Views from the Sieve

It's deeply unfair and dishonest. Members of the board have upper hand and are part of one bid.

Mark wrote:It's deeply unfair and dishonest. Members of the board have upper hand and are part of one bid.

This.
It frankly stinks that the very people who help caused the situation the club finds itself in are also part of one of the bids.
I think they might have also compromised themselves legally; a potential breach of trust by the members.

There were board members connected to both bids, let's be fair here. Both sides knew what the other was up to.

Alan wrote:There were board members connected to both bids, let's be fair here. Both sides knew what the other was up to.

http://www.daggers.co.uk/club/club-directory/

I think you'll find one side had far more people connected to one bid than the other.
The Easts are Vice Presidents; I do not believe they are privvy to board meetings.

I'm also unclear by the post. Afaik the East bid has no board members involved or supporting it.

Mark wrote:I'm also unclear by the post. Afaik the East bid has no board members involved or supporting it.

Not now David Ward has switched.

This unfairness/inside knowledge of what was in the East's bid stuff is absolute nonsense. The Easts did not keep their bid secret, they gave it to brexitdagger to publish on this forum.

But let's face it, what changes have been made to Tamplin's bid which might have been the result of knowing what the East's bid was, as opposed to the discussions he had with the Easts and the objections from supporters?

Diggerthedog wrote:

Alan wrote:VOR - I am not sure that's right. I had thought it was 75%, but there's nothing in the company's articles of association that requires a special resolution, nor in the companies act so far as I know, in which case 50% will do it for either side.

Your right it's majority vote as per letter recieved by members. See other thread.

Quite surprised at this. I hadn't seen it in the articles but assumed it might have been in another club document not available on Companies House website. Normally clubs set up in this way need 75% agreement for fundamental changes like those proposed but I stand corrected.
Thanks for clarifying.
It makes the change much more difficult to resist so I suppose one or other consortium will be taking over

Yeah, it is surprising. The memorandum also states that the objects of the company include the sale of the company and its assets!

Alan wrote:Yeah, it is surprising. The memorandum also states that the objects of the company include the sale of the company and its assets!

Well would that have not been a given? Otherwise surely they would have just been bidding for the name of the club, not the players, other staff, club shop etc.

NBDag wrote:

Alan wrote:Yeah, it is surprising. The memorandum also states that the objects of the company include the sale of the company and its assets!

Well would that have not been a given? Otherwise surely they would have just been bidding for the name of the club, not the players, other staff, club shop etc.

No, it's not a given. Most people, including me, thought a special resolution of the members would be required to change the objects to allow the sale.

I've tried reading this thread and it seems very polarised. I don't know any of the parties / personalities involved but I have visions of what happened at Hornchurch a decade ago when someone pulled the glass out of the windows and the team which had comfortably been top for weeks and weeks on end was decimated and ended up having kids and proper pub players drafted in to finish somewhere near the bottom.

Have we got enough points yet to stay up - we probably need 50

Paul from Barking wrote:I've tried reading this thread and it seems very polarised. I don't know any of the parties / personalities involved but I have visions of what happened at Hornchurch a decade ago when someone pulled the glass out of the windows and the team which had comfortably been top for weeks and weeks on end was decimated and ended up having kids and proper pub players drafted in to finish somewhere near the bottom.

Have we got enough points yet to stay up - we probably need 50

I've tried hard to be dispassionate in my comments but I can't help feeling disquiet at the way things have developed
I actually heard some weeks before anything appeared on this forum that a 'friend' of an acquaintance had told him he'd bought Dagenham & Redbridge FC. This was Mr T
At the time I thought it must have been braggadocio but then the news filtered out together with a number of other worrying indicators of past financial issues etc.
I just wish I could feel more relaxed about it but as I have been involved in business all my life I've learnt the hard way that if you feel uneasy about a new client, investor or supplier you aren't often wrong
I sincerely hope I am in this case if Mr T's consortium does win the vote

I think there are safeguards here in many respects, thats the thing. Yes, he could buy out other members of the consortium at some stage and increase his holding, but he would have to pay these people for that. Also, people may not like the job they have done in recent years, but the likes of DTP, Thommo and Dave Ward are not going to sell to the bloke if he shows he doesn't have the Club's interests at heart?? And Stilly would be in that boat as well presumably??

Plus, the fact the ground is not an asset to the Club is probably a big factor here (Grays under Woodward was only ever going one way once he could get his hands on the ground).

I have some reservations about all of this, and I will put them in another thread as would be interested in other peoples views, but I think if the Club needs to change structure (which it now appears is inevitable) then the Tamplin structure is the best way forward.