Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Discuss all matters related to Dagenham and Redbridge
BrexitDagger
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:50 am

Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by BrexitDagger » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:39 am

As you may be aware, since submitting our increased investment proposal of £500,000, David Ward has changed sides and the Tamplin consortium has submitted its final increased offer. These changes in circumstances have caused us to re-evaluate our position.

Before we comment further, we should remind you of the background, which is as follows:

1. At an informal half yearly full members meeting held on 15 June, the Board, without warning, presented the members with an offer from an unknown individual to secure an instant 80 per cent of the Club in exchange for five equal instalments of £250,000 with no guarantee for any payment after the first. This had received the "unanimous backing of your board"

2. We quickly became aware that many members and supporters were extremely concerned by this action, which appeared to be promoting the sale without due consideration and information. We always felt that the proposal was insufficient financially and lacked appropriate safeguards

3. It was for this reason that we formed our consortium and our first offer was submitted to the board on 22 June.

4. We have always made it clear that whilst we were prepared to accept responsibility by owning a substantial stake in the Club between us and driving it forward, this was never our prime motivation. Our consortium was formed purely to provide members and supporters with an alternative to the insufficient offer then being pushed through by the board, from a group of like-minded people with a longstanding association with the Club and an understanding of its ethos and values, both on and off the field. This became even more important after the Board's public statement of 27 June, when they "were more than happy to recommend Glen Tamplin's offer to its members"

5. At the meeting with members held on 22 August, it was suggested that both parties should seek to work together. However, the proposals we made were rejected by Glenn Tamplin due to our conditions that he should not have immediate control and that he should provide legally binding guarantees for any future payments. We are pleased to see that he has now incorporated these conditions (subject to our further comments below) into his revised consortium offer.

6. Both parties have submitted further and higher offers culminating in our proposal of 12 September and Glenn Tamplin's some 10 days later. It is important to compare the Tamplin final offer to the original one advised by the board on 15 June and the main features of both are set out below:

Original Offer | Current Offer

Initial Payment £250,000 | £600,000
Total Payment | £1,250,000 | £1,225,000
Number of Payments | 5 | 3
Tamplin shareholding | 80% | 43% *
Control | Yes | No *
Number of shareholders (excluding members) | 1 | 10
Guarantees for future payments | No | Yes **
Identity of Purchaser | No | Yes

* See 1 below
** See 2 below


It is quite clear that the current offer is substantially better for the Club than the initial one recommended unanimously by the board. These improvements overcome most of our initial concerns.

We have also sensed that since the announcement of this substantially improved offer with some additional influential members in the Tamplin consortium, many members and supporters have been persuaded by its merits, especially after a favourable interview which also influenced opinion. We also feel that whilst we still have support, it seems clear that our involvement is less required now than initially, due to these changed circumstances.

Having taken the above into account and despite being about to publish our future plans, we have after very careful consideration decided to withdraw our proposal. This should enable the members to take a simple decision - to retain the status quo as a members Club or to seek outside investment from the Glenn Tamplin consortium. These alternatives are not currently being considered; we believe that members should have this option and we hope and trust that the board will now put these alternatives to them.

However for the avoidance of doubt, you should not presume that our withdrawal indicates our support for the remaining offer on the table.

We trust you will appreciate that all along we sought only to act in the Club’s best interests, with no personal ambition, and we hope that our withdrawal now emphasises that point. We believe the current proposal is far better than the initial one, due to our involvement, and the offer is one we feel the Board should have attempted to achieve initially.

Our final request is to urge members to require the Board to obtain and provide the following information, whether legally documented, (1 and 2 below) discussed and answered at the General Meeting (3, 4 and 5 below) or arranged without delay (6 below).

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.

Finally we must thank the many members and supporters who have been so supportive of us. The support has been much appreciated as this has been a very difficult journey. Everything that we have done has been because of to our commitment to the Club and to the many fantastic people who make it so special to us all.

Whilst our concerns about the general process have been clearly documented, (not helped by the Board’s continuing refusal to allow us to carry out due diligence before the vote, despite two requests) now is the time to try and unite the Club, irrespective of differing views. We hope that whatever decision is made is the best one for the Club, as we may be about to take a step into the unknown. In conclusion, we all hope that we can get back to the happier days of the past and time will tell if this can be achieved.

11 October 2016

John East - Brian East - John Goodwin - Lee Goodwin - Graham Bramley

User avatar
Mike the Dagger
Posts: 2062
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
Contact:

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by Mike the Dagger » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:57 am

especially after a favourable interview which also influenced opinion
Sigh!

----------------

From: Mike Wainwright
Date: 23 September 2016 at 10:46:10 BST
To: John East, Brian East
Subject: Latest news

Gents,

I am conscious that we haven't heard much from you recently since the article went up on DiggerDagger in August.

I am still in the "stay as we are camp", but recognise that this is the most unlikely winner of the current process unless it remains a stalemate and, if the doom mongers are correct on the state of the Daggers finances, which all parties seem to agree are shot, is likely to be fatal fairly quickly.

Obviously you will be aware that I have spoken to both Dave Bennett and Glenn Tamplin since we met in August, and I was wondering if there is anything you want to add ahead of the matter going to the vote, which I understand is set for October 17th?

All the best,

Mike Wainwright

Reply:

Mike

Many thanks and good to hear from you again. I have been following your interviews which are clearly having an influence on many people which is the point of good journalism!!

I was going to contact you after our increased offer to discuss it but with our unfortunate defection and your interview with Glenn shortly after it was submitted I though it more appropriate to wait until we saw his actual formal one which I gather is at long last imminent. It is galling we were effectively forced to urgently submit our offer to the Board on Monday 12th only for the rival bid [with four Board Members at last count!] to wait 10 days to fine tune theirs! Not exactly a level playing field!

I think it is sensible to wait until we've seen the bid and it's conditions before making any comment but perhaps we can catch up subsequently once we've digested the contents. Like you I have heard EGM looks likely for 17th October

Whatever ultimately evolves with the proper safeguards one thing is certain. The offers now are considerably better for the club than the first one submitted which the board were prepared to recommend!!!

Regards

Brian

Image

Alan
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by Alan » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:08 am

It's a shame that the Easts Consortium have pulled out. By being involved they have forced improvements to the Tamplin bid which the board seemed unable or unwilling to secure and so we are in a much better position than we were.

diggerdagger1

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by diggerdagger1 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:25 am

Mike..... Two questions for you. The first is why have you waited until now to disclose these emails? Second question is have you from the outset been of the view that we should stay as we are?

The Romford Dagger
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:15 am

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by The Romford Dagger » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:28 am

This should be an interesting thread.

Genuinely interested to see what people think here.

Welcome aboard Glen basically.

NickMurphy
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:37 pm

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by NickMurphy » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:32 am

diggerdagger1 wrote:Mike..... Two questions for you. The first is why have you waited until now to disclose these emails?
Why should the content of these emails been disclosed before? It's been made pretty clear time and time again that the East's have had ample opportunity to respond with their own interview/layout of the situation if they so wished (as I understand it anyway).

Alan
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by Alan » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:39 am

diggerdagger1 wrote:Mike..... Two questions for you. The first is why have you waited until now to disclose these emails? Second question is have you from the outset been of the view that we should stay as we are?
Mike has stated several times in the past that the Easts were asked to respond/give interviews but chose not to. The statement released by the Easts references a favourable interview given by Tamplin - which can only be Mike's - as a factor in deciding to pull out which some people will seize on and say it's all Mike's fault he was biased, etc, so isn't he simply responding to the statement by showing he gave opportunities to the Easts but they declined?

User avatar
Auntie Merge
Posts: 1326
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by Auntie Merge » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:40 am

Hey guys, just focus on the questions and points the Easts raise in their withdrawal letter.

TomMc
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:38 pm

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by TomMc » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:52 am

diggerdagger1 wrote:Mike..... Two questions for you. The first is why have you waited until now to disclose these emails?
Their statement mentions "especially after a favourable interview which also influenced opinion" (suggesting, as you have, bias on Mike's part), Mike discloses an email he received from the Easts where they appear to have had no qualms with it:

"I have been following your interviews which are clearly having an influence on many people which is the point of good journalism!!"

Voice of reason
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:15 am

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by Voice of reason » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:59 am

This is a pretty sensible move really

The things the East side are asking the board to secure from Mr T's consortium will probably answer the majority of criticisms

Be interesting to see how this develops as the ball is now firmly in Mr T and his supporters on the boards' side of the court

Btw I don't think Mike's interview was biased. He was just expressing his own view which he made clear at the time

I might not have agreed with it but I did respect it

Chigwellian
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:18 pm

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by Chigwellian » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:05 pm

I can't see any reason why a fans forum can't be arranged at short notice.

User avatar
Mike the Dagger
Posts: 2062
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
Contact:

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by Mike the Dagger » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:10 pm

Voice of reason wrote:This is a pretty sensible move really

The things the East side are asking the board to secure from Mr T's consortium will probably answer the majority of criticisms

Be interesting to see how this develops as the ball is now firmly in Mr T and his supporters on the boards' side of the court

Btw I don't think Mike's interview was biased. He was just expressing his own view which he made clear at the time

I might not have agreed with it but I did respect it
The only piece of http://www.fansfocus.net/dagenhamandred ... id=8324621 that is opinion is the last section "in conclusion". The rest is reported as was discussed.

I'm really angry that the Easts felt the need to mention the interview in their withdrawal letter TBH when they turned down the offer to respond to it. I've tried massively hard to be fair to all parties and only got involved as no one else was reporting anything at all.

As for speaking to the supporters club, they have their own website, and if they wanted to say anything they have the ability to do so. They know my email address, and I would guess all the people on the committee know me personally and could come and find me if they wanted a chat. If they wanted to say anything they had ample opportunity to do so either through DiggerDagger or other routes.

diggerdagger1

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by diggerdagger1 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:24 pm

Mike......can you answer my two questions please. There is no hidden agenda just curious that's all. We actually agree on what we both want but sadly can't have it can we? What a shame!

diggerdagger1

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by diggerdagger1 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:31 pm

Chigwellian ......Russell actually said on the coach to Eastleigh that they have been emailing Paul gwinn regarding the holding of a fans forum before the egm but to no avail I am afraid.hang your head in shame the board and especially Dave Bennett. Two promises of a fans forum before the egm and no forum in sight Shane on you what a way to treat the supporters Ie your customers

User avatar
Mike the Dagger
Posts: 2062
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
Contact:

Re: Consortium Withdrawl Statement

Post by Mike the Dagger » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:41 pm

diggerdagger1 wrote:Mike..... Two questions for you.

The first is why have you waited until now to disclose these emails?
I waited because although I had stated that I had offered the East Consortium a response to the interview, I have been accused of bias and the interview has obviously been referenced in the withdrawal letter. It's not that tricky is it?
diggerdagger1 wrote:Second question is have you from the outset been of the view that we should stay as we are?
We have made it to League One as a Members club effectively (although that really ended in 2007), and I think that the way we are set up is fairly unique and keeps us part of the community in the way that works well when taken against a lot of football clubs that become assets to be bought and sold.

Having said that, the club have ceased to promote full membership in recent years and a lot of people who could contribute to the club have not been excluded, but certainly haven't been brought in and encouraged to participate. Just look at the people on here who obviously care massively about the club, but who won't have a vote next week.

Post Reply