Chairmans reply to Consortium

Discuss all matters related to Dagenham and Redbridge
InTheKnow
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:04 pm

John,

To answer your email in the order that you have written,

My letter to members was sent out in good faith, I have been criticised for not keeping members informed, so I guess I can not win. The letter clearly says that we are waiting a response from you. I realised that the supporters also want to know what’s going on, and I presumed that someone would post a copy on the forum, which they promptly did.

On to the meeting, Friday 2nd September 4pm at the office of Glenn Tamplin.
You arrived at 4.30pm, a good start.
You handed out a sheet of paper headed “Subscription Table” which was a proposal of investment being suggested by you,
What is omitted from this table is your proposed vote schedule, as you read them out, I wrote them in on my copy, next to the % holding figure.
Your table shows John and Lee Goodwin listed together as the Goodwin’s,
You proposed that Glenn had 4 votes, then you, me, Chris, Dave Ward, G. Bramley, The Goodwin’s (together), Brian, and the members, 1 vote each.
At no time did you propose that the Goodwin’s would have a vote each, and it certainly would not make sense. You argued that if Chris and I backed Glenn we would have 6 votes together, the remaining share holders, including the members, also would have 6 votes, Glenn asked for 6 votes for himself, then 5, you would not agree, he asked for the casting vote, once again you would not agree. So unless you are saying that this did not happen, there is no room in the math to include an extra vote for Lee. So I really don’t know why you have raised that point, when it simply was not mentioned.
There was plenty of further discussion on this, i.e. Glenn putting in 12.5 times the amount of money as you but only having 4 votes, Chris and I being asked to put in more than other 1 vote holders, etc etc.

Moving onto security, guarantees etc
I thought, and I believe Chris did too, that you were being highly unreasonable, bearing in mind that by the time we would have got to this stage Glenn would have paid at least 312,500.00 already, surely if you are prepared to join in a consortium with someone, you should trust them. Clearly it’s not the case that Glenn can not guarantee payments, it’s his reluctance to be bullied into it.
We had already agreed that shares would be forfeited back to the members if payments were not made. I was quite comfortable with the matter.

Concerning the paragraph where you refer to an email sent by Glenn on Monday re his proposal. You seem to have overlooked the fact, that at that point, we had not had a reply from you, once again, quite clear in my letter.
Since I sent out my letter we have now received your reply declining Glenn’s offer, citing lack of funds on your part.

Regarding your request for clarification of Glenn’s latest offer, this is based very much on what was being offered at the last informal members meeting,
This will all be set out with the offer when it is sent out to the members to consider.

As you have since acknowledged, I have agreed to wait a while to receive your revised offer.

John, throughout your letter you refer to your consideration of the members and supporters, I can not help but think to myself how shallow this sounds, I and other board members present remember very well your reply to me at a very early stage of discussions. To remind you, you had suggested 5 or 6 people investing 40 or 50,000 pounds a year for 5 years. This whittled away to just 4 people investing 40,000 for one year, my response was that I would not want to recommend that to the members, 160,000 total was not enough money; I believe I actually said that I felt it was insulting the members. Your reply was words to the effect “If it’s the only offer, they will have no choice but accept”

I think this answers all the points that you have raised.

However I will add one last point to my response, to record that I declared myself personally OUT of negotiations with you when you began your “Thompson Out” routine!

I also reserve the right to publish this letter / email etc.
Hopefully someone will post it as quickly as your reply to me.

Regards
David
Diggerthedog
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm

How does the chairman plan to tell Tamplin what to do when he does not cough up with the further funds and he has very little say. Is he really that dumb?

Dave the Plumber can he fix it 'NO HE CANT'. :lol:

Better than eastenders this :D
dannythedagger
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:57 am

Long story short....the plumber is willing to allow a businessman with numerous previously failed businesses the casting vote at a football club where he has no interest other than it becoming his toy. Its an absolute joke that they are even considering allowing him to have any control other than a vote.

He also fails to mention that it isn't just a Thompson out campaign ... he needs to go as well.
Diggerthedog
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm

dannythedagger wrote:Long story short....the plumber is willing to allow a businessman with numerous previously failed businesses the casting vote at a football club where he has no interest other than it becoming his toy. Its an absolute joke that they are even considering allowing him to have any control other than a vote.

He also fails to mention that it isn't just a Thompson out campaign ... he needs to go as well.
Here Here. Lets ramp up the pressure and get all these muppets out.
User avatar
Mike the Dagger
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
Contact:

This is starting to resemble vultures circling a thirsty man in the desert now. He's not dead yet, but they are already fighting over who gets the juicy bits.

Time for some reasonableness and dignity all round please.

So, does the club actually need to sell it's soul?

If so, how have we got to that point given we have allegedly been run so prudently?

If we have to have investment, what is the business actually worth?

How can we retain as much as possible of the existing members club without having a single majority owner?
User avatar
Mike the Dagger
Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am
Contact:

Diggerthedog wrote:
dannythedagger wrote:Long story short....the plumber is willing to allow a businessman with numerous previously failed businesses the casting vote at a football club where he has no interest other than it becoming his toy. Its an absolute joke that they are even considering allowing him to have any control other than a vote.

He also fails to mention that it isn't just a Thompson out campaign ... he needs to go as well.
Here Here. Lets ramp up the pressure and get all these muppets out.
How do you propose to get the "muppets" out when they are the only group coming up with anything close to a sensible investment?
dagger4eva
Posts: 1735
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:39 pm

What an interesting, if not quite childish response.

It would appear the consortium have had little other option but to use the medium of this forum to get necessary facts out whilst the club has the luxury of using the official website to make statements – something of which it has failed miserably (again) to do so.
A measly 2 official statements made since this whole sorry process commenced, I believe.

But anyway, if you ignore the pettiness and obvious over emotion I think 2 things are abundantly clear:-

1. Glenn Tamplin wants full control over the football club yet is not prepared to give the NECESSARY guarantees that would be provided under virtually any other decent, respectable, abiding business practice. In my own business dealings – certain guarantees are expected from long standing clients – let alone an Essex Wide boy of whom the club were introduced to a matter of weeks ago – one of which has an obviously less than clean previous business history.

If he is really THAT keen and THAT serious about owning & controlling a football club. OUR football club, it shouldn’t come down to needing to be “bullied into” anything – the offer to provide such guarantees should have been put on the table, by him, without the bat of an eyelid. The sheer reluctance to do so is astonishing.

2. Bennett & Co. are interested in keeping Thompson in a job – at all costs. HE is the person responsible for running the club into the ground. HE is the person responsible for running the club, for years, as a complete dictatorship – hence the North Korean Daggers Flag. The fact he is being touted for a place on the board @ Nil investment very much suggests he is viewed as bigger than the club, which let me tell you – he is not!

A final point Mr Bennett - If you wish to turn things petty maybe you should consider this.
You make a reference to time keeping. Well, perhaps you would like to let everyone know what YOU were doing at 3pm after the Daggers / Wrexham game. I’ll give everyone 2 clues.
i) Crystal Palace V Bournemouth
ii) http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Runn ... -per-match

Cheerio now!
Diggerthedog
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm

Mike the Dagger wrote:
Diggerthedog wrote:
dannythedagger wrote:Long story short....the plumber is willing to allow a businessman with numerous previously failed businesses the casting vote at a football club where he has no interest other than it becoming his toy. Its an absolute joke that they are even considering allowing him to have any control other than a vote.

He also fails to mention that it isn't just a Thompson out campaign ... he needs to go as well.
Here Here. Lets ramp up the pressure and get all these muppets out.
How do you propose to get the "muppets" out when they are the only group coming up with anything close to a sensible investment?
Club does not need investment it is all misleading to get Tamplin in the door. Prostest do what we need to do, force them out. Ask for a vote via members to decide if Thommo and Bennett who claimed form the outset we are fine financially sound and now all of a sudden liquidation beckons, if this is the case they are not fit to run the business.
lupins
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:55 pm

I am in all honesty beginning to find this quite hard to follow with regard to who said what to who and what the latest position is from any party regarding an offer - claims and counter claims etc - I don't particularly think anyone is lying but seems to be classic case of lack of communication where people think they said something and the other party hears something completely different

Are these meetings minuted?

I find it interesting that John Still seems to have taken a stance and that hasn't attracted that much comment when most people would say he has the Club at heart surely

Perhaps an independent conciliator could try to work with all parties

I fully understand the comparison with Grays for example where the perception is that once the money went the club failed but before the cash input they were pretty moribund so I will repeat that I still maintain we do need investment to progress but it needs to be based on sound principles. We may not need investment to play in the park in front of two men and a members Dog
Chigwellian
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:18 pm

The crux of the matter is... We were told that the club was 'living within its means' by Thommo, who is in complete control of the purse strings. We have been told this for many years.
I'm also guessing that 'end of year' account reports would have been issued to the members which would back this claim up.

The issue that I cant get my head around is... In a short space of time, how can we go from a club 'living within our means' to a club in financial trouble and desperate for investments.

Were the accounts being fiddled?... I'm guessing they must have been, otherwise our position would have been flagged up ages ago.

If they were.... That person must be removed!!!
Alan
Posts: 1464
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:34 pm

Look at the accounts available online. The profit reserve has been falling for last several years ie we have been making a loss and living off reserves built up from player sales. So you can argue we were living within our means or you can argue that we were not, depends on how you view the use of reserves. It's like spending all your wages but topping up from your savings - it can't go on forever like that and when the savings run out there's a shock. If your income is cut and your savings run out, that's a big problem.

If we want to carry on spending at anything like the same level, we have to get some more money in. Firstly, because income has fallen as a result of gate and tv money, but secondly because we were spending more than our annual income to do what we were doing.
TomMc
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:38 pm

Chigwellian, what I think is that you're extremely lucky the people in charge of our club don't take defamation and libel as seriously as people at other clubs do.

Edit - If I was admin on here I'd be deleting this kind of stuff. You can't go around accusing people of the things you are without a single shred of proof.
Diggerthedog
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 pm

Alan wrote:Look at the accounts available online. The profit reserve has been falling for last several years ie we have been making a loss and living off reserves built up from player sales. So you can argue we were living within our means or you can argue that we were not, depends on how you view the use of reserves. It's like spending all your wages but topping up from your savings - it can't go on forever like that and when the savings run out there's a shock. If your income is cut and your savings run out, that's a big problem.

If we want to carry on spending at anything like the same level, we have to get some more money in. Firstly, because income has fallen as a result of gate and tv money, but secondly because we were spending more than our annual income to do what we were doing.
Which begs the question on why Burnett was given another contract when he failed on the scouting side of things to bringing in players and resell and just going for the dwindling pro's. Failure all round time to go Thommo, tick tock tick tock.
User avatar
Auntie Merge
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:43 pm

From the Chairman's letter
have paid at least 312,500.00 already, surely if you are prepared to join in a consortium with someone, you should trust them.
I cannot believe the naivety and ignorance here. As anyone who is in business knows, the first rule of any parternship or any contract in business is to decide what happens when things go wrong, people default, want out, fail to deliver etc. Nothing in a business contract is based on trust. Any lawyer will tell you that.

AND

I was googling AGP Steel this morning and found this
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/c ... _1_4123489
Chigwellian
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:18 pm

TomMc wrote:Chigwellian, what I think is that you're extremely lucky the people in charge of our club don't take defamation and libel as seriously as people at other clubs do.

Edit - If I was admin on here I'd be deleting this kind of stuff. You can't go around accusing people of the things you are without a single shred of proof.
I mentioned Thommo is in control of the purse strings.... FACT
I also mentioned that whoever is in charge of the accounts, and IF they are wrong... then they have to be removed... again a FACT
Post Reply