They signed Dru Yearwood from Southend at the start of the season - a diminutive central midfielder with no career goals in over 50 games who wasn't particularly being talked about as a star at League One level. Judging on the two games I've seen him play I suspect he ranks very highly in pass completion, ground covered, tackles won etc and I wouldn't be surprised to see him eventually nail down a first-team place and leave Brentford for a lot more than the £450k they signed him for. |
Spot on.
If we don’t embrace this we really will fall behind. We’ve gone as far as we possibly can with our current model and resources. We’ll never ever compete on money. Much like Brentford couldn’t but took the brave plunge to work in a different unfamiliar manner.
Why can’t we aspire? Why do we have sections of our fan base so hellbent on not moving this club forward? Without ambitions and aspirations for Championship football what is the point? It may never happen but not doing anything about it will confirm that we’ll never have that dream.
Please Dale fans let’s try and embrace this way of working. |  | | |
| Share sale on 12:24 - Jun 8 with 1505 views | TalkingSutty |
| Share sale on 12:11 - Jun 8 by tony_roch975 |
Apologies for naming you in the training debate but as this is very much your thread I felt it was appropriate in disagreeing with TS to evidence there were 'well informed' fans who did welcome it and thanks for confirming that.
I'm confused about your feeling that the Trust is being dismissive over not being told by the Board about the private sale and Dan Altman's proposal - surely the 'private sale' is confidential to the parties involved until the new share register is published and the Altman proposal is in essence what the Board announced at the Fans Forum they were investigating (including specifically a training ground), it's just the ID of the investor which was not declared, rightly as you say, cos it was the subject of an NDA. The Trust appear to be correct that there has been no further development for some months?
Is there another agenda here which I'm missing or sorry if I've misunderstood.
ps - many of us would have been checking the new Share Register anyway - I posted in March about one of the 3 private sellers no longer owning shares for example. |
I fully understand that many 'well informed' fans disagree with me on the training ground issue and don't have any problem whatsoever with being what seems like a loan voice, i can't change my mind to fall in line with the majority though because it's not what I do.
Having a great training ground and being able to finance everything without it having a detrimental effect on first team recruitment would be brilliant, I'd love that. | | | |
| Share sale on 12:26 - Jun 8 with 1491 views | tony_roch975 |
| Share sale on 12:14 - Jun 8 by judd |
I'll second that.
I fully appreciate the amount of effort that has gone into the Trust's response but would add that I thought Fitzo's endeavours are worthy of praise by the Trust and not dismissed as something that appeared on a messageboard. |
Thanks judd, think I now see where the 'dismissive' agenda comes from but honestly, having read the Trust statement 3 times, I do not get the feeling that they are implying any criticism or dismissal of fitzochris investigations - it just seems a clear, accurate account including (as fitzochris says himself) that we'd all have learned about Dan Altman in a couple of weeks anyway. | |
| |
| Share sale on 12:28 - Jun 8 with 1481 views | D_Alien |
| Share sale on 12:20 - Jun 8 by DaleyBrent |
Spot on.
If we don’t embrace this we really will fall behind. We’ve gone as far as we possibly can with our current model and resources. We’ll never ever compete on money. Much like Brentford couldn’t but took the brave plunge to work in a different unfamiliar manner.
Why can’t we aspire? Why do we have sections of our fan base so hellbent on not moving this club forward? Without ambitions and aspirations for Championship football what is the point? It may never happen but not doing anything about it will confirm that we’ll never have that dream.
Please Dale fans let’s try and embrace this way of working. |
I'm sure there's plenty of us would want to, but with the devil being in the detail, many will remain wary until greater clarity is achieved
My own key issue is what Altman/Marcelli mean by "long term". 5 years? 15 years? Longer?
We celebrate 100 years as a football league club next summer. I want to see the kind of proposals that would enable future generations to look back without any sense that this was when we signed away our legacy from the first 100 years | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
