A "Misunderstanding" . . .

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

A "Misunderstanding" . . .

Post by QuakerPete » Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:50 pm

. . . between Raj Singh and the administrators is the explanation given about yesterday's latest debacle. You've got to wonder about the type of communication taking place between new owner, administrator, Houghton, Todd and the poor football club players and staff - never mind the fans! At a time when it should be all guns blazing to promote the club, its new start and new season . . . we get a "misunderstanding".

MikeinBlack
Posts: 3090
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:04 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Stockton-on-Tees

Re: A "Misunderstanding" . . .

Post by MikeinBlack » Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:57 pm

I have read the reports etc and I don't see what exactly was misunderstood! Was it the hand-over between the old Darlo FC Company and the new one, or was it that the Administrator's misunderstood what they are actually meant to be doing and with whom? Raj seems to indicate that the misunderstanding was between him or his people with the Administrators, but no details are given - are they?
COME ON DARLO!

Sussex07
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: A "Misunderstanding" . . .

Post by Sussex07 » Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:11 pm

"What we got here ....is a failure to communicate".. :think: :think: :think:

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

Re: A "Misunderstanding" . . .

Post by Mullet69 » Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Sussex07 wrote:"What we got here ....is a failure to communicate".. :think: :think: :think:

Does that mean we can throw the administrators in a pit and beat them senseless?

The entire passage from the film is so apt..

"Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men"
Mullet69uk on Twitter

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

Re: A "Misunderstanding" . . .

Post by Quakerz » Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:07 pm

It looks to me like the administrators got pissed off over something, thought fuck it and set the wheels in motion to liquidate us. Obviously then they got whatever concession it was that they wanted and we are back to "normal". This does not mean though, that the administrators are automatically to blame for this latest debacle - as there are two sides to every story and we have heard neither side to what was REALLY going on.

But part of the normal process? My arse!
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

AnthonyP
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:31 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: A "Misunderstanding" . . .

Post by AnthonyP » Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:15 pm

Couldn't agree more, Quakerz .....

something stinks :oops:

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

Re: A "Misunderstanding" . . .

Post by QuakerPete » Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:37 pm

Quakerz wrote:It looks to me like the administrators got pissed off over something, thought fuck it and set the wheels in motion to liquidate us. Obviously then they got whatever concession it was that they wanted and we are back to "normal". This does not mean though, that the administrators are automatically to blame for this latest debacle - as there are two sides to every story and we have heard neither side to what was REALLY going on.

But part of the normal process? My arse!
You could be right Quakerz, it might have been a bit of brinkmanship on the part of the administrators or it might have been Raj Singh pushing things a bit too far. Whatever happened, the explanation of a "misunderstanding" is just insulting to fans and anyone concerned about the club - I hope it's not a sign of things to come when we've been promised a fresh start.

darlo71
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:59 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: A "Misunderstanding" . . .

Post by darlo71 » Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:25 pm

The only misunderstanding was that RS and CT thought , quite rightly, that revenue from the friendly games was going into the coffers to give the club a boost. When they found that the administrators (I use that word lightly) were nicking it for themselves they pulled the plug on the Boro game.

After seeing a sizable chunk of money slip through their greasy fingers, the above mentioned admin team spat out their dummy, threw their toys out of their pram and told everyone to go home.... not realising that most of the staff that had returned had done so under the request of RS and therefore under the "employment" of RS and not the administrators.

Well done to RS and his team for spotting this blatant scam and preventing a pointless game from going ahead, risking injury to players and putting other players in the shop window for other teams to steal.
Why do today what you can put off 'til tomorrow

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

Re: A "Misunderstanding" . . .

Post by Quakerz » Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:52 pm

If this is true, I'm pleased that Raj and Tiodd pulled the plug because what a c**** trick the admin pulled there.

Also, you start to question WHY the creditors meeting was put back one week, and WHY after that there was another delay because some gopher "forgot" to hand some paper work in for about 5 days or so.

If the creditors meeting had taken place on 18th June as scheduled, then the 28 days would have been up on 16th July? That weeks delay meant that the 28 days couldn't be up until the 23rd July...long enough for the Sunderland, Newcastle and Hamilton friendlies to fall within the CVA appeal period, when the administrators were certain to still have financial control of the club and its INCOME. Then whoops, was that somebody forgetting to hand something over for a few days meaning it'd be a further week before we could exit admin? What a silly fool, just co-incidence that extra delay leaves the admin still in charge for the Boro game.

It all fits together now. c****!!
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

darlo71
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:59 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: A "Misunderstanding" . . .

Post by darlo71 » Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:48 am

Quakerz wrote:If this is true, I'm pleased that Raj and Tiodd pulled the plug because what a c**** trick the admin pulled there.

Also, you start to question WHY the creditors meeting was put back one week, and WHY after that there was another delay because some gopher "forgot" to hand some paper work in for about 5 days or so.

If the creditors meeting had taken place on 18th June as scheduled, then the 28 days would have been up on 16th July? That weeks delay meant that the 28 days couldn't be up until the 23rd July...long enough for the Sunderland, Newcastle and Hamilton friendlies to fall within the CVA appeal period, when the administrators were certain to still have financial control of the club and its INCOME. Then whoops, was that somebody forgetting to hand something over for a few days meaning it'd be a further week before we could exit admin? What a silly fool, just co-incidence that extra delay leaves the admin still in charge for the Boro game.

It all fits together now. c****!!
I'm certainly with you on what would seem to have been a deliberate delay on us coming out of administration. If RS and CT knew that the revenue from the friendly games would simply disappear into Mr Clark's back pocket, I doubt very much if the games would have been organised in the first place. They would have been better off playing friendlies against other non league or Scottish opposition instead. :x
Why do today what you can put off 'til tomorrow

Post Reply