Final thoughts from afar

Discuss all matters related to Dagenham and Redbridge
Post Reply
dj johnny b
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:04 am

I dread tonight I really do (and I don't mean drawing Westfields away).
It seems to me, unless there has been/is a great unloading of information prior, that members are going to vote on basically hearsay, incomplete and/or contradictory information together with an insidious campaign to gain favour at the same time undermining any alternative. It is nothing short of a disgrace.
The East/Goodwin/Bramley consortium seemed to me to ask some crucial questions in their withdrawal statement. I repeat them here:

1 Details of any safeguards to ensure that no board member can gain control by buying another’s shares;
2 Confirmation of the type of guarantees to be given to ensure that future funds will be forthcoming;
3 A breakdown of the individual payments in each of the three stages;
4 Confirmation to the members of all the detailed due diligence undertaken on Glenn Tamplin;
5 The provision of full information on and CVs of the three new members of the consortium; and
6 Arranging at short notice a fans forum before the vote.

Have any been answered at all?

Add in the easy ticket of the fear(threat?) factor - if you don't vote for this option then it's either administration or liquidation (really?), some suggest, within weeks/months. Where are any facts on this? Why were these fears not counteracted? Are they to any extent true? If so how can anyone connected with the financial running of the club be involved in the future?

How anyone can vote yes to such a definitive, conclusive and absolute change in direction for the club without having all the necessary facts presented to them in a fair way is beyond me. I would have to be 100% sure to vote yes; any doubt at all then no.
Mark
Posts: 1550
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:04 pm

Have to agree.
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

I don't understand why the Easts pulled out, leaving members only one investment option. High risk strategy.
dagger4eva
Posts: 1735
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:39 pm

dj johnny b wrote:I dread tonight I really do (and I don't mean drawing Westfields away).
It seems to me, unless there has been/is a great unloading of information prior, that members are going to vote on basically hearsay, incomplete and/or contradictory information together with an insidious campaign to gain favour at the same time undermining any alternative. It is nothing short of a disgrace.
The East/Goodwin/Bramley consortium seemed to me to ask some crucial questions in their withdrawal statement. I repeat them here:

1 Details of any safeguards to ensure that no board member can gain control by buying another’s shares;
2 Confirmation of the type of guarantees to be given to ensure that future funds will be forthcoming;
3 A breakdown of the individual payments in each of the three stages;
4 Confirmation to the members of all the detailed due diligence undertaken on Glenn Tamplin;
5 The provision of full information on and CVs of the three new members of the consortium; and
6 Arranging at short notice a fans forum before the vote.

Have any been answered at all?

Add in the easy ticket of the fear(threat?) factor - if you don't vote for this option then it's either administration or liquidation (really?), some suggest, within weeks/months. Where are any facts on this? Why were these fears not counteracted? Are they to any extent true? If so how can anyone connected with the financial running of the club be involved in the future?

How anyone can vote yes to such a definitive, conclusive and absolute change in direction for the club without having all the necessary facts presented to them in a fair way is beyond me. I would have to be 100% sure to vote yes; any doubt at all then no.
Bang on DJ - this boils down to 1 simple equation. Thompson wanted this pushed through from Day 1. and he has enough cronies in tow to ensure he has got his wish.

Today is the last day of the club as we know it and once Tamplin gets his mits on the club there will be no going back.

I give Jeanne Quackers / Mark Fitzer less than 6 months before their total 6% is hovered up by GT.

We will remember those that sanctioned this takeover & waved it through, the day Tamplins' money runs dry and he realises he cant / isn't willing to sustain his 'ambitions' for a club with our kind of gates - when the bucket collections starting being taken around Victoria Rd. Because that IS going to happen at some point!

This vote will succeed tonight and I truly believe it's a sad day for the club - even if it doesn't appear to be so, to many, right now.
TommyD&R
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:56 pm

Alan wrote:I don't understand why the Easts pulled out, leaving members only one investment option. High risk strategy.
Hopefully they'll be back to bail us out a few years down the line when Tamplin gets bored and everything goes tits up.
Voice of reason
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:15 am

Alan wrote:I don't understand why the Easts pulled out, leaving members only one investment option. High risk strategy.
Actually Alan I thought their withdrawal was sensible in light of the way the other side was handling things

It's now down to a straight forward yes to Mr T's consortium or staying as a Member's club tonight

If the vote is to stay as a Members club other possibilities can be explored without an artificial deadline or the suspicion that a deal is being railroaded through by people who may have a hidden agenda
grumpy old git
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:37 pm

Personally i prefer the status quo but I have a nasty feeling that the orange one will chuck his toys out of the pram and demand back what ever he has already put in. Hope I'm wrong but I won't be surprised if this happens.
User avatar
Crushed Dreams
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:43 pm

Alan wrote:I don't understand why the Easts pulled out, leaving members only one investment option. High risk strategy.
I thought they might win the vote as most members would be of older generation (like myself) and have that connection with the past - ie the Easts.
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

Voice of reason wrote:
Alan wrote:I don't understand why the Easts pulled out, leaving members only one investment option. High risk strategy.
Actually Alan I thought their withdrawal was sensible in light of the way the other side was handling things

It's now down to a straight forward yes to Mr T's consortium or staying as a Member's club tonight

If the vote is to stay as a Members club other possibilities can be explored without an artificial deadline or the suspicion that a deal is being railroaded through by people who may have a hidden agenda
High risk if that was the strategy. They could have won, or at least stopped the 50% being reached.
Voice of reason
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:15 am

Alan wrote:
Voice of reason wrote:
Alan wrote:I don't understand why the Easts pulled out, leaving members only one investment option. High risk strategy.
Actually Alan I thought their withdrawal was sensible in light of the way the other side was handling things

It's now down to a straight forward yes to Mr T's consortium or staying as a Member's club tonight

If the vote is to stay as a Members club other possibilities can be explored without an artificial deadline or the suspicion that a deal is being railroaded through by people who may have a hidden agenda
High risk if that was the strategy. They could have won, or at least stopped the 50% being reached.
And so it proved..............
diggerdagger1

Some of the members changed sides to tamplin due to the tamplin increased final offer plus John still's backing and the interview he gave to Mike. The easts realised they could not win so withdrew. Can you imagine the reaction there letter would have got after the egm eg sour grapes bad losers etc etc. Just disappointed that the members who were in total support of the easts did not have the decency to tell the easts consortium why they had changed sides.
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

Hang on: last week you were asking us to protest and urging members to vote against Tamplin. And yet you have posted that you voted for him. So I don't think you can legitimately complain that others made the decision to back Tamplin.
Post Reply