Off-field Issues: Winding-up petition/Chairman/CEO/finances

[Expatknight]

17 minutes ago, Reddwarf said:

Please pardon my ignorance, do we know who the majority shareholder is . And why they are blocking this have they published their alternative . 

It is a real shame that you have lost someone who appears to have had Featherstone RLFC in his heart and wanted to progress the club but has been held back . I only hope the people responsible are able to deliver what Paddy Handley tried to do and Fev don’t end up like Salford. Sadly, from an outsiders perspective it would appear to me that for too long Fev tried to achieve the unattainable by spending what they didn’t have, like a lot of clubs out there, and when someone came in who didn’t do what certain people wanted they were forced out in one way or another, be that coaches or other people, like Paddy Handley. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

2 hours ago, David Shepherd said:

Was that the plan all along? This document was filed at companies house on 7th July 2023

The ground is still there on that plan.

[David Shepherd]

13 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

The ground is still there on that plan.

Not much else though.

And it's never been communicated to the "A" shareholders as far as I'm aware.

[coolie]

21 hours ago, Fevrover said:

 

Good luck with that one

[lingaro]

Personally I'd sell the ground and land and approach the Lions about having a new stadium built on their ground and share ownership.

[Eternal Rover]

Clearly a break down in relations, apparently due to blockers on the chairman being able to implement and deliver his strategic vision for the club, it seems like we've been running a very tight ship, with a lack of inward investment, leaving no money in the tin in simple terms. Resolving this means putting money in, but from where and by whom seems to be where the fractures have emerged. 

[fev regardless]

Paddy was not prepared to run the club like the joke shop it has been for quite a while . Apart for the playing staff who have achieved a remarkable recovery over the season just gone and the  people in junior duties at the club , what can you assume about the rest when they have guite clearly shown an unwillingness to hold any shareholders meetings.There maybe reasons but silence just raises more concerns 

[The Grinder]

3 hours ago, David Shepherd said:

Not much else though.

And it's never been communicated to the "A" shareholders as far as I'm aware.

It was voted through by the "A" share holders a couple of years ago at an EGM (I can't remember the exact date, hopefully someone on here can), though whether all the relevant information was forth coming at the time is a debatable question.

[fev regardless]

You cannot invest when you cannot pay the bills which seems to have been a major stumbling block that Paddy has been left with

[Fevrover]

4 minutes ago, fev regardless said:

You cannot invest when you cannot pay the bills which seems to have been a major stumbling block that Paddy has been left with

Why didn't he get any help from the two people he's left in charge  ? It should be about doing their best for the club not just Paddy. 

[Monkeymagic22]

It might help if we had more people on the board. Just seems these days that it’s the ‘Chairman’, a silent director, and a club secretary. 

[Cas rover]

16 minutes ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

It might help if we had more people on the board. Just seems these days that it’s the ‘Chairman’, a silent director, and a club T

Three amigos , see nowt , say nowt , do nowt !

[haskey]

The question on everyone's mind must be what happens next to our beloved club. Infighting on the forum is all very well but the club must survive.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, The Grinder said:

It was voted through by the "A" share holders a couple of years ago at an EGM (I can't remember the exact date, hopefully someone on here can), though whether all the relevant information was forth coming at the time is a debatable question.

Not really. The A shareholders present voted on giving the Club permission to apply to have the land designation changed and included in the next Local Plan. The Club representatives at the meeting (Campbell, Corran and Longo) took great pains to stress that the plan was to use the land to generate an ongoing income and NOT sell it (or at worst only a small part to raise funds for development of the remainder). Even then I don't know if the vote is/was valid as I'm unsure as to whether a certain % of A shareholders need to vote and/or whether a simple or super majority is needed to approve changes?

[FR23]

All paddy’s done from day one is give false promises! He bit off more than he could chew. 

[Michael Bates]

6 minutes ago, FR23 said:

All paddy’s done from day one is give false promises! He bit off more than he could chew. 

Such as?

[Fevrover]

25 minutes ago, FR23 said:

All paddy’s done from day one is give false promises! He bit off more than he could chew. 

He spent HIS £money on doing up the dressing rooms and the toilets in the club which desperately needed doing up. He had ambition for the club as a whole and had plans to improve it. Anyone with any  knowledge  of Rovers will know what was holding him back,Why? who knows,only them. 

Edited September 24 by Fevrover

[Fevrover]

25 minutes ago, FR23 said:

All paddy’s done from day one is give false promises! He bit off more than he could chew. 

Sorry but you don't/ can't know much about what's going on at planet Fev if you think that.

[Monkeymagic22]

Didn’t we have the issue with debt before Paddy joined the club?.

[Jimmy B]

20 hours ago, The Grinder said:

It was voted through by the "A" share holders a couple of years ago at an EGM (I can't remember the exact date, hopefully someone on here can), though whether all the relevant information was forth coming at the time is a debatable question.

I own both an A share and a substantial amount of B shares.

I have no recollection of being notified of any proposed meeting to discuss the matter of changing land designation.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

28 minutes ago, Jimmy B said:

I own both an A share and a substantial amount of B shares.

I have no recollection of being notified of any proposed meeting to discuss the matter of changing land designation.

It was back in October 2018. Contact the Club Office to check that they have your correct contact details. One of the things that continually crops up is the less than perfect record keeping - down to a combination of both the Club and people not updating them.

The list of shareholders in the Confirmation Statements contains quite a few that I know to be dead......

Edited September 24 by Les Tonks Sidestep

[The Grinder]

20 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Not really. The A shareholders present voted on giving the Club permission to apply to have the land designation changed and included in the next Local Plan. The Club representatives at the meeting (Campbell, Corran and Longo) took great pains to stress that the plan was to use the land to generate an ongoing income and NOT sell it (or at worst only a small part to raise funds for development of the remainder). Even then I don't know if the vote is/was valid as I'm unsure as to whether a certain % of A shareholders need to vote and/or whether a simple or super majority is needed to approve changes?

I'm not aware of there being a quorum requirement on the vote and therefore believe that the vote would have been valid (FevNut) may be able to confirm that either way, since I believe his knowledge of the constitution is better than mine. I'm afraid that the vote was to sell the land. In particular at that meeting I specifically asked if any new properties would be developed as freehold or leasehold and the answer I got was that it would be freehold with a possibility of some leasehold, but not decided as to the mix at that point in time. Freehold means selling the land. At the time the whole plan was "sold" as we have to do this to clear the clubs debts.

I'll let you decide if certain individual hope to profit from any potential future sale of the land, rather than all the profit going back into the club.

[ben]

23 minutes ago, The Grinder said:

I'm not aware of there being a quorum requirement on the vote and therefore believe that the vote would have been valid (FevNut) may be able to confirm that either way, since I believe his knowledge of the constitution is better than mine. I'm afraid that the vote was to sell the land. In particular at that meeting I specifically asked if any new properties would be developed as freehold or leasehold and the answer I got was that it would be freehold with a possibility of some leasehold, but not decided as to the mix at that point in time. Freehold means selling the land. At the time the whole plan was "sold" as we have to do this to clear the clubs debts.

I'll let you decide if certain individual hope to profit from any potential future sale of the land, rather than all the profit going back into the club.

The thing is grinder, can they sell everything including the ground ? Or would all shareholders have to agree to that?

[marklaspalmas]

1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

It was back in October 2018. Contact the Club Office to check that they have your correct contact details. One of the things that continually crops up is the less than perfect record keeping - down to a combination of both the Club and people not updating them.

The list of shareholders in the Confirmation Statements contains quite a few that I know to be dead......

Yes, I noticed a number of the list of A shareholders were the names of people who have passed away.

And living A shareholders who were not on the list.

[marklaspalmas]

May shed light on past events ......