An email to Mr. Appleby....

[Geordie Quaker]

I simply felt I had to say something officially to the FA other than trying to get #f*ckthefa to trend on twitter, so I have emailed Mike Appleby following his appearance on the Non League Zone last night. I have copied my email below; a few caveats to this though:

1, There will undoubtedly be some inaccuracies in this and some questions may have been addressed elsewhere. I have put this together using what (limited) knowledge I have had time to glean form various sources: I simply do not have time to take everything in.

2, I am thoroughly aware I won't get an acknowledgement / response, but I will sure let you guys know if I do.

As We8Poolie showed yesterday, it is not difficult to acquire his email address if anyone wanted to follow suit (in a reasoned and non-aggressive manner, of course).

Cheers,

GQ

--------

Dear Mr. Appleby,

I am writing to you as a Darlington fan who is both concerned and perplexed by the recent FA decision to demote the club to the Northern League. Further to your appearance on the Non league Zone radio show on May 28th 2012, there are a number of points I wish to raise with you concerning this decision. Please feel free to include other colleagues if you feel they could provide additional insight to some of these points.

New versus Existing club: On more than one occasion you stated that “they are a new club” as a result of the failure to agree a CVA. In response to this, can you answer the following:
1. If we were truly a new club, this would mean taking on none of the debts of the previous entity (as has been the case with other ‘phoenix’ clubs you mentioned such as Chester and Nuneaton). However, we are committed to paying back the football creditors and fundraising is already underway to do this (therefore, we have debts). Would the FA prefer it if we did not do this?
2. To what extent have you considered the fact that we made every effort to agree a CVA, however this was consistently blocked by the outgoing chairman (who publicly denied being owned any money by the club when first putting us into administration)?
3. To what extent have you considered the fact that the outgoing chairman wanted to place conditions on the CVA that even the FA would not allow?
4. Is there not enough evidence to suggest that every effort was made to agree a CVA and therefore ensure that both footballing and non-footballing creditors would be repaid? Is it not clear to the FA that we had no intention of “piling up debts and just walking away from them”?
5. Bringing these questions together, it is hard to see how our efforts to fulfil our 2011/12 fixtures and pay off creditors has been taken into consideration. Would you have preferred if Darlington had ceased to be a football club in January, left the Conference National mid-season and not made any effort to pay off its creditors?

Groundshare:
6. When the FA met with the interim board on May 14th 2012, did they clearly state that Shildon’s ground could not under any circumstances be used any higher than step 5?
7. If this rule is in place, and the stadium grading was made on 31st March 2012, why did the FA wait another almost two weeks to announce a decision? Surely this could have been announced immediately? Was our interim board made aware of this when they met the FA?
8. Is it not true that the FA gave informal assurances to the interim board that time would be allowed to make required stadium improvements if necessary?

Club Ownership:
9. In light of what has happened to Darlington FC and numerous other clubs, do you and your colleagues stand by your current fit and proper persons test as a valid means of protecting the football clubs and the national game?

I am not going to address the notion of potentially renaming the club, as quite frankly this is too farcical a notion to warrant discussion.

From a perspective of an ordinary fan, your organisation appears set on punishing the fans of this club for actions that were completely out of our control and ignoring the quite incredible efforts undertaken by a range of people to both save the club and pay off creditors. Relegation to the Evo Stick Premier would have been accepted by the fans as a fitting punishment (let us not already forget that the points deduction and administration in the 2011/12 season effectively cost us our place in the Conference National too).

I look forward to your considered response.

Kind Regards,

--------

[MikeinBlack]

Can't see anything wrong with that - I wouldn't hold your breath for anything like a detailed answer though lol

[al_quaker]

I simply felt I had to say something officially to the FA other than trying to get #f*ckthefa to trend on twitter, so I have emailed Mike Appleby following his appearance on the Non League Zone last night. I have copied my email below; a few caveats to this though:

1, There will undoubtedly be some inaccuracies in this and some questions may have been addressed elsewhere. I have put this together using what (limited) knowledge I have had time to glean form various sources: I simply do not have time to take everything in.

2, I am thoroughly aware I won't get an acknowledgement / response, but I will sure let you guys know if I do.

As We8Poolie showed yesterday, it is not difficult to acquire his email address if anyone wanted to follow suit (in a reasoned and non-aggressive manner, of course).

Cheers,

GQ

--------

Dear Mr. Appleby,

I am writing to you as a Darlington fan who is both concerned and perplexed by the recent FA decision to demote the club to the Northern League. Further to your appearance on the Non league Zone radio show on May 28th 2012, there are a number of points I wish to raise with you concerning this decision. Please feel free to include other colleagues if you feel they could provide additional insight to some of these points.

New versus Existing club: On more than one occasion you stated that “they are a new club” as a result of the failure to agree a CVA. In response to this, can you answer the following:
1. If we were truly a new club, this would mean taking on none of the debts of the previous entity (as has been the case with other ‘phoenix’ clubs you mentioned such as Chester and Nuneaton). However, we are committed to paying back the football creditors and fundraising is already underway to do this (therefore, we have debts). Would the FA prefer it if we did not do this?
2. To what extent have you considered the fact that we made every effort to agree a CVA, however this was consistently blocked by the outgoing chairman (who publicly denied being owned any money by the club when first putting us into administration)?
3. To what extent have you considered the fact that the outgoing chairman wanted to place conditions on the CVA that even the FA would not allow?
4. Is there not enough evidence to suggest that every effort was made to agree a CVA and therefore ensure that both footballing and non-footballing creditors would be repaid? Is it not clear to the FA that we had no intention of “piling up debts and just walking away from them”?
5. Bringing these questions together, it is hard to see how our efforts to fulfil our 2011/12 fixtures and pay off creditors has been taken into consideration. Would you have preferred if Darlington had ceased to be a football club in January, left the Conference National mid-season and not made any effort to pay off its creditors?

Groundshare:
6. When the FA met with the interim board on May 14th 2012, did they clearly state that Shildon’s ground could not under any circumstances be used any higher than step 5?
7. If this rule is in place, and the stadium grading was made on 31st March 2012, why did the FA wait another almost two weeks to announce a decision? Surely this could have been announced immediately? Was our interim board made aware of this when they met the FA?
8. Is it not true that the FA gave informal assurances to the interim board that time would be allowed to make required stadium improvements if necessary?

Club Ownership:
9. In light of what has happened to Darlington FC and numerous other clubs, do you and your colleagues stand by your current fit and proper persons test as a valid means of protecting the football clubs and the national game?

I am not going to address the notion of potentially renaming the club, as quite frankly this is too farcical a notion to warrant discussion.

From a perspective of an ordinary fan, your organisation appears set on punishing the fans of this club for actions that were completely out of our control and ignoring the quite incredible efforts undertaken by a range of people to both save the club and pay off creditors. Relegation to the Evo Stick Premier would have been accepted by the fans as a fitting punishment (let us not already forget that the points deduction and administration in the 2011/12 season effectively cost us our place in the Conference National too).

I look forward to your considered response.

Kind Regards,

--------

Be interesting to see if you get a response.

[Lincolnshire_Quaker]

My own email to Mike Appleby in the early hours of this morning (see here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19986&p=252089#p252089 ) was acknowledged at 5.15am with a promise of a full response. He also confirmed the registration with Durham FA was in order, which he was not aware of last night. His invite on to the show was to talk about a different matter and the Darlington situation was dropped on him 'off the cuff' so to speak whilst on the line.

[TFDM]

Excellently worded response mate (as always). It will be interesting to see what reply you get.

[Quakerz]

Fantastic letter GQ.

[divas]

Very clear and concise, hopefully they give it the attention it deserves.

[isitouryear]

very well put GQ. reading over them points you have put simply yet effectively, it just angers me even more that no common sense has prevailed whatsover. Their decision has actually encouraged clubs to go bust! Unfortunately the FA is not run by pro active football men, its has beens and old school no nowts Im afraid.

[princes town]

Cracking letter

[while]

I wouldn't hold your breath for anything like a detailed answer though lol

[broadsexile]

Great stuff; really well-written and to the point. The inconsistencies in the FA's stance seem more and ludicrous every time I read something like that.

[still_darlo]

Very nicely put. (If you haven't sent it yet, change "owned" to "owed" in point 2.)

Like others have said, I suspect the FA won't admit they've done anything wrong. I imagine that conversation on May 14th went something like this:


1883: "We've tried everything to agree a CVA, but the chairman put up too many obstacles. We've pledged to pay back our other creditors, though."

FA says: "We understand, and are very supportive of what you're trying to do."

FA thinks: "But we're not letting you carry on as the same club, so it doesn't really matter."

1883: We've signed a lease at Shildon, and are aware that some improvements need to be made. Will this be a problem for us?"

FA says: "No, don't worry. You have plenty of time to make those improvements, and Shildon is an acceptable ground."

FA thinks: "For Step 5, which is where you'll be playing. You have until next March to do the work, so don't know why you're asking this, really. "

1883: Our chairman refused to sign over the football share without conditions, as you know. Will this be a problem?

FA says: "No, don't worry. Issuing another share is a mere formality."

FA thinks: "You'll be regarded as a new club, anyway, with a new name, so you'll need a new share."

It was possibly naivety on 1883's part that day, but since no one has been in this position before, no one could have done any better.

[mobi]

Very nicely put. (If you haven't sent it yet, change "owned" to "owed" in point 2.)

Like others have said, I suspect the FA won't admit they've done anything wrong. I imagine that conversation on May 14th went something like this:


1883: "We've tried everything to agree a CVA, but the chairman put up too many obstacles. We've pledged to pay back our other creditors, though."

FA says: "We understand, and are very supportive of what you're trying to do."

FA thinks: "But we're not letting you carry on as the same club, so it doesn't really matter."

1883: We've signed a lease at Shildon, and are aware that some improvements need to be made. Will this be a problem for us?"

FA says: "No, don't worry. You have plenty of time to make those improvements, and Shildon is an acceptable ground."

FA thinks: "For Step 5, which is where you'll be playing. You have until next March to do the work, so don't know why you're asking this, really. "

1883: Our chairman refused to sign over the football share without conditions, as you know. Will this be a problem?

FA says: "No, don't worry. Issuing another share is a mere formality."

FA thinks: "You'll be regarded as a new club, anyway, with a new name, so you'll need a new share."

It was possibly naivety on 1883's part that day, but since no one has been in this position before, no one could have done any better.

Ok, I know this is how you like to see it, but the reality is we never could pay all our debts and we never even tried to. We asked our major creditor to forgo all his claims. Turns out he wouldn't do that, so we ended up paying none of the non-footballing creditors. Yes, Singh mislead us, but we walked away from over a million pounds worth of debt.

Can you really say to the FA that it isn't fair that our major creditor wanted his money back? From their viewpoint it looks rather weak.

[The_Ponderer]

Champion letter GQ!

@Lincs Quaker,
I presume your letter got an automated response.
Could you post it on the board?

@mobi - I think you have missed the point a bit.
The 1883 board tried hard to agree a CVA - note: a CVA generally means small creditors getting well shafted to the tune of 1p in the £ they are owed.
Stooge 3 publicly declared he would walk away without a penny - in the end he wanted his cash back in full plus the transfer sell on clauses plus, somehow, he is allowed to keep the football share as a personal possession!

The intention of the 1883CIC is to work with the small creditors in the future and not to leave them high and dry - as a shareholder/member I will be voting in favour of helping them.

[Geordie Quaker]

For the record, I have received a confirmation of receipt / promise to respond in due course email from 'Mike' (which does not appear to be automated). Still_Darlo, well spotted; I had noticed a couple of other errors too since sending!

I can see where Mobi is coming from here. However, did we actually ask Raj to waive his claims, or in reality was he the one who started it by stating he would waive all monies owed? Not sure that matters one jot to the FA like.

[mobi]

For the record, I have received a confirmation of receipt / promise to respond in due course email from 'Mike' (which does not appear to be automated). Still_Darlo, well spotted; I had noticed a couple of other errors too since sending!

I can see where Mobi is coming from here. However, did we actually ask Raj to waive his claims, or in reality was he the one who started it by stating he would waive all monies owed? Not sure that matters one jot to the FA like.

Correct, in that it doesn't matter to the FA. The plan was never to pay Raj, the takeover could only go ahead if Raj waived his claims. You can't plead to the FA that it's unfair because a creditor refused to waive his claims.

[divas]

No you can't, but given the BSP are outlawing that exact thing next season - owner/director loans in order to stop this exact thing happening you'd have hoped they'd have shown some compassion.

[wishmaster3211]

For the record, I have received a confirmation of receipt / promise to respond in due course email from 'Mike' (which does not appear to be automated). Still_Darlo, well spotted; I had noticed a couple of other errors too since sending!

I can see where Mobi is coming from here. However, did we actually ask Raj to waive his claims, or in reality was he the one who started it by stating he would waive all monies owed? Not sure that matters one jot to the FA like.

Correct, in that it doesn't matter to the FA. The plan was never to pay Raj, the takeover could only go ahead if Raj waived his claims. You can't plead to the FA that it's unfair because a creditor refused to waive his claims.

Your'e right. It may not seem fair or indeed logical but thats how its seen to outsiders. Most of what has happened was actually quite predictable if you looked at FA Rules, we were really hoping that what the FA had said to 1883 was some kind of compromise, clearly it wasn't. I am a bit concerned that railing against the FA too strongly doesn't help our case.

I think we have a STRONG case over the name, but not over the demotion. I have been quoted several Rules over the last few weeks on a respected Non League Forum that mean we should be demoted to Step 5 and I mean directly lifted from their rule book, indeed, frankly we are lucky to still be playing at all next season as they could have turned round and said "you are a new club, goodbye".

Instead of jumping on the FAs back we need to be getting some more money into the coffers. Plus we need to fight to keep the name Darlington FC.

The only thing the FA did was give false hope and less than clear advice and for this they need to be held accountable for, but the Rules were there all along they haven't been changed just to persecute Darlington.

[Fibonacci0112358]

For the record, I have received a confirmation of receipt / promise to respond in due course email from 'Mike' (which does not appear to be automated). Still_Darlo, well spotted; I had noticed a couple of other errors too since sending!

I can see where Mobi is coming from here. However, did we actually ask Raj to waive his claims, or in reality was he the one who started it by stating he would waive all monies owed? Not sure that matters one jot to the FA like.

Correct, in that it doesn't matter to the FA. The plan was never to pay Raj, the takeover could only go ahead if Raj waived his claims. You can't plead to the FA that it's unfair because a creditor refused to waive his claims.

Your'e right. It may not seem fair or indeed logical but thats how its seen to outsiders. Most of what has happened was actually quite predictable if you looked at FA Rules, we were really hoping that what the FA had said to 1883 was some kind of compromise, clearly it wasn't. I am a bit concerned that railing against the FA too strongly doesn't help our case.

I think we have a STRONG case over the name, but not over the demotion. I have been quoted several Rules over the last few weeks on a respected Non League Forum that mean we should be demoted to Step 5 and I mean directly lifted from their rule book, indeed, frankly we are lucky to still be playing at all next season as they could have turned round and said "you are a new club, goodbye".

Instead of jumping on the FAs back we need to be getting some more money into the coffers. Plus we need to fight to keep the name Darlington FC.

The only thing the FA did was give false hope and less than clear advice and for this they need to be held accountable for, but the Rules were there all along they haven't been changed just to persecute Darlington.

Could you point me directly to the rules in question please?

[The_Ponderer]

@wishmaster - you are probably correct in the sense of a black & white interpretation of the rule book - however, if the FA decide to hit clubs excessively hard they could fold and there will be nobody to pay off the football creditors.
To reiterate the point that many people and myself have made elsewhere, clubs in the future may just fold if they think the FA will hit them too hard - and maybe even mid-season.

"We" did "bad" yes - but we did some good too and the blinkered FA chose not to see that.

[MikeinBlack]

The rules may be there for a new club, but we're appealing the fact that we are one. Therefore the rules need not apply - surely?

[mobi]

@wishmaster - you are probably correct in the sense of a black & white interpretation of the rule book - however, if the FA decide to hit clubs excessively hard they could fold and there will be nobody to pay off the football creditors.
To reiterate the point that many people and myself have made elsewhere, clubs in the future may just fold if they think the FA will hit them too hard - and maybe even mid-season.

"We" did "bad" yes - but we did some good too and the blinkered FA chose not to see that.

Well, if you can't pay your debts you are liquidated, the club is wound up and the sale of the assets is used to pay of the creditors. Is that the easy option? You could say that we have taken the easy option by carrying on as the same club and not paying our debts. Why would any club fold if you can do what we have done? The FA will see our punishment as a way to prevent clubs from thinking they can avoid paying their debts and carry on as normal, or perhaps preventing them getting such unsustainable debt in the first place. As wishmaster points out, you have to remember that the outside world is very different to this forum and people don't see things in such a blinkered way.

[we_8_poolie]

How much are you owed ?

[The_Ponderer]

@wishmaster - you are probably correct in the sense of a black & white interpretation of the rule book - however, if the FA decide to hit clubs excessively hard they could fold and there will be nobody to pay off the football creditors.
To reiterate the point that many people and myself have made elsewhere, clubs in the future may just fold if they think the FA will hit them too hard - and maybe even mid-season.

"We" did "bad" yes - but we did some good too and the blinkered FA chose not to see that.

Well, if you can't pay your debts you are liquidated, the club is wound up and the sale of the assets is used to pay of the creditors. Is that the easy option? You could say that we have taken the easy option by carrying on as the same club and not paying our debts. Why would any club fold if you can do what we have done? The FA will see our punishment as a way to prevent clubs from thinking they can avoid paying their debts and carry on as normal, or perhaps preventing them getting such unsustainable debt in the first place. As wishmaster points out, you have to remember that the outside world is very different to this forum and people don't see things in such a blinkered way.

@mobi - I think you have misread my post.
The previous company which owned the club is to be/has been liquidated by the Administrator - this was the company with the debt.

The rescue company 1883 have bought the club, attempted but failed to get a CVA.
Regardless of who is right and wrong, "we" (the club) get punished by relegation.
Nobody disputes that!
Most people would even take relegation by 2 divisions - hardly carrying on as normal!
This does in fact, to re-re-re-repeat what I have said numerous times on here, give a signal to clubs in future to just fold mid-season and re-form as a newco without being saddled with any debt - and that would mean football debts going unpaid.

The point is, they have hit us with just about as harsh a punishment as possible without actually kicking us out.
There was however some mitigation on our side - our deal to pay off, in full, the football debt.

I am not seeing anything in a blinkered way because I am aware of all the facts which have been made public by both 1883 and the FA.

[HarryCharltonsCat]

[quote. The FA will see our punishment as a way to prevent clubs from thinking they can avoid paying their debts and carry on as normal, or perhaps preventing them getting such unsustainable debt in the first place. As wishmaster points out, you have to remember that the outside world is very different to this forum and people don't see things in such a blinkered way.[/quote]

In what way does this prevent a club running up unsustainable debts in the first place? The t*** who ran up the unsustainable debts in the first place buggers off, and those picking up the pieces get shafted. What's the deterrent to the t***?

[StevieMardenboro]

@wishmaster - you are probably correct in the sense of a black & white interpretation of the rule book - however, if the FA decide to hit clubs excessively hard they could fold and there will be nobody to pay off the football creditors.
To reiterate the point that many people and myself have made elsewhere, clubs in the future may just fold if they think the FA will hit them too hard - and maybe even mid-season.

"We" did "bad" yes - but we did some good too and the blinkered FA chose not to see that.

Well, if you can't pay your debts you are liquidated, the club is wound up and the sale of the assets is used to pay of the creditors. Is that the easy option? You could say that we have taken the easy option by carrying on as the same club and not paying our debts. Why would any club fold if you can do what we have done? The FA will see our punishment as a way to prevent clubs from thinking they can avoid paying their debts and carry on as normal, or perhaps preventing them getting such unsustainable debt in the first place. As wishmaster points out, you have to remember that the outside world is very different to this forum and people don't see things in such a blinkered way.

Fair comments which are difficult to argue with but as we were never going to be able to reimburse Singh for the money HE decided to spend and the budgets HE set . . .was this punishment inevitable and has the last six months been a heroic waste of time?

(I don't intend this as a criticism of the efforts to save the club we all love)

[beatroute66]

Good stuff, GQ. Let us know what Mike comes back to you with.

[Lincolnshire_Quaker]

Champion letter GQ!

@Lincs Quaker,
I presume your letter got an automated response.
Could you post it on the board?

Sorry for late response. The link to my post containing the letter was earlier in this thread. Here it is again:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19986&p=252089#p252089

The response was not automated, sent just over 4 hours after I sent it at 5.15am! The FA do work all hours it seems

I had a couple more exchanges with immediate responses around 9am of the registration with Durham FA issue. However, all has gone quiet since. I hope this is because the issues G_Q & I raised are ones that he will need to consult with colleagues on before providing a definitive response - always prepared to give the benefit of the doubt!

[Quakerz]

@wishmaster - you are probably correct in the sense of a black & white interpretation of the rule book - however, if the FA decide to hit clubs excessively hard they could fold and there will be nobody to pay off the football creditors.
To reiterate the point that many people and myself have made elsewhere, clubs in the future may just fold if they think the FA will hit them too hard - and maybe even mid-season.

"We" did "bad" yes - but we did some good too and the blinkered FA chose not to see that.

They chose not to see that we shouldn't be playing next season. Maybe that was a concession.

To be honest, for all the Raj said this, Raj did that, for all the wild goose chases, when you look at it, it's not too surprising that they've thrown the book at us - No 100% CVA = automatic relegation is a conference rule but "creditors must be satisfied" is an FA rule that sort of usurps it.

Ironically, if we could have agreed a 1p in the £ CVA, which would have meant about 10 grand on non footballing creditors including Raj, the creditors would be regarded "satisfied", we would be regarded as out of administration satisfactorily, we would not be regarded as a new club, and would have suffered only the conference punishment for not agreeing a 100% CVA - relegation. We would (ground issues aside) be sat in the Evostik Premier right now, no question, regarded as the same club. With the football creditors paid fully out of the crowdcube money and the CVA satisfied up front.

Obviously Raj would never have agreed to a 1p CVA though so no point crying over "what if!"

What irks me more now, in fact, is their insistence on calling us a new club, treating us as a new club, when we aren't. And the connotations of being a "new club" including trying to force a name change, not allowing us in cups - got an awful feeling about transfer clauses too.

Somehow, we need to get the FA to aknowledge we are legally the same club, even if it doesn't affect the league placing.

[m62exile]

I share the fear around transfer clauses. Regardless of our, or 1883's insistence that they're valid I just can't see the FA going along with that if they decide we are a new club.

Hope I'm wrong.