CONSORTIUM INCREASE OFFER TO £500,000

[Diggerthedog]

DD, I think there are a number of assumptions in what you have put there, which is kind of my point, but there you go.

With regards to Thompson, would the new person in that position be on the Board?? I think that's an important question personally. That person will be accountable for day to day things around ticketing, sponsorship and commercial aspects of the Club and so their input into what can be put in place to improve things is, I believe important.

Have they actually said Thompson will play no part, or just that he will not have a place on the Board/a vote?? As they are two very different scenarios??

Its clear they want Thompson gone if they get in, I would assume they will put that to a vote as soon as they get in but judging by all the back and forth it could be some time. John Still blames the fans for protesting but this has been dragging on for 4 months now, first initial contact by Tamplin was in May.

Where has Still blamed fans for anything about this? Or is just another twisting of truth by the protestors?

He was moaning at the fans for protesting, he has helped prolong this issue. The first offer should have been put forward by the board to the members for vote and we could have then all got on with it.

[Mike the Dagger]

Due diligence regarding financial history should be carried out on anyone wanting to become a major shareholder.

"Dave (Bennett) told us that due diligence had been pursued and a statement of his net worth produced by a Chartered Accountant."

[steeevooo]

So now why not amalgamate the two rivalling bids? DTP + Chris Smythe + John Still to add funds to the new offer from the East's plus others -latest offer.

Wouldn't this give us a valuation and funds nearer to what was "needed" without Tamplin's involvement at all?

I still don't see how a paid employee i.e Thompson should be on the board or a vote unless he is contributing.

It wouldn't be far away from keeping Dagenham..... Dagenham as we know it.

This is a very fair and valid point IMO. It would generate the sufficient funds, provide a variety of views (and you would therefore hope sensible, constructive debate) at board level and would comprise entirely of "Daggers" people who all claim to have the club's interests at heart.

It won't happen, but this, to me and subject to questions similar to Dashers being answered, would be a reasonable compromise.

[DI Mike Dashwood]

I actually think something along those lines would be the best bet, IF there is a need to change the structure of the club to this extent (which we don't really have a clear answer on still)??

I think it's a shame that just because people don't agree with his decisions that everyone seems to think DTP has not got the club's interests at heart. Remember, this was a man who very generously sponsored the Club for a long time way before he was on the Board in any capacity.

Just one word thing Thommo being on board. You will find lots of companies and organisations where people, especially in the kind of role Thommo is in, are on the Board without investing any of their own cash. I am not saying that should happen here, I am not saying Thommo is right or wrong or anything, I am just trying to explain that can happen quite regularly.

[dagger4eva]

On one hand, Bennett is prepared to (trust) give a majority and total control to one relatively unknown quantity – other than his less than clean business past without requesting a single concrete guarantee of future payments being made.

On this basis I see absolutely no problem in asking to (trust) a group of people, none of whom have will acquire a sole controlling interest but yet who have a) very long-standing ties and best interests in the club and whom are offering a 49% retaining interest for members would seem perfectly plausible to me.

Latest Tamplin offer – Members get 20% and 1 vote whilst Tamplin has 50% and 4 votes.
Latest East etc. offer – Members get 49% and 1 vote while all other parties get 1 vote each.

This latest proposal seems to be as good a deal in the sense of A) getting the investment we are led to believe is needed without the added risk of 1 individual hovering all the shares up and doing what he bloody well likes with us – B) gets a group of people on board who will hopefully shake and wake up the club from top to bottom and give us a club we can all be proud of and feel connected to once again – and C) keeps us as close to the current “members club” arrangement lots of us still desire.

There is also a D) which would hopefully see the removal of failures such as Bennett & Thompson who have not only allowed the club to stagnate and go backwards but actually taken us to this point where we either get outside investment or “the club has a huge possibility / certainty of going into liquidation and being demoted a couple of leagues” (Tamplin’s words)

One way or another – the board now need to pull their fingers out their arses, call an EGM, but both proposals up to members and let them have their say – once and for all!

[dagger4eva]

Dashers, I stand to be corrected BUT believe the main issue with Steve remaining on the board for Nil capital completely contradicts the Tamplin etc. groups' reason for rejecting the one but last proposal put forward by Easts etc.

[DI Mike Dashwood]

Don't disagree with that, and as I say wasn't pointing that out solely in relation to this set up (or proposed set up) just that people may not have known that a board of a business is not always made up solely of shareholders/investors.

As you said in the last paragraph of your previous post, the bids are in, people have shown as much as they are going to show, so lets just get this vote done and let the members decide.

[SUSSEX DAGGER]

We want to keep this going , the way these bids keep coming we will be upto 2 million before we know it.

Starting to get a bit tired of this now, we are already over a 5th of the way through the season and tomorrow night there looks a cracking game In Store against Dover.

With the fixture being played Tomorrow night it is possible our Team could be proudly sitting on top of the League. Any chance we can concentrate on that

[DI Mike Dashwood]

The irony is Sussex, the opposite is taking place isn't it (as far as I can see). The value of the Club seems to be falling every time a new proposal is put together...........from all sides!!

[SUSSEX DAGGER]

You are right Dashers , Maths was never my strong point.Which is ironic when on the Wage bill at the time this all started we had a team of duffers and over the weeks recruited players under contract that are probably collectively the most exciting group of players we have seen for many a season . You would have thought it he stock would have gone up.

Out of interest what happens to the 1/2 million pounds we can expect in the next year or so When some of these Players leave ,as I am almost certain that by the seasons end some of these Platers will progress past our current level.

There is also Young Pannell sitting in the treatment room, that is going to be one hell of a player and he could rake in a good fee all on his own within the next 18 months. Out of all the Players re recruited in the past six months he excites me the most.

Could be that there could be three Players in the current crop who could be worth far more then either of these bids.

[Adrian]

Its clear they want Thompson gone if they get in, I would assume they will put that to a vote as soon as they get in but judging by all the back and forth it could be some time. John Still blames the fans for protesting but this has been dragging on for 4 months now, first initial contact by Tamplin was in May.

Where has Still blamed fans for anything about this? Or is just another twisting of truth by the protestors?

He was moaning at the fans for protesting, he has helped prolong this issue. The first offer should have been put forward by the board to the members for vote and we could have then all got on with it.

So where has he blamed the fans?

He's criticised the timing of the protest, not the fact that there has been a protest.

[Adrian]

On one hand, Bennett is prepared to (trust) give a majority and total control to one relatively unknown quantity – other than his less than clean business past without requesting a single concrete guarantee of future payments being made.

On this basis I see absolutely no problem in asking to (trust) a group of people, none of whom have will acquire a sole controlling interest but yet who have a) very long-standing ties and best interests in the club and whom are offering a 49% retaining interest for members would seem perfectly plausible to me.

Latest Tamplin offer – Members get 20% and 1 vote whilst Tamplin has 50% and 4 votes.
Latest East etc. offer – Members get 49% and 1 vote while all other parties get 1 vote each.

This latest proposal seems to be as good a deal in the sense of A) getting the investment we are led to believe is needed without the added risk of 1 individual hovering all the shares up and doing what he bloody well likes with us – B) gets a group of people on board who will hopefully shake and wake up the club from top to bottom and give us a club we can all be proud of and feel connected to once again – and C) keeps us as close to the current “members club” arrangement lots of us still desire.

There is also a D) which would hopefully see the removal of failures such as Bennett & Thompson who have not only allowed the club to stagnate and go backwards but actually taken us to this point where we either get outside investment or “the club has a huge possibility / certainty of going into liquidation and being demoted a couple of leagues” (Tamplin’s words)

One way or another – the board now need to pull their fingers out their arses, call an EGM, but both proposals up to members and let them have their say – once and for all!

How unknown a quantity is Tamplin to Bennett?

Why shouldn't Tamplin want more votes than the members - he's offering a fairly serious sum of money, while the members don't have to put in anything.
Didn't one of his offers give him the same votes as everyone else,on he basis that they all put in the same,except for the members. Who rejected that proposal?

Why is there an assumption that the non-Tamplin group will shake things up.
Haven't most of them been part of the same board as Bennett and Thomson for a while?

[dagger4eva]

On one hand, Bennett is prepared to (trust) give a majority and total control to one relatively unknown quantity – other than his less than clean business past without requesting a single concrete guarantee of future payments being made.

On this basis I see absolutely no problem in asking to (trust) a group of people, none of whom have will acquire a sole controlling interest but yet who have a) very long-standing ties and best interests in the club and whom are offering a 49% retaining interest for members would seem perfectly plausible to me.

Latest Tamplin offer – Members get 20% and 1 vote whilst Tamplin has 50% and 4 votes.
Latest East etc. offer – Members get 49% and 1 vote while all other parties get 1 vote each.

This latest proposal seems to be as good a deal in the sense of A) getting the investment we are led to believe is needed without the added risk of 1 individual hovering all the shares up and doing what he bloody well likes with us – B) gets a group of people on board who will hopefully shake and wake up the club from top to bottom and give us a club we can all be proud of and feel connected to once again – and C) keeps us as close to the current “members club” arrangement lots of us still desire.

There is also a D) which would hopefully see the removal of failures such as Bennett & Thompson who have not only allowed the club to stagnate and go backwards but actually taken us to this point where we either get outside investment or “the club has a huge possibility / certainty of going into liquidation and being demoted a couple of leagues” (Tamplin’s words)

One way or another – the board now need to pull their fingers out their arses, call an EGM, but both proposals up to members and let them have their say – once and for all!

How unknown a quantity is Tamplin to Bennett? He's known him about 3-4 months.

Why shouldn't Tamplin want more votes than the members - he's offering a fairly serious sum of money, while the members don't have to put in anything. Swap the word "offering" for "promising". Members dont have to contribute either under this latest offer either.


Didn't one of his offers give him the same votes as everyone else,on he basis that they all put in the same,except for the members. Who rejected that proposal? It was clearly rejected as a) not ALL consortium members were able to 'put in' the amount required & b) they wanted to go into this as a group.

Why is there an assumption that the non-Tamplin group will shake things up.
Haven't most of them been part of the same board as Bennett and Thomson for a while? With the exception of Dave Ward, the answer is NO

[Voice of reason]

Due diligence regarding financial history should be carried out on anyone wanting to become a major shareholder.

"Dave (Bennett) told us that due diligence had been pursued and a statement of his net worth produced by a Chartered Accountant."

I would accept he may have a high net worth but the concern would be how Mr T acquired at least part of that worth
Was that part of the remit for due diligence?
Leaving morals aside Mr Tamplin's conduct in past business failures would mean any 'promises' about future payments should be replaced by cash up front or guarantees as mentioned in numerous earlier posts by several people