Hornets still owe over ten thousand pounds to the Stadium Company. That was one of many Stadium Company & Hornets related issues discussed at a Fans Forum at Spotland on Thursday evening. Full report online now.

The situation of the Stadium Company was the main topic that dominated the evening, and with Hornets' Chairman Mark Wynn in attendance, it proved to be the perfect platform for both sides to have their say in a public forum.

It started when Colin Garlick answered a question with regards to the Stadium Company and the rent that had been paid by Hornets. Dale Chief Executive Colin Garlick answered that the Stadium Company had been living through difficult times recently, and that the club had been forced to lend the Stadium Company a sum of £5,000 in recent weeks to allow wages to be paid. Things had reached the stage where the club were having to put people off on behalf of the Stadium Company because the Stadium Company couldn't afford to pay them.

This point was countered by the Hornets Chairman Wynn, who said that both the Stadium Company and the Council had let Hornets down. He said that Hornets' share of the rent was £48,000 per year for the first three years, after which a £12,000 bond would need paying. He went on to say that playing at Mayfield was not an option for Hornets as their ground did not meet ground regulations for the division in which Hornets played. He went on to say that he expected Hornets to make a profit this year.

Understandably, Colin Garlick took issue with this, and informed the floor that since April, the Stadium Company had invoiced Hornets for a total of £23,500, yet only £13,450 had been received – a point not disputed by the Hornets Chairman  - meaning a current deficit of £10,050 existed, contradicting claims by Mr Wynn that Hornets were fully up to date with their rent in an email to his members earlier in the week.

Colin Garlick admitted that there were claims by Hornets with regards to a fixture switch and a period where Hornets played away from Spotland. He said that discussions were continuing over the Oldham game. The Stadium Company had offered £2,000 as compensation for Hornets switching the Oldham game to Mayfield (this being a pre-season friendly – the ground regulations did not apply), whilst Hornets were demanding a figure of £4,500.

As for the six week period of playing away from Spotland, it was stated very clearly that when the new Hornets signed up to play at Spotland, they agreed to a deal which would cost them £48,000 per year and included an agreement that they would play away from Spotland for the six week period, making any arguments for compensation for this period redundant.

It was stated at this point that any dispute that existed did not per se involve the football club. The problems that existed were between the Stadium Company and Rochdale Hornets. However, the issue being that Rochdale Football Club employees were doing Stadium Company work, and it had been agreed that the Football Club would be compensated for this.

This raised further concerns. It was stated that the current rent deal involves Dale paying two thirds of the overall contribution to the Stadium Company – a figure which totalled £96,000. Mr Wynn claimed that this figure had never actually been paid, at one point suggesting that it was Dale themselves that were £30,000 in arrears to the Stadium Company, with the shortfall deemed as for services rendered.

Payment for the Stadium Company was something that Hornets had issue with. It was stated that Hornets President Paul Ormerod had resigned from the Stadium Company board over this matter when the Stadium Company board agreed to this. On Hornets’s behalf, he felt that the Stadium Company should look to put this Stadium Company work out to tender rather than have Dale do the work and be paid for the services. The council stated that you couldn’t get anyone else to do this work for the £25,000 that Dale had been paid for.

There had been questions from the floor with regards to the ownership of the Stadium. The shareholding of the old Rochdale Hornets had been transferred to the RFL after the shares were used to guarantee a loan that was later unpaid. However, with copies of the original Spotland agreement as evidence, it was stated from the floor that this had been an illegal act.

The Dale board stated that they had taken legal advice on this, and it was something of a legal minefield which could have taken years to sort out, and it was suggested that by agreeing to the current deal, there had been acceptance of the current ownership by all concerned.

Photo: Action Images

Yorkshire_Dale added 10:57 - Aug 6 Thanks for the synopsis. Regarding the dispute of ownership of the old Hornets shares.....if there was a loop hole allowing the transfer to the RFL to go through without the consent of the other parties (Dale/RMBC) surely there is potential for a claim against the Solicitors who arranged this document under their Professional Indemnity Insurance? Surely,now is the time to sort it out once an for all???

0

Daley_Lama added 11:14 - Aug 6 As Col mentioned, it's a legal minefield. To challenge the Solicotor is equal to challenging the transfer of the shares to the RFL, equally time consuming with no guarantee of success. It appears to me that the approach is that RAFC don't like it but have lumped it, instead creating a new working position between Hornets, Dale, the council and the Stadium Company. The way forward is for this new contract to be honoured. From the reading above it seems a very straight forward agreement, £48K rent for the season with a 6 week period where Hornets cannot use the place due to necessary pitch maintanance which both sides benefit from. As long as that is honoured and equally the Dale part then such bun fights will hopefully not continue to happen.

0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Colchester United Polls