Scotts right. back MG

[snackweasle]

As supporters we have done all that is possible and have prevented the club from vanishing. I agree with MG that we have reached the level which is commensurate with our funding levels, and If £85,000 is pruned from the playing budget then conference north will be where we stay.
MG has performed consistently well over the last few years. Anyone who remembers him playing for the club will recognise that he has always been competitive, and this has continued into his managerial career. He has been successful and without doubt another club will come to take him if we don't want to continue to challenge any longer. I feel that in view of the managers we have had who have not fared well, it is imperative that we retain his services.
The clubs board is currently under huge pressure, and those that have tried their best and taken on responsibility are being castigated by the rank and file. That cant continue as no-one wants to be in that position, and inevitably the club and its governance will suffer as able folk decide that it simply isn't worth the continued hassle of being involved.
Few other clubs in the league are able to operate on the system that we have in place. As supporters we can be proud that we have restored the club to a position in which investors are again interested. Investors in football clubs don't come in for financial reward, they come in to belong... and to take some of the reflected glory of a successful side. It must now be in the clubs interests to look seriously at any proposals forthcoming.
I want to see DFC again in the conference at the very least, and preferably back in the league again. Nothing more can be achieved under our current arrangements, and its time to consider offers.

[Mr_Tibbs]

As supporters we can be proud that we have restored the club to a position in which investors are again interested.

I agree with this.

Maybe now that MG has made his thoughts known it'll open the door to other people coming along too. I have faith that the DFCSG board will look at any and all opportunities which now arise and present them in a manner which will allow their members to make an informed decision.

If anyone is not yet a member of the DFCSG but would like to take part in any forthcoming vote then full membership is still just £13 covering the rest of the membership year. Please remember that you need to be a full member (not a Junior Member) to be entitled to vote.

Join immediately here: http://dfcsg.co.uk/join

[Geordie Quaker]

MG has performed consistently well over the last few years. Anyone who remembers him playing for the club will recognise that he has always been competitive, and this has continued into his managerial career. He has been successful and without doubt another club will come to take him if we don't want to continue to challenge any longer. I feel that in view of the managers we have had who have not fared well, it is imperative that we retain his services.

If we are to buy into the investor model, then it has to be under the right conditions and for the right reasons. To continue our development and progress towards the FL is a good reason, doing it to satisfy an ambitious manager is not.

I am a huge fan of what MG has done and agree that we need to do our best to retain his services, but we cannot change the very fabric of our club just because he is keen to get us to the FL in a hurry. He won't be here forever regardless of what we do in the coming months / years.

[QUAKERMAN2]

2 great posts above,absolutely spot on, us fans have breathed life back into our club and brought it back from the ashes .MG has given us 5 great seasons and vital he stays to give us more, to lose him now after where we now stand would be a disaster.We are now at the stage where we can kick on towards the conference ,and the perfect time to re-assess what is required...in this respect Martin is 100% right in what he said at the forum despite some concerns.Let's see what unfolds with the potential investors, I for one cannot wait, whilst at the same time support Wayne Raper and John Tempest for the fantastic work they are doing off the field and let's get behind the fundraising effort and work alongside the investors.As Martin said, we can make it work if we all pull together.Glass half full time for me.Come on Darlo.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[Craig09]

We are touching distance from where we used to be we would be stupid not to back MG

[Geordie Quaker]

I am no legal expert but some of the conditions / issues for me around private investment are:

- What shareholding the DFCSG retain (obviously under 50%) and their subsequent roles on the club board;

- As mentioned elsewhere, rules in place regarding investments as opposed to loans made to the club;

- Some means of assuring that the investors see the club as their primary focus of attachment, not MG;

I am not precious on the fan-owned model, and I tend to agree that it may take us no further than we are, but I think people are going in a tad two-footed on the notion of private investment without knowing the slightest bit about what it might entail.

[LoidLucan]

The real key to all of this is the intentions and integrity of the investors. No-one in their right mind would turn down the chance of progressing with stable, worthy, safe, honest owners taking the club to the next level.

But equally people would rather settle for toiling away as fan owned if the alternative is a future of over-reaching, mounting debt against club and the terrible A word. Because I think we all know that if that happened again it would be the last time. And it would be a tragedy if all that has been achieved eventually turned to dust.

Obviously there can be no guarantees. All we can do is get the fullest possible details, analyse, assess and scrutinise to the best of our abilities. And then tick the box that we believe will be in the best interests of our club.

[Mr_Tibbs]

I am no legal expert but some of the conditions / issues for me around private investment are:

- What shareholding the DFCSG retain (obviously under 50%) and their subsequent roles on the club board;

- As mentioned elsewhere, rules in place regarding investments as opposed to loans made to the club;

- Some means of assuring that the investors see the club as their primary focus of attachment, not MG;

I am not precious on the fan-owned model, and I tend to agree that it may take us no further than we are, but I think people are going in a tad two-footed on the notion of private investment without knowing the slightest bit about what it might entail.

Unless investment is to be made which clearly benefits the community (such as in player development... possibly) we'd need to vote to change the ownership model from a Community Benefit Society to a private company. If multiple options appear on the table then the rules would seem to be against an easy passage of a resolution to do that.

[lo36789]

I am no legal expert but some of the conditions / issues for me around private investment are:

- What shareholding the DFCSG retain (obviously under 50%) and their subsequent roles on the club board;

- As mentioned elsewhere, rules in place regarding investments as opposed to loans made to the club;

- Some means of assuring that the investors see the club as their primary focus of attachment, not MG;

I am not precious on the fan-owned model, and I tend to agree that it may take us no further than we are, but I think people are going in a tad two-footed on the notion of private investment without knowing the slightest bit about what it might entail.

Unless investment is to be made which clearly benefits the community (such as in player development... possibly) we'd need to vote to change the ownership model from a Community Benefit Society to a private company. If multiple options appear on the table then the rules would seem to be against an easy passage of a resolution to do that.

Is that the Club itself or the DFCSG though?

[Mr_Tibbs]

The DFCSG, being the majority shareholder in the football club.

[super_les_mcjannet]

I am no legal expert but some of the conditions / issues for me around private investment are:

- What shareholding the DFCSG retain (obviously under 50%) and their subsequent roles on the club board;

- As mentioned elsewhere, rules in place regarding investments as opposed to loans made to the club;

- Some means of assuring that the investors see the club as their primary focus of attachment, not MG;

I am not precious on the fan-owned model, and I tend to agree that it may take us no further than we are, but I think people are going in a tad two-footed on the notion of private investment without knowing the slightest bit about what it might entail.

Very fair post.

Think the DFCSG board have to be very careful as they have sold 100k worth of shares and have the current share sale ongoing, they need the club to pay this back over 20 years.

If the club fails then DFCSG would still need to pay back the shares only without any payments from DFC. Maybe the investor would need to pay all this back now, basically this deal is a minefield.

[lo36789]

What I am saying is strictly speaking there isn't really an issue from the club perspective. There is however a problem from the DFCSG as majority shareholder - it cannot vote for something which could detriment its shareholders.

Ultimately if the DFCSG cannot fulfil its loan repayments then it goes into a creditor voluntarily liquidation.

[Spyman]

What I am saying is strictly speaking there isn't really an issue from the club perspective. There is however a problem from the DFCSG as majority shareholder - it cannot vote for something which could detriment its shareholders.

Ultimately if the DFCSG cannot fulfil its loan repayments then it goes into a creditor voluntarily liquidation.

When you say 'it' cannot vote for something that may detriment its shareholders - so you mean the shareholders cannot vote for something that may detriment themselves? Why not?

Surely if the members of DFCSG (the major shareholders of the club), vote in favour of something, then it will be implemented (assuming it can be).

[lo36789]

Well yeh that is I suppose my point. It couldn't unilaterally do it but as you say if the shareholders vote for it I don't really see the financial liability as being that problematic.

[super_les_mcjannet]

I think you will be right Spyman that the members could still vote, although I would expect the board would recommend their preferred option.

Be very difficult for the board to advise the preferred option is to go with the investor if this meant that the had relinquished their control over the club. Imagine if things went wrong and the board advice had been to go with the investor could they then be sued for poor advice/information if someone lost their CBS share value.

I know this is worst case scenario but for those guys & girls at DFCSG they have to ensure they think of all these options. Maybe the investor puts the money as a bond into the DFCSG bank account, who knows.

[Spyman]

I'm not sure many (if any) were expecting a return on their investment in the first place.

As for the board making recommendations - would this be the club board or the supporters group board?

[Feethams 1966]

MG has performed consistently well over the last few years. Anyone who remembers him playing for the club will recognise that he has always been competitive, and this has continued into his managerial career. He has been successful and without doubt another club will come to take him if we don't want to continue to challenge any longer. I feel that in view of the managers we have had who have not fared well, it is imperative that we retain his services.

I agree with snackweasle. MG can do no wrong for me. I hope he's at the club as long as Alex Ferguson at Man Utd, or longer. Top bloke.

[super_les_mcjannet]

I'm not sure many (if any) were expecting a return on their investment in the first place.

As for the board making recommendations - would this be the club board or the supporters group board?

No I agree most probably won't want their money back but legally they can't work on that. They might change their mind if they don't get it back because the investor ran the club badly (again worst case scenario), after the DFCSG recommended handing over control.

I would expect the DFCSG to make a recommendation on which way we should vote when it comes down to it, after weighing up the pros and cons. It's then up to us members to decide which way we vote but we have the advice from those who were meeting the investor and discussing options.

[Undercovered]

What I am saying is strictly speaking there isn't really an issue from the club perspective. There is however a problem from the DFCSG as majority shareholder - it cannot vote for something which could detriment its shareholders.

Ultimately if the DFCSG cannot fulfil its loan repayments then it goes into a creditor voluntarily liquidation.

The "loan" is community shares which are only payable should the entity be able to afford them - community share "debt" will not liquidate a CBS although that's not to say that the loan that the DFCSG has into the FC should not be very closely scrutinised as part of any potential deal

[Spyman]

I'm not sure many (if any) were expecting a return on their investment in the first place.

As for the board making recommendations - would this be the club board or the supporters group board?

No I agree most probably won't want their money back but legally they can't work on that. They might change their mind if they don't get it back because the investor ran the club badly (again worst case scenario), after the DFCSG recommended handing over control.

I would expect the DFCSG to make a recommendation on which way we should vote when it comes down to it, after weighing up the pros and cons. It's then up to us members to decide which way we vote but we have the advice from those who were meeting the investor and discussing options.

I'd expect the deal on the table to be very much - accept the investor(s) takes majority control of the club and the risks associated with this (ie you won't get any share value back) or reject the investment if you want to protect your investment.

Obviously we try to build in as many controls as possible to any deal to ensure the new owner doesn't run the club badly - but frankly under our own ownership we've still run the club at a loss for 5 years (although again there's been mitigating factors such as ground development, paying off legacy debt etc).

[Neil Johnson]

More Gung Ho / Knee Jerk stuff going on now?

Previous Investment / Disinvestment models included Tait, Brierley, Reynolds, Peden & Singh, so I hope that DFCSG / DFC boards are proceeding with extreme caution.

An explanation of where the supposed sufficient 2016/17 DFC budget went should be issued to all of the DFCSG/DFC shareholders in a coherent form.

MAYBE a lot of the much vaunted new income streams have actually favoured the Rugby Club and the cost extras / reduced attendances incurred from the delayed move to BM must have had big effects.

The BM deal has been far too secretive to date and in glorious retrospect the majority of shareholders may have voted (if presented with the facts) to wait for a more favourable deal to emerge.

The council were supposed to arbitrate on DFC/DRFC money disputes, so was that procedure activated and what are the results to the money split questions that were asked repeatedly w.r.t. ground parking, drinks, snacks, advertising etc?

Some who made relatively large "business" investments will take a different view to the small scale investors and that could cause longer term damage if share values are wiped out a'la Leeds Utd.

[al_quaker]

Sounds like a bit of a legal minefield. I wonder if there's scope for the SG to ask the potential investor to fund some professional advice for the SG.

[Mr_Tibbs]

I'm sure that guarantees/funds would be put in place to alleviate any worries on the shareholding side of things - they would have to be.

On the constitutional side of things and where the DFCSG stands regarding its obligations according to law then it's highly likely that it would need to change its ownership model away from being a Community Benefit Society.

The rules are very strict regarding what a CBS can and can't do with its assets - and they're specifically written to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to bend them. If we were to go with MG's group (if I can call them that, as - thinking back to GQ's point number 3 that's what they seem to be referred to in Wayne's statement) then an extraordinary resolution would need to be passed by the members at a Special General Meeting which would need about 500 voting members (or their proxies) to be in attendance to be quorate, and a majority of not less that 75% of the vote taken at that meeting would be required in order to pass the resolution.

Given that there may be more than one investor/group interested then we may be looking at a separate vote on which one to choose, or whether to stay as we are. I'm not sure if that vote can come after the other one, but you can see that some people might vote to block the investor which is not of their choosing if the vote on the change of ownership model came second. I suppose it might be possible to vote on a change of ownership model first, and give the board a mandate to do so depending on the result of the choice/no choice of investor.

Maybe we need a third vote to decide which way round we put the other two votes

I liked GQ's analogy about people going in two-footed about this - there's a lot more to it and the board need to make sure they interpret their own rules correctly, and they're taking advice from Supporters Direct on this (it says so in Wayne's statement), so this is just my own interpretation.

There may be other investors who come along with different ideas which would avoid the need to go through all this - investing in the playing side or investing in the BM facility, for instance.

[theoriginalfatcat]

Is Scott still right?

Would I be right in thinking Scott didn't know the identity M.G's possible investor when he wrote his 'we are at a crossroads' piece?

I'd be interested to hear Scott's opinion now.

[Darlo_Pete]

I'd be very surprised if Scott would have said back an investor and MG, if he didn't know the identity of the investor or investors.

[theoriginalfatcat]

I'd be very surprised if Scott would have said back an investor and MG, if he didn't know the identity of the investor or investors.

I'd be very surprised if Scott would have said back an investor and MG, if he DID know the identity of the investor or investors.