Reynolds at 80

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Post Reply
User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Reynolds at 80

Post by QuakerPete » Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:07 pm

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/featur ... hday_bash/

Not sure if anyone saw this from last month's Echo, Mike Amos trotting out the same banal crap about his mate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
GodAlmighty
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:14 am
Team Supported: Vatican City FC

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by GodAlmighty » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:04 pm

The fact that Reynolds is still alive at 80 is proof that I don't exist.

God bless.

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Darlogramps » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:06 pm

It's shocking the Echo, given their association with the club, allowed this blatant lie to be published:
“They blame what happened on me, but before I left they were going quite well. People in sport always want someone to blame. Look what happened to them after that. I was the only one who put his money where his mouth was.”
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6718
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:48 pm

Darlogramps wrote:It's shocking the Echo, given their association with the club, allowed this blatant lie to be published:
“They blame what happened on me, but before I left they were going quite well. People in sport always want someone to blame. Look what happened to them after that. I was the only one who put his money where his mouth was.”
The article itself is cringe worthy - however gramps I can't go along with your "blatant lie" label.

The paragraph quoted contains multiple opinions by Reynolds...... so one at a time; some people do blame GR for what happened/
when GR left, the club was in the league and all the really serious stuff (utter meltdown and chucked into the Northern League) was still to come/
people in sport (as in life in general) do tend to look for someone to blame/
Reynolds did lose substantially more money than any subsequent owner.

I'm no Reynolds fan, but I feel it's unfair to blame him for the wall of s*** that a spurned Raj Singh later unleashed, and whether or not you like Reynolds - - personally I can't see much wrong with that paragraph.
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Darlogramps » Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:56 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:It's shocking the Echo, given their association with the club, allowed this blatant lie to be published:
“They blame what happened on me, but before I left they were going quite well. People in sport always want someone to blame. Look what happened to them after that. I was the only one who put his money where his mouth was.”
The article itself is cringe worthy - however gramps I can't go along with your "blatant lie" label.

The paragraph quoted contains multiple opinions by Reynolds...... so one at a time; some people do blame GR for what happened/
when GR left, the club was in the league and all the really serious stuff (utter meltdown and chucked into the Northern League) was still to come/
people in sport (as in life in general) do tend to look for someone to blame/
Reynolds did lose substantially more money than any subsequent owner.

I'm no Reynolds fan, but I feel it's unfair to blame him for the wall of s*** that a spurned Raj Singh later unleashed, and whether or not you like Reynolds - - personally I can't see much wrong with that paragraph.
Good grief. I usually have respect for you and your opinions, but your apologetic post is utter rubbish. You sound like you have sympathy for the man. And you've massively missed my point.

He says the club was going quite well before he left. An utter lie. By the end of his reign there was disharmony behind the scenes. Wages weren't paid. His wife accused players of throwing matches. He banned journalists and fans from games. He bullied teenage fanzine editors. The team was struggling in the league. We had huge debts (reportedly around £20m) and no money to pay them with, resulting in administration.

Hardly going "well" is it?

To your other points -
Reynolds did lose substantially more money than any subsequent owner.
He made those choices against the advice of just about every sane person. He chose to overspend at unsustainable levels. He chose to build a grotesquely oversized stadium, and then name it after himself. He chose not to properly manage the club's finances. In short, he deserved to suffer financially because of the choices he made.

Do you seriously think he cared about the club? Because he didn't. He could not have cared less. It was all about him. He named the stadium after himself - what further proof do you need?
When GR left, the club was in the league and all the really serious stuff (utter meltdown and chucked into the Northern League) was still to come.


I'm stunned you've actually written this. "All the really serious stuff"?
So the Reynolds-induced administration which nearly killed the club wasn't "really serious" because we were in the Football League. Unbelievable.

"Hey, I know we were in administration, people lost their jobs and local businesses lost a load of money - but it's all fine because we could still play Southend and Wycombe."

I know I've sort of exploded here, but it really annoys me when people try to make excuses for Reynolds, or pity him because he lost money. He's done time for crying out loud!

He was, and still is, a really nasty piece of work. A waste of oxygen who deserved everything that followed.

And what's with this ranking of Singh, Houghton and Reynolds that people seem to get involved in? They were all self-serving charlatans who nearly destroyed the club, the lot of them.

As I say theoriginalfatcat, I usually have a lot of time for your views, but in this instance you're completely wrong.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Beano
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:33 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Beano » Sat Jun 04, 2016 9:52 am

Darlogramps wrote:
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:It's shocking the Echo, given their association with the club, allowed this blatant lie to be published:
“They blame what happened on me, but before I left they were going quite well. People in sport always want someone to blame. Look what happened to them after that. I was the only one who put his money where his mouth was.”
The article itself is cringe worthy - however gramps I can't go along with your "blatant lie" label.

The paragraph quoted contains multiple opinions by Reynolds...... so one at a time; some people do blame GR for what happened/
when GR left, the club was in the league and all the really serious stuff (utter meltdown and chucked into the Northern League) was still to come/
people in sport (as in life in general) do tend to look for someone to blame/
Reynolds did lose substantially more money than any subsequent owner.

I'm no Reynolds fan, but I feel it's unfair to blame him for the wall of s*** that a spurned Raj Singh later unleashed, and whether or not you like Reynolds - - personally I can't see much wrong with that paragraph.
Good grief. I usually have respect for you and your opinions, but your apologetic post is utter rubbish. You sound like you have sympathy for the man. And you've massively missed my point.

He says the club was going quite well before he left. An utter lie. By the end of his reign there was disharmony behind the scenes. Wages weren't paid. His wife accused players of throwing matches. He banned journalists and fans from games. He bullied teenage fanzine editors. The team was struggling in the league. We had huge debts (reportedly around £20m) and no money to pay them with, resulting in administration.

Hardly going "well" is it?

To your other points -
Reynolds did lose substantially more money than any subsequent owner.
He made those choices against the advice of just about every sane person. He chose to overspend at unsustainable levels. He chose to build a grotesquely oversized stadium, and then name it after himself. He chose not to properly manage the club's finances. In short, he deserved to suffer financially because of the choices he made.

Do you seriously think he cared about the club? Because he didn't. He could not have cared less. It was all about him. He named the stadium after himself - what further proof do you need?
When GR left, the club was in the league and all the really serious stuff (utter meltdown and chucked into the Northern League) was still to come.


I'm stunned you've actually written this. "All the really serious stuff"?
So the Reynolds-induced administration which nearly killed the club wasn't "really serious" because we were in the Football League. Unbelievable.

"Hey, I know we were in administration, people lost their jobs and local businesses lost a load of money - but it's all fine because we could still play Southend and Wycombe."

I know I've sort of exploded here, but it really annoys me when people try to make excuses for Reynolds, or pity him because he lost money. He's done time for crying out loud!

He was, and still is, a really nasty piece of work. A waste of oxygen who deserved everything that followed.

And what's with this ranking of Singh, Houghton and Reynolds that people seem to get involved in? They were all self-serving charlatans who nearly destroyed the club, the lot of them.

As I say theoriginalfatcat, I usually have a lot of time for your views, but in this instance you're completely wrong.
Totally correct, Darlogramps.

Anyone with an ounce of sympathy for Reynolds has no memory of the destruction he caused and the stuff he got up to behind the scenes.

Quakerz
Posts: 20958
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Quakerz » Sat Jun 04, 2016 10:27 am

Darlogramps wrote:
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:It's shocking the Echo, given their association with the club, allowed this blatant lie to be published:
“They blame what happened on me, but before I left they were going quite well. People in sport always want someone to blame. Look what happened to them after that. I was the only one who put his money where his mouth was.”
The article itself is cringe worthy - however gramps I can't go along with your "blatant lie" label.

The paragraph quoted contains multiple opinions by Reynolds...... so one at a time; some people do blame GR for what happened/
when GR left, the club was in the league and all the really serious stuff (utter meltdown and chucked into the Northern League) was still to come/
people in sport (as in life in general) do tend to look for someone to blame/
Reynolds did lose substantially more money than any subsequent owner.

I'm no Reynolds fan, but I feel it's unfair to blame him for the wall of s*** that a spurned Raj Singh later unleashed, and whether or not you like Reynolds - - personally I can't see much wrong with that paragraph.
Good grief. I usually have respect for you and your opinions, but your apologetic post is utter rubbish. You sound like you have sympathy for the man. And you've massively missed my point.

He says the club was going quite well before he left. An utter lie. By the end of his reign there was disharmony behind the scenes. Wages weren't paid. His wife accused players of throwing matches. He banned journalists and fans from games. He bullied teenage fanzine editors. The team was struggling in the league. We had huge debts (reportedly around £20m) and no money to pay them with, resulting in administration.

Hardly going "well" is it?

To your other points -
Reynolds did lose substantially more money than any subsequent owner.
He made those choices against the advice of just about every sane person. He chose to overspend at unsustainable levels. He chose to build a grotesquely oversized stadium, and then name it after himself. He chose not to properly manage the club's finances. In short, he deserved to suffer financially because of the choices he made.

Do you seriously think he cared about the club? Because he didn't. He could not have cared less. It was all about him. He named the stadium after himself - what further proof do you need?
When GR left, the club was in the league and all the really serious stuff (utter meltdown and chucked into the Northern League) was still to come.


I'm stunned you've actually written this. "All the really serious stuff"?
So the Reynolds-induced administration which nearly killed the club wasn't "really serious" because we were in the Football League. Unbelievable.

"Hey, I know we were in administration, people lost their jobs and local businesses lost a load of money - but it's all fine because we could still play Southend and Wycombe."

I know I've sort of exploded here, but it really annoys me when people try to make excuses for Reynolds, or pity him because he lost money. He's done time for crying out loud!

He was, and still is, a really nasty piece of work. A waste of oxygen who deserved everything that followed.

And what's with this ranking of Singh, Houghton and Reynolds that people seem to get involved in? They were all self-serving charlatans who nearly destroyed the club, the lot of them.

As I say theoriginalfatcat, I usually have a lot of time for your views, but in this instance you're completely wrong.
Best post ever, darlogramps.

To be honest time is a great healer and it's easy to start forgetting - and I was certainly in the originalfatcat camp - thinking "oh well, he wasn't as bad as Houghton and Strings", and "well he did lose a hell of a lot of money as well" and so on.

But your post has nailed it. I now remember.

Reynolds caused not only what happened with him as you laid out point by point, but also everything that followed.

No Arena = no Houghton & Strings, and no homelessness because we might well still have been at Feethams.
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6718
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Sat Jun 04, 2016 1:22 pm

Okey dokey Gramps.....

Firstly, I still don't think anything in the paragraph highlighted is "a lie". It is G.R's point of view and I suppose what I was trying to point out to you last night was.... I can understand why he holds those views, whether they are unpopular or wrong is possibly another matter.

I'm no apologist for Reynolds, and I was in no way seeking to justify his actions of egotism and stupidity, and as Quakerz has pointed out, it's easy to forget some of the extreme things he did, so all the things you have written above are obviously correct, and I have had my memory refreshed by your post. Which incidentally I don't take objection to!

I was around during the Reynold's era and I do remember his bullying actions, and in fact, now you mention it, I nearly stopped going altogether because I was so sick of him and the way he turned our club into a laughing stock.

I think perhaps we have exchanged views on this once before, and I suppose it must be in my nature to 'forgive and forget' more than it's in your nature.

But having said all that, in my mind Singh will always be the biggest villain of the piece, and I'm entitled to hold that view, but I'm not going to engage in any kind of Reynolds/Singh - 'who's worst' debate, that would be tiresome.


Quakerz wrote:Reynolds caused not only what happened with him as you laid out point by point, but also everything that followed.No Arena = no Houghton & Strings, and no homelessness because we might well still have been at Feethams.
A little unfair Quakerz, to blame him for what happened years later. Houghton and Singh could have been successful, they could have made a go of it, and if they had of done, would you have given Reynold's the credit for 'everything that followed'?
GodAlmighty wrote:The fact that Reynolds is still alive at 80 is proof that I don't exist.

God bless.
Shut up God, I don't believe in you.
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Spyman » Sat Jun 04, 2016 2:13 pm

Darlogramps wrote:It's shocking the Echo, given their association with the club, allowed this blatant lie to be published:
“They blame what happened on me, but before I left they were going quite well. People in sport always want someone to blame. Look what happened to them after that. I was the only one who put his money where his mouth was.”
Is it a lie?

Reynolds put a fortune of his own cash into the club. Yes it went bitter but Houghton and Singh for example just borrowed against the club.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC

notgnilrad
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by notgnilrad » Sat Jun 04, 2016 2:53 pm

Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:It's shocking the Echo, given their association with the club, allowed this blatant lie to be published:
“They blame what happened on me, but before I left they were going quite well. People in sport always want someone to blame. Look what happened to them after that. I was the only one who put his money where his mouth was.”
Is it a lie?

Reynolds put a fortune of his own cash into the club. Yes it went bitter but Houghton and Singh for example just borrowed against the club.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

The trouble with Reynolds was his mouth was always 5 seconds ahead of his pea-brain. :twisted:

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:21 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:Okey dokey Gramps.....

Firstly, I still don't think anything in the paragraph highlighted is "a lie".
So you think everything was going well before he left? That's the bit I was referring to (I realise I could have made this clearer, although I thought more people would pick up on this).

For all the reasons I listed above, there's no way Reynolds can say things were going "quite well" before he left. We were a total mess and that's why I believe it's shocking the Echo even printed it.
theoriginalfatcat wrote:Houghton and Singh could have been successful, they could have made a go of it, and if they had of done, would you have given Reynold's the credit for 'everything that followed'?
Successful in what? They weren't interested in the club remember. They just wanted to make money out of developing the land around the Arena site.

That's been proven by both their actions in 2012. Singh wouldn't sign a CVA or hand over the football share until we gave him a cut of the development profits. And Houghton even came back when Singh put us in administration in 2012, but cleared off when he realised he had no way of making any money from us.

Because of various reasons (covenants, the land changing ownership to Scott + Sizer etc), that could never happen. They could never have been successful.
I suppose it must be in my nature to 'forgive and forget' more than it's in your nature.
Is that a back-handed way of saying "You're a vengeful old git"? :lol:
Last edited by Darlogramps on Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:34 pm

Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:It's shocking the Echo, given their association with the club, allowed this blatant lie to be published:
“They blame what happened on me, but before I left they were going quite well. People in sport always want someone to blame. Look what happened to them after that. I was the only one who put his money where his mouth was.”
Is it a lie?

Reynolds put a fortune of his own cash into the club. Yes it went bitter but Houghton and Singh for example just borrowed against the club.
I could have made it clearer, but the bit I was referring to was the "Before I left they were going quite well."

We weren't going quite well at all, for reasons I've listed above.

And the fact he put his own money in is irrelevant. His lack of a coherent business strategy, accumen, discipline or temperament ultimately ruined us.

When he took over, yes we were in trouble financially. But his ego and unwillingness to see reason proved to be the catalyst for the collapse of the club in 2012. Yes others had their part to play, and in my view Singh and Houghton are equally as culpable.

But if Reynolds had decided to be sensible, and build the club up efficiently and within its means, things may have turned out differently.

It doesn't take a genius to work out paying players beyond what the club could afford, alienating the squad, management, fans and local media, and then building a 25,000 seater stadium for a League Two club with attendances of below 5,000, isn't a sustainable business model. From then on, we were trying to repair the damage of his reign, rather than build ourselves up.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Spyman » Sat Jun 04, 2016 4:13 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:It's shocking the Echo, given their association with the club, allowed this blatant lie to be published:
“They blame what happened on me, but before I left they were going quite well. People in sport always want someone to blame. Look what happened to them after that. I was the only one who put his money where his mouth was.”
Is it a lie?

Reynolds put a fortune of his own cash into the club. Yes it went bitter but Houghton and Singh for example just borrowed against the club.
I could have made it clearer, but the bit I was referring to was the "Before I left they were going quite well."

We weren't going quite well at all, for reasons I've listed above.

And the fact he put his own money in is irrelevant. His lack of a coherent business strategy, accumen, discipline or temperament ultimately ruined us.

When he took over, yes we were in trouble financially. But his ego and unwillingness to see reason proved to be the catalyst for the collapse of the club in 2012. Yes others had their part to play, and in my view Singh and Houghton are equally as culpable.

But if Reynolds had decided to be sensible, and build the club up efficiently and within its means, things may have turned out differently.

It doesn't take a genius to work out paying players beyond what the club could afford, alienating the squad, management, fans and local media, and then building a 25,000 seater stadium for a League Two club with attendances of below 5,000, isn't a sustainable business model. From then on, we were trying to repair the damage of his reign, rather than build ourselves up.
I don't disagree with any of that. There was a difference between Reynolds and the two that followed. He was a wealthy egomaniac who had no idea how to run the club. The other two were probably pretty shrewd cutthroat businessmen who tried to use the club to develop their business portfolios and failed.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC

User avatar
grytters
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Sheffield

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by grytters » Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:21 pm

QuakerPete wrote:http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/featur ... hday_bash/

Not sure if anyone saw this from last month's Echo, Mike Amos trotting out the same banal crap about his mate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Behind. A. Paywall.

Neither use nor ornament.

QED
Bring Back the Quarters

lo36789
Posts: 10929
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by lo36789 » Sat Jun 04, 2016 8:20 pm

if you open echo pages on your mobile then you can see full articles - well works for me.

jjljks
Posts: 3014
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by jjljks » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:50 am

lo36789 wrote:if you open echo pages on your mobile then you can see full articles - well works for me.
Yes the mobile app seems to work like that, but why waste your time and effort? Just try to forget the whole sorry saga and think on better times like Whitby 1-7 and onto next season.

Mullet69
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:03 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Mullet69 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:45 am

It might be a sorry saga, but under all of those mentioned above we had some very good times. The bad times were desperate, but the good times were mint. Loved the 99/00 season with near capacity crowds (and the odd lockout), play-offs, the cup runs, the Penney-era, the Trophy win.

Only my opinion, but whilst GR might have been (or was) the catalyst for the greed and evil that followed from "property magnates" such as GH and RS, he was extremely naïve in the way he conducted himself as DFC owner. A bullying, obnoxious and confrontational businessman, loveable rogue to the media (and new-age football "fans"), pain in the arse to the real fans - not a nice man all-in-all, BUT he didn't screw the club into the ground deliberately for personal £££ gain, he was driven purely by his own ego and personal profile. He personally guaranteed the Sterling millions which were lent etc, meaning that when the debt couldn't be paid it was he who suffered as much as the football club. He was so confident of his ability to take Darlo up through the leagues with his own business "acumen" failure hadn't even entered his mind.

GR's agenda was to create an empire, and a legacy for himself - he wanted a piece of the pie when the profile of nationally and regionally unknown millionnaires was being raised annually purely by their involvement in football clubs, he wanted to be the sugardaddy that so many clubs at the time desired and ultimately idolised. When he couldn't ride roughshod over the covenant on the land around the Arena he didn't have a plan B - he wasn't bright enough - he had only one style.

Both GH and RS were very astute, they saw the opportunity, willing to put a bit of money in to the club short term to pacify the fans but all the while their interests lay firmly on the surrounding area and the development opportunities. These were ruthless businessmen, in a different league to GR. Both of these c**** would have razed the Arena to the ground if they'd thought they could build on it.

Yes, GR pulled the financial plug in 2000 when he decided that paying big wages, bonuses etc didn't guarantee overnight success.
Yes, he published every player's wage in the paper.
Yes, he took us out of Feethams and built the Arena
Yes, he kickstarted the chain of events that ultimately led to multiple admins, homelessness and Northern League football
Yes, his missus was a crank

But, is he really, really worse than RS or GH. Or even Peden or Brearley (much much shadier years, pre-internet) for that matter?
Mullet69uk on Twitter

lo36789
Posts: 10929
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by lo36789 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:58 am

I don't think he's worse but the question was whether he was at fault and whether the club was in a good position when he left...clearly it wasn't.

Reynolds was onto something if he'd had enough cash to see it through. In between 1998 and 2000 we played Swansea City, Peterborough, Brighton, Hull & Cardiff in the league.

If you could get into a good position in the early 2000s there was an opportunity to use money which filtered down to almost maintain your position in higher leagues.

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Spyman » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:56 am

lo36789 wrote:I don't think he's worse but the question was whether he was at fault and whether the club was in a good position when he left...clearly it wasn't.

Reynolds was onto something if he'd had enough cash to see it through. In between 1998 and 2000 we played Swansea City, Peterborough, Brighton, Hull & Cardiff in the league.

If you could get into a good position in the early 2000s there was an opportunity to use money which filtered down to almost maintain your position in higher leagues.
Possibly - but all are bigger places with bigger populations than Darlington, and with less geographical competition from other clubs for support. Peterborough is the only comparable one in that sense.
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC

Neil Johnson
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by Neil Johnson » Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:36 am

Beano wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:It's shocking the Echo, given their association with the club, allowed this blatant lie to be published:
“They blame what happened on me, but before I left they were going quite well. People in sport always want someone to blame. Look what happened to them after that. I was the only one who put his money where his mouth was.”
The article itself is cringe worthy - however gramps I can't go along with your "blatant lie" label.

The paragraph quoted contains multiple opinions by Reynolds...... so one at a time; some people do blame GR for what happened/
when GR left, the club was in the league and all the really serious stuff (utter meltdown and chucked into the Northern League) was still to come/
people in sport (as in life in general) do tend to look for someone to blame/
Reynolds did lose substantially more money than any subsequent owner.

I'm no Reynolds fan, but I feel it's unfair to blame him for the wall of s*** that a spurned Raj Singh later unleashed, and whether or not you like Reynolds - - personally I can't see much wrong with that paragraph.
Good grief. I usually have respect for you and your opinions, but your apologetic post is utter rubbish. You sound like you have sympathy for the man. And you've massively missed my point.

He says the club was going quite well before he left. An utter lie. By the end of his reign there was disharmony behind the scenes. Wages weren't paid. His wife accused players of throwing matches. He banned journalists and fans from games. He bullied teenage fanzine editors. The team was struggling in the league. We had huge debts (reportedly around £20m) and no money to pay them with, resulting in administration.

Hardly going "well" is it?

To your other points -
Reynolds did lose substantially more money than any subsequent owner.
He made those choices against the advice of just about every sane person. He chose to overspend at unsustainable levels. He chose to build a grotesquely oversized stadium, and then name it after himself. He chose not to properly manage the club's finances. In short, he deserved to suffer financially because of the choices he made.

Do you seriously think he cared about the club? Because he didn't. He could not have cared less. It was all about him. He named the stadium after himself - what further proof do you need?
When GR left, the club was in the league and all the really serious stuff (utter meltdown and chucked into the Northern League) was still to come.


I'm stunned you've actually written this. "All the really serious stuff"?
So the Reynolds-induced administration which nearly killed the club wasn't "really serious" because we were in the Football League. Unbelievable.

"Hey, I know we were in administration, people lost their jobs and local businesses lost a load of money - but it's all fine because we could still play Southend and Wycombe."

I know I've sort of exploded here, but it really annoys me when people try to make excuses for Reynolds, or pity him because he lost money. He's done time for crying out loud!

He was, and still is, a really nasty piece of work. A waste of oxygen who deserved everything that followed.

And what's with this ranking of Singh, Houghton and Reynolds that people seem to get involved in? They were all self-serving charlatans who nearly destroyed the club, the lot of them.

As I say theoriginalfatcat, I usually have a lot of time for your views, but in this instance you're completely wrong.
Totally correct, Darlogramps.

Anyone with an ounce of sympathy for Reynolds has no memory of the destruction he caused and the stuff he got up to behind the scenes.
Dont understand any sympathy for him. He put the club in financial & operational debt, robbed many local businesses, gave Feethams away and seriously damaged the football & supporter base of the club. All of assurances he made were lies.

onewayup
Posts: 2851
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Reynolds at 80

Post by onewayup » Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:47 pm

we were insolvent when George came ,the bailiffs were actually lifting the furniture from the Worthington stand when George Reynolds pulled up in his then green Rolls Royce ,and laid a cheque on the table to stop the club going bust.Had he not done so we were gone long before we actually did, yes he and successive owners eventually did for us ,but we were always struggling through one thing or another.sometimes you have to go back to move forward.
we have a club and i think it is now on a sound footing i am thankful for that long may the club continue to prosper.

Post Reply