42 replies to this topic

[StarfireHypervixen]

I was under the impression that your club was a co-op,owned by its supporters, as such, surely each and everyone of you is in some measure responsible for helping fund the club. Whining about money, is too easy an excuse.

[SPOTLANDHORNET]

Most peoples in the Town prepared to give money towards sport wont do it whilst Wynn is there

[boro hornet]

So are you saying that people would rather see Rochdale Hornets die because of one man who was democratically elected by the members.I would say that if any one has any interest in putting money into the club let them do so, yes they will only get one vote like every one else, but have the satisfaction in the knowledge that they are keeping an Historic club going.People come and go at the club,BOD can only serve for a certain length of time, so within time these people will also change, but hopefully the club will still be here for a long time.

Instead of all this fighting amongst ourselves why not all who have an interest in Rochdale Hornets work together and move Hornets Onward into the future.

[PooingDog]

What you rising to it for BH and SFHV? He's only got one agenda, and it's not the welfare of the club.

Edited by PooingDog, 28 December 2012 - 01:06 PM.

[Anita Bath]

No wish to get involved in personality battles, but there is a point to be made about the model of ownership. It has both strengths and weaknesses.

One of the weaknesses of 'one member one vote' is that it is unlikely anyone would be willing to commit to big investment in the club since this only gives them the same influence as someone committing 20 quid. I think that does limit prospects for attracting substantial funding from outside.

Not a criticism, just an observation. Three may be a desire on the part of a majority of the membership to limit influence in this way, but we are competing with other clubs many of which do not face such limitations.

I personally dont consider what I call the mickey mouse clubs as relevant (my apologies to those loyal few who support these clubs), but as a result we have fallen to being the next to the 'worst' traditional team in the league (consolation of course was who was the worst!) and in many respects, based on the comments on this site, that is considered a reasonable performance. I dont thik this necessarily reflects on the coaching staff - more on the situation that the ownership model imposes.

It may be that no one would (ever) be willing to invest substantial sums in the club even under traditional ownership models, but the cooperative ownership might mean we become limited in our aspirations through the funding constraints this imposes. Are we ever likely to be competitve in anything above our current division? Any thoughts?

[CAMS]

Rightly or wrongly (some of you may look at it both ways) but I thought I'd add to the point made by Anita Bath and say that if Rochdale Hornets would have achieved promotion this past season, and the same financial model would have been in place, the team and club would have been under enormous pressure and to be honest, would have been looking at some very heavy scorelines on a weekly basis.

I suppose you could then argue and say that going up a division would have have a negative effect on attracting investment, sponsorship and new fans. After all, who wants to watch a team getting smacked every week?

The model currently in place is what it is, and delivers, as has been stated, a 'balance' of power. Whether this is good for the club or not, it is deemed 'fair' and all members have an equal part to play.

The only problem being that this model can severely hamper the recruitment of quality players, as there are no individuals bank rolling the club. This means that the Coach doesn't have complete control over recruitment, as he is restricted in the market.

Not a whinge by any means, but the stark reality of the model currently in place.

[boro hornet]

at the time the previous club went into administration from what I understand there were two offers on the table one from RAFC and the one we went with .One I feel can work .There does seem to be a problem between certain groups who once had a lot of influence within the club but because of the model we went with seem to think they are no longer welcome I would like all these groups to work together for the good of Rochdale Hornets to get us the highest postion we can get .After all a lot of the clubs who have had or now have financial problems are run on the traditional lines you are saying is the way forward with input from big backers yet still they fail

[SPOTLANDHORNET]

I'm lead to believe that the Co-Op model can still work with invecsment bean told funds will come when the top man goes, put a letter out ask around. Wynn and Stringer and Clark chose the model.

Stanky did all he could,

been told there is money there waiting

[Anita Bath]

I dont think we should be comparing ourselves with the 'failures' (Brtadford, Salford . . . ) but with the successes such as Batley and Sheffield. Are there any lessons to be learned and does the ownership model hold us back from achieving the sort of success they have achieved. If so is the equitable ownership model adopted worth the constraints it appears to place on the rugby side of the operations? Are we on an unlevel playing field as a result of the choices made about ownership?

[Heywood Tiger]

I'd much rather see a slower progression through the echelons using talented youth players than seeing an injection of a heap of money and a load of big names who will leave the club as soon as they joined if things don't go well.

[Robthegardener.]

I'd much rather see a slower progression through the echelons using talented youth players than seeing an injection of a heap of money and a load of big names who will leave the club as soon as they joined if things don't go well.

good post Tiger !!!

[Anita Bath]

I interpreted CAMS post to be saying we dont have the funds to recruit (or keep) players of a standard to compete at a higher level. If that is the case what would we need to do to recriut and keep such players?

Are clubs like Batley and Sheffield paying condsiderably more and if so how do they fund these higher wages?

[Piggy's mate]

Are clubs like Batley and Sheffield paying condsiderably more and if so how do they fund these higher wages?

Bissa, Shareholders, Owning our own ground, supporters clubs, and a hard core support of 500 (hence we are one of the better away supported clubs in the division behind Fax, Fev & Leigh) all add to it. We have had a relativly settled team and management as we don't sack our coaches they are expected to fall on their sword if they fail.

[Snoopy Loopy]

at the time the previous club went into administration from what I understand there were two offers on the table one from RAFC and the one we went with .One I feel can work .There does seem to be a problem between certain groups who once had a lot of influence within the club but because of the model we went with seem to think they are no longer welcome I would like all these groups to work together for the good of Rochdale Hornets to get us the highest postion we can get .After all a lot of the clubs who have had or now have financial problems are run on the traditional lines you are saying is the way forward with input from big backers yet still they fail

Good post BH however the reason that some people feel unwelcome is quite justified due to the approach of certain individuals within the club - for instance can you believe that the board once had a meeting to decide on weather or not to accept an amount of sponsorship from a local company with certain board members wanting to reject the money on offer, this was due to the fact that the company is owned by a director of the old club - needless to say that when this information was passed on to the company by a former chief exec of the club the company in question decided not to sponsor the club again

[Pugwash]

Good post BH however the reason that some people feel unwelcome is quite justified due to the approach of certain individuals within the club - for instance can you believe that the board once had a meeting to decide on weather or not to accept an amount of sponsorship from a local company with certain board members wanting to reject the money on offer, this was due to the fact that the company is owned by a director of the old club - needless to say that when this information was passed on to the company by a former chief exec of the club the company in question decided not to sponsor the club again

Here we go again, x said y about z who was offering an amount of cash, etc, etc.

Why don't you actually name the people and amounts so the indiviuals concerned can be quizzed by the members and if found to be acting against the bet interests of the club, ousted from the board? The reason is that you speak out of an orifice that most of us use for a completely different bodily function!

I challenge you Gavin, ####, or get off the pot!

Pugwash.

[Snoopy Loopy]

Here we go again, x said y about z who was offering an amount of cash, etc, etc.

Why don't you actually name the people and amounts so the indiviuals concerned can be quizzed by the members and if found to be acting against the bet interests of the club, ousted from the board? The reason is that you speak out of an orifice that most of us use for a completely different bodily function!

I challenge you Gavin, ####, or get off the pot!

Pugwash.

Another typically offensive post from you Pugwash - is telling people they speak out of their backside inline with T&Cs of this board or are you allowed special privileges? We all know have you have used your "Discretion" to run this and other forums in the past

Happy to divulge names just for you - we were advised by former Chief Exec Joe Pitts that he arranged for a Rochdale company Recruitment Solutions (NW) owned by former director Karen Reynolds to sponsor the mascot and music for an amount of money - we found out later that the board had a meeting to decide weather or not this sponsorship should be accepted with certain members wanting to refuse the offer - the offer ultimately being accepted - in an open, transparent club with no divides. why would the board ever have to discuss an offer of sponsorship?

Now get back to fantasy land captain or is it fantasy website

Edited by Snoopy Loopy, 31 December 2012 - 01:28 PM.

[SPOTLANDHORNET]

Gavin you have come up with the facts ? He has called you by your name who is this Puugwash I bet he has not put a bean in and wears a 20 year old shirt shocker

[Pugwash]

Another typically offensive post from you Pugwash - is telling people they speak out of their backside inline with T&Cs of this board or are you allowed special privileges? We all know have you have used your "Discretion" to run this and other forums in the past

Happy to divulge names just for you - we were advised by former Chief Exec Joe Pitts that he arranged for a Rochdale company Recruitment Solutions (NW) owned by former director Karen Reynolds to sponsor the mascot and music for an amount of money - we found out later that the board had a meeting to decide weather or not this sponsorship should be accepted with certain members wanting to refuse the offer - the offer ultimately being accepted - in an open, transparent club with no divides. why would the board ever have to discuss an offer of sponsorship?

Now get back to fantasy land captain or is it fantasy website

So, an offer was made, discussed, accepted and paid. Thanks Karen, but I'm afraid I cannot see the problem Gavin! You stated in your original post about another offer which was withdrawn, these are the details in question.

By the way Gavin, I made no reference to your backside, I'm wondering now if that was a confession?

Let's face facts Gavin, you and at least some of your family have an agenda which involves siezing upon any negative you can find whilst staying silent when things are positive!

Oh dear, Spotland Hornet, where to start with your points?

1. Gavin has admitted who he is on the forum so I am not breaking any anonymity.

2. If you read the signature part of my posts there is a clue to my identity, take a look and see if you can spot it! If it still evades you just ask anyone next time you are at the ground, yeah fat chance, and they will tell you. It has never been a secret!

3. What I put into the club is my business but I am season ticket holder, have bought both this season's shirts already, am a member of the Buzzline and a member of the club. I'm just guessing that's more than you will put in this season!

Pugwash.

[Snoopy Loopy]

The reason is that you speak out of an orifice that most of us use for a completely different bodily function! - what does that mean then Pugwash?

And no I stated in my post that no further offers will be made due to the way the last one was handled

As for the family/agenda thing you always have to insinuate this - im sure its what makes you tick, i was mearly responding to a post by BH explaining why certain groups/individuals dont feel welcome at the club which i feel I have done very well - I know you have nothing better to do than sit at your computer reading this forum but your input is not required on every single topic/subject infact its rather boring to have every topic/subject sidetracked by your accusations of hidden agendas when valid points are being made

That point is - should there have been any question on weather or not the club accepted that money? The answer is clearly no but due to people within the club with their own "agendas" there was and that has lead to no futher money and also certain people not feeling welcome at the club which leads back to BHs above post

End of story

[PooingDog]

That's a really shocking revelation. Imagine the board discussing a sponsorship deal, how dare they.

Get real will you.