There's a comment in there which is quite interesting given the comments by our latest CEO at the Q&A regarding the legal dispute we have. It states as the dispute is between shareholders, the club can't fund the costs of litigation. Our CEO was pretty unequivocal (rarely) that BFC was one of the parties in our dispute, the Crynes the other. And that BFC would be funding its legal costs. Its early days, but this certainly needs to be explored further. If BFC are funding the costs of legal defence, its another avenue where club funds are being redirected that should be being footed by the HK ownership vehicle at worst, or by the individual shareholders.
Hmmm Interestingly I never knew Rochdale was a fan owned club and I am quite pleased a hostile take over attempt failed