Poole Town Play Off Issue and Darlo

[MKDarlo]

I think a call for funding on moving to BM might have worked when goodwill was high and the inference was clearly that no cash = no promotion. After all this I am not so sure we will raise that money

Out of interest when do you think this was?

Do you think it was in May when it wasn't clear we would actually have a signed agreement with the rugby club to play at Blackwell Meadows.

Was it in October when the ground was being built and we hadn't played a game there?

Was it in December/January when everyone was complaining about the price of a pint? Which would have been too late anyway because of the lead in time.

No idea. The simple fact remains the club should have known about the rule.

[H1987]

It's a simple question. 30-40k to achieve the grading or 150. It's an absolute no brainer. We other stand will need expanding later, but right now, let's get those moved and behind the goal asap.

This is so short term thinking its untrue. You do know there is a gigantic water pipe running under BM heavily restricting what can be built and where. It was identified at the opening of the ground there were very specific plans of how we would develop to get into the FL.

I suspect that plan involves extending the existing seating out by another module (500 seats) and then a terrace being built behind the goal which is at least twice the depth of the tinshed.

If we pay £30k/40k to dump a stand being the goal we will lose that money when it comes to doing the planned development behind the terrace.

Or, they could just expand that stand... you don't have those plans, they haven't been shared, and if it costs 150k for that tiny expanded seating area, where is the money coming from for a stand to cover 75% of the area behind the goal?

It isn't short termism at all. It makes total fiscal sense. It would maybe raise capacity by an albeit small amount (6 rows of seating as opposed to 4 deep standing) but vitally it'll immediately raise the grading so we could play in the league above. How many wasted seasons are you wanting to fund the extra seats on the side and then a stand 75% the width of the field!?

Good luck winning floating fans back when we can't even achieve promotion.

[MKDarlo]

I think a call for funding on moving to BM might have worked when goodwill was high and the inference was clearly that no cash = no promotion. After all this I am not so sure we will raise that money

The inference will still be exactly the same - no cash = no promotion next season.

The ball is always going to be in our court and the town will end up with the club that it can afford ultimately.

If that turns out to be a mid-table Nat N club with gates of 900-1100 and a ground that isn't fit for the next level, then it is what it is.

And that is my worry - we lose the painfully acquired good will and slip backwards.

[Quakerz]

It's a simple question. 30-40k to achieve the grading or 150. It's an absolute no brainer. We other stand will need expanding later, but right now, let's get those moved and behind the goal asap.

This is so short term thinking its untrue. You do know there is a gigantic water pipe running under BM heavily restricting what can be built and where. It was identified at the opening of the ground there were very specific plans of how we would develop to get into the FL.

I suspect that plan involves extending the existing seating out by another module (500 seats) and then a terrace being built behind the goal which is at least twice the depth of the tinshed.

If we pay £30k/40k to dump a stand being the goal we will lose that money when it comes to doing the planned development behind the terrace.

Or, they could just expand that stand... you don't have those plans, they haven't been shared, and if it costs 150k for that tiny expanded seating area, where is the money coming from for a stand to cover 75% of the area behind the goal?

It isn't short termism at all. It makes total fiscal sense. It would maybe raise capacity by an albeit small amount (6 rows of seating as opposed to 4 deep standing) but vitally it'll immediately raise the grading so we could play in the league above. How many wasted seasons are you wanting to fund the extra seats on the side and then a stand 75% the width of the field!?

Good luck winning floating fans back when we can't even achieve promotion.

Increasing to 500 seats won't get us Cat A, it will just enable us to be promoted.

THEN we'll need to spend further significant money upgrading the capacity by installing more terrace, extra turnstile etc etc.

There is no getting away from this.

[super_les_mcjannet]

Re:The May 2016 rule change. Further up this thread is the updated ground grading regulations. They are dated May 2016.

The B grade regulations have nothing in red in the seating section for promotion, which means this bit hasn't changed.

I might be wrong but I don't see any change in this section from 2015, so would beg the question what regulations have we been reading at the club.

The document advises anything in red has been changed but the bit we have failed on is not in red?

[Darlobaz79]

Poole appealing too

https://www.southcoastjournalism.co.uk/ ... appeal.php

[H1987]

The issue of the temporary seating is thus. Is it going to cost more than 150k to move and build a roof?

No it isn't. It is that simple. Also, yes, I'm sure a good deal of the original cost of them was transport from wherever they were made. Well they're about 10 miles away now. It's absolutely inexcusable and reckless stupidity for the club to pay 150k for another similar block of seating when those existing ones that we own and paid for at Bishop can be moved and have a roof put over them at a fraction of the cost.

Put it behind the goal, we can expand the side stand later. The club have been absolutely evasive about the cost of moving them from day one. It's complete and utter stupidity not to, especially when doing so will achieve the ground grading needed. If the cost of doing it was an extra 30k, it should have been fund raised for and made clear what that money was for and why. I have no doubt we could have raised it.

Not 100% sure on this but I believe the Temp seats at Bishop can not be made permanent seating, so would be no use at BM.

Well the line from the club has been cost, not that. (Although throughout they've been suspiciously silent). Honestly I fail to see why they couldn't be. They're basically identical to the areas behind the goal at Fulham, albeit on a much smaller scale. I fail to see how they'd be markedly different to the ones at BM now if you put a permanent roof over them. The materials are slightly different, but I have seen those materials used in permanent stands elsewhere.

It's a simple question. 30-40k to achieve the grading or 150. It's an absolute no brainer. We other stand will need expanding later, but right now, let's get those moved and behind the goal asap.

The most embarrassing bit. The ticket sales for a sold out play off semi would cover that cost, even accounting for running costs. FFS.

Your missing my point, from what I understand the temp seating can not be made permanent so no point moving them as we are not allowed temp seating to hit the 500 seats.

No issue with your numbers but in reality I don't believe it's an option.

I honestly don't see why it would be the case. There are tonnes of grounds where temporary seating has been turned into permanent seating. As I said above, Fulham is a great case in point. I'm sure the material the same, they've just stuck a roof over it.

As someone else has said, the seats at BM now are barely different. I don't understand why that would be the case, unless you have some kind of insider knowledge. In which case, the club should have shared it.

[super_les_mcjannet]

The issue of the temporary seating is thus. Is it going to cost more than 150k to move and build a roof?

No it isn't. It is that simple. Also, yes, I'm sure a good deal of the original cost of them was transport from wherever they were made. Well they're about 10 miles away now. It's absolutely inexcusable and reckless stupidity for the club to pay 150k for another similar block of seating when those existing ones that we own and paid for at Bishop can be moved and have a roof put over them at a fraction of the cost.

Put it behind the goal, we can expand the side stand later. The club have been absolutely evasive about the cost of moving them from day one. It's complete and utter stupidity not to, especially when doing so will achieve the ground grading needed. If the cost of doing it was an extra 30k, it should have been fund raised for and made clear what that money was for and why. I have no doubt we could have raised it.

Not 100% sure on this but I believe the Temp seats at Bishop can not be made permanent seating, so would be no use at BM.

Well the line from the club has been cost, not that. (Although throughout they've been suspiciously silent). Honestly I fail to see why they couldn't be. They're basically identical to the areas behind the goal at Fulham, albeit on a much smaller scale. I fail to see how they'd be markedly different to the ones at BM now if you put a permanent roof over them. The materials are slightly different, but I have seen those materials used in permanent stands elsewhere.

It's a simple question. 30-40k to achieve the grading or 150. It's an absolute no brainer. We other stand will need expanding later, but right now, let's get those moved and behind the goal asap.

The most embarrassing bit. The ticket sales for a sold out play off semi would cover that cost, even accounting for running costs. FFS.

Your missing my point, from what I understand the temp seating can not be made permanent so no point moving them as we are not allowed temp seating to hit the 500 seats.

No issue with your numbers but in reality I don't believe it's an option.

I honestly don't see why it would be the case. There are tonnes of grounds where temporary seating has been turned into permanent seating. As I said above, Fulham is a great case in point. I'm sure the material the same, they've just stuck a roof over it.

As someone else has said, the seats at BM now are barely different. I don't understand why that would be the case, unless you have some kind of insider knowledge. In which case, the club should have shared it.

I have as much knowledge as you on this one, other than I was told previously that the seats can not be turned into a permanent structure.

If they could for 40k or even more but less than 150k, I am sure they board would take that option.

Seems sensible to me that the situation is they can't be made permanent and count towards the seating capacity.

[al_quaker]

If they could for 40k or even more but less than 150k, I am sure they board would take that option.

Seems sensible to me that the situation is they can't be made permanent and count towards the seating capacity.

This is certainly the logical conclusion. Hopefully it's clarified at the fans forum.

[H1987]

It's a simple question. 30-40k to achieve the grading or 150. It's an absolute no brainer. We other stand will need expanding later, but right now, let's get those moved and behind the goal asap.

This is so short term thinking its untrue. You do know there is a gigantic water pipe running under BM heavily restricting what can be built and where. It was identified at the opening of the ground there were very specific plans of how we would develop to get into the FL.

I suspect that plan involves extending the existing seating out by another module (500 seats) and then a terrace being built behind the goal which is at least twice the depth of the tinshed.

If we pay £30k/40k to dump a stand being the goal we will lose that money when it comes to doing the planned development behind the terrace.

Or, they could just expand that stand... you don't have those plans, they haven't been shared, and if it costs 150k for that tiny expanded seating area, where is the money coming from for a stand to cover 75% of the area behind the goal?

It isn't short termism at all. It makes total fiscal sense. It would maybe raise capacity by an albeit small amount (6 rows of seating as opposed to 4 deep standing) but vitally it'll immediately raise the grading so we could play in the league above. How many wasted seasons are you wanting to fund the extra seats on the side and then a stand 75% the width of the field!?

Good luck winning floating fans back when we can't even achieve promotion.

Increasing to 500 seats won't get us Cat A, it will just enable us to be promoted.

THEN we'll need to spend further significant money upgrading the capacity by installing more terrace, extra turnstile etc etc.

There is no getting away from this.

Yes, but other work can be done on this longer term.

Guiseley, Solihull and North Ferriby all have a smaller capacity than us. The reason why they are allowed in the division above and have time to expand? They have the minimum covered seats.

[Quakerz]

It's a simple question. 30-40k to achieve the grading or 150. It's an absolute no brainer. We other stand will need expanding later, but right now, let's get those moved and behind the goal asap.

This is so short term thinking its untrue. You do know there is a gigantic water pipe running under BM heavily restricting what can be built and where. It was identified at the opening of the ground there were very specific plans of how we would develop to get into the FL.

I suspect that plan involves extending the existing seating out by another module (500 seats) and then a terrace being built behind the goal which is at least twice the depth of the tinshed.

If we pay £30k/40k to dump a stand being the goal we will lose that money when it comes to doing the planned development behind the terrace.

Or, they could just expand that stand... you don't have those plans, they haven't been shared, and if it costs 150k for that tiny expanded seating area, where is the money coming from for a stand to cover 75% of the area behind the goal?

It isn't short termism at all. It makes total fiscal sense. It would maybe raise capacity by an albeit small amount (6 rows of seating as opposed to 4 deep standing) but vitally it'll immediately raise the grading so we could play in the league above. How many wasted seasons are you wanting to fund the extra seats on the side and then a stand 75% the width of the field!?

Good luck winning floating fans back when we can't even achieve promotion.

Increasing to 500 seats won't get us Cat A, it will just enable us to be promoted.

THEN we'll need to spend further significant money upgrading the capacity by installing more terrace, extra turnstile etc etc.

There is no getting away from this.

Yes, but other work can be done on this longer term.

Guiseley, Solihull and North Ferriby all have a smaller capacity than us. The reason why they are allowed in the division above and have time to expand? They have the minimum covered seats.

You're supposed to have a capacity of 4,000 by March 31st of season following promotion in order to satisfy the criteria to stay in the conference and achieve grade A.

Maybe they have special dispensation due to having small fanbases, maybe they ARE up to grade A and 4,000 capacity now, maybe the information we have about them is out of date.

[lo36789]

Or, they could just expand that stand... you don't have those plans, they haven't been shared, and if it costs 150k for that tiny expanded seating area, where is the money coming from for a stand to cover 75% of the area behind the goal?

I am not going to teach you to suck eggs but terracing is more economical that seating. I believe that for every 1 person seating you get 1.5 standing, the cost of 1 metre of terracing is also less than seating.

So basically if you stick a terrace rather than a seated stand you get more people for less money.

The largest space that is undeveloped and had the depth and width to develop a significant stand that will take us above the FL capacity requirements (5,000) is there. If you put the module of how ever many deep it is there you instantly have to either remove that or match it with the rest of your development.

We can get promoted with the next 'planned' stage of development, and then enable the development of the next stand which will make us eligible to stay in the conference and also eligible for promotion to the FL.

Your suggestion is that we fit the new kitchen because we really want a new kitchen then do the knock through to make a kitchen/diner at the point we can afford to do that - which then involves fitting another new kitchen.

[Darlobaz79]

Re:The May 2016 rule change. Further up this thread is the updated ground grading regulations. They are dated May 2016.

The B grade regulations have nothing in red in the seating section for promotion, which means this bit hasn't changed.

I might be wrong but I don't see any change in this section from 2015, so would beg the question what regulations have we been reading at the club.

The document advises anything in red has been changed but the bit we have failed on is not in red?

It definitely changed because Truro played last year with temporary seats

[super_les_mcjannet]

Re:The May 2016 rule change. Further up this thread is the updated ground grading regulations. They are dated May 2016.

The B grade regulations have nothing in red in the seating section for promotion, which means this bit hasn't changed.

I might be wrong but I don't see any change in this section from 2015, so would beg the question what regulations have we been reading at the club.

The document advises anything in red has been changed but the bit we have failed on is not in red?

It definitely changed because Truro played last year with temporary seats

Seen this mentioned, any article to back it up? Just I have read both FA guidelines from May 2015 & May 2016 and nothing changed in temp structure part, unless I am missing something.

[Darlobaz79]

http://conferencesouthnomads.freeforums ... t1394.html

[Quakerz]

Re:The May 2016 rule change. Further up this thread is the updated ground grading regulations. They are dated May 2016.

The B grade regulations have nothing in red in the seating section for promotion, which means this bit hasn't changed.

I might be wrong but I don't see any change in this section from 2015, so would beg the question what regulations have we been reading at the club.

The document advises anything in red has been changed but the bit we have failed on is not in red?

It definitely changed because Truro played last year with temporary seats

Seen this mentioned, any article to back it up? Just I have read both FA guidelines from May 2015 & May 2016 and nothing changed in temp structure part, unless I am missing something.

It might be a red herring this "Truro played in the play offs with temporary seats"

The relevant question to ask is "how many permanent seats did Truro have in the play offs last season.

Clubs can have a mixture of permanent and temporary seating, but it is the amount of permanent seating which ground grading is based on.

[super_les_mcjannet]

http://conferencesouthnomads.freeforums ... t1394.html

Quickly read it, does it actually say they played with temp seats to make up the 500, all I seen was someone quoting Truro but no facts?

[super_les_mcjannet]

Re:The May 2016 rule change. Further up this thread is the updated ground grading regulations. They are dated May 2016.

The B grade regulations have nothing in red in the seating section for promotion, which means this bit hasn't changed.

I might be wrong but I don't see any change in this section from 2015, so would beg the question what regulations have we been reading at the club.

The document advises anything in red has been changed but the bit we have failed on is not in red?

It definitely changed because Truro played last year with temporary seats

Seen this mentioned, any article to back it up? Just I have read both FA guidelines from May 2015 & May 2016 and nothing changed in temp structure part, unless I am missing something.

It might be a red herring this "Truro played in the play offs with temporary seats"

The relevant question to ask is "how many permanent seats did Truro have in the play offs last season.

Clubs can have a mixture of permanent and temporary seating, but it is the amount of permanent seating which ground grading is based on.

I agree.

I am not 100% sure the rule has even changed from what I can read but our Board have quoted it did although it's identical on the FA PFD of Grade B for the last 2 seasons at the seating area.

[H1987]

Or, they could just expand that stand... you don't have those plans, they haven't been shared, and if it costs 150k for that tiny expanded seating area, where is the money coming from for a stand to cover 75% of the area behind the goal?

I am not going to teach you to suck eggs but terracing is more economical that seating. I believe that for every 1 person seating you get 1.5 standing, the cost of 1 metre of terracing is also less than seating.

So basically if you stick a terrace rather than a seated stand you get more people for less money.

The largest space that is undeveloped and had the depth and width to develop a significant stand that will take us above the FL capacity requirements (5,000) is there. If you put the module of how ever many deep it is there you instantly have to either remove that or match it with the rest of your development.

We can get promoted with the next 'planned' stage of development, and then enable the development of the next stand which will make us eligible to stay in the conference and also eligible for promotion to the FL.

Your suggestion is that we fit the new kitchen because we really want a new kitchen then do the knock through to make a kitchen/diner at the point we can afford to do that - which then involves fitting another new kitchen.

Right, well we need at least 1,000 seats on two sides on the pitch to get into the football league. Where in your grand strategy does that figure exactly?

[lo36789]

Right, well we need at least 1,000 seats on two sides on the pitch to get into the football league. Where in your grand strategy does that figure exactly?

Expect it will be some form of extension of the modules of the existing stand - again incremental increase.

Plus I wouldn't be surprised if there would be a need to redevelop the existing seating at Blackwell Meadows (clubhouse side) to make it at least 4 tiers deep (the minimum to be included in ground grading). I actually believe if you took out the 3 tiers that are there now and assuming there is adequate head room 4 tiers of seats could be added instead. It wouldn't actually increase capacity but it would increase seating volume. (http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.c ... s/4048210/)

There is also the option to be flexible like Macclesfield Town have been (https://magyarsteve.files.wordpress.com ... 120146.jpg). You make the terrace 12 tiers deep then you can get 8 of standing plus 4 of seating.

These are just guesses, but I just imagine planting a fixed 250 seat module at that end as quick as possible for the purpose of competing in the playoffs, which would in effect restrict capacity at that end to 500 is not a long term solution.

[HarryCharltonsCat]

The board have dropped a bollock. Mistakes happen. Will we be in any greater position if they resign? I doubt it. They all appear on paper to have the right skill sets for the position from what I can see. The one thing missing - experience of running a football club. Have we anyone out there eager to take their place who matches their skill sets and have that additional missing element? (and crucially don't live outside of Darlington as, even in this technologically joined up world, that appears to bar you from any active role in the club, though not from commenting on every minutiae of the running of the club). I doubt it, or they would have appeared by now. Until we pay someone to take on the responsibility then we have to accept that mistakes will happen.

Frankly, I can’t get worked up about it. There are way bigger things going on in the world that I am more concerned with. At the end of the day, we are talking about a provincial amateur football club, that means a great deal to about 1800 people, is looked on with fondness by about 1000 people, and is of minimal interest to the rest, outside of promotion games and Wembley visits. I go to the games, I give my money when called upon, but would I get involved with the day to day running of the club? No. I am therefore grateful to those who do in order that I have my Saturday afternoon filled. Having been involved in the running of a Sunday morning team for a while, I can only imagine the complexities at this level, and am amazed anyone would take on the role for nothing. Since I’m not prepared to walk in their shoes, I’m not prepared to castigate them for what I believe was a genuine mistake.

We are in no way, shape or form ready or able to take promotion to the Conference. That should be blatantly obvious to everyone. Our off field infrastructure lags far behind our on field progress. For all Spennymoor were lambasted for ensuring they had the infrastructure in place before they progressed through the leagues, perhaps they were not that stupid after all. Our rush to get ahead has probably played a part in this episode.

Somebody said that this episode will harm our reputation with the floating fans and stop them coming. A season of struggle in the Conference would also harm that reputation and stop them coming. In fact, I’m not sure many floating fans will ever become regulars whilst we are at Blackwell Meadows. We are at what I would consider our traditional level of support as it is. The only time in recent history we have exceeded this is when the “Hateful Three” were throwing money at us, and people had names they knew to watch. Watch in an all-seater, purpose built stadium. They would never have been attracted to us in our current status on a regular basis.

[robsraiders]

The board have dropped a bollock. Mistakes happen. Will we be in any greater position if they resign? I doubt it. They all appear on paper to have the right skill sets for the position from what I can see. The one thing missing - experience of running a football club. Have we anyone out there eager to take their place who matches their skill sets and have that additional missing element? (and crucially don't live outside of Darlington as, even in this technologically joined up world, that appears to bar you from any active role in the club, though not from commenting on every minutiae of the running of the club). I doubt it, or they would have appeared by now. Until we pay someone to take on the responsibility then we have to accept that mistakes will happen.

Frankly, I can’t get worked up about it. There are way bigger things going on in the world that I am more concerned with. At the end of the day, we are talking about a provincial amateur football club, that means a great deal to about 1800 people, is looked on with fondness by about 1000 people, and is of minimal interest to the rest, outside of promotion games and Wembley visits. I go to the games, I give my money when called upon, but would I get involved with the day to day running of the club? No. I am therefore grateful to those who do in order that I have my Saturday afternoon filled. Having been involved in the running of a Sunday morning team for a while, I can only imagine the complexities at this level, and am amazed anyone would take on the role for nothing. Since I’m not prepared to walk in their shoes, I’m not prepared to castigate them for what I believe was a genuine mistake.

We are in no way, shape or form ready or able to take promotion to the Conference. That should be blatantly obvious to everyone. Our off field infrastructure lags far behind our on field progress. For all Spennymoor were lambasted for ensuring they had the infrastructure in place before they progressed through the leagues, perhaps they were not that stupid after all. Our rush to get ahead has probably played a part in this episode.

Somebody said that this episode will harm our reputation with the floating fans and stop them coming. A season of struggle in the Conference would also harm that reputation and stop them coming. In fact, I’m not sure many floating fans will ever become regulars whilst we are at Blackwell Meadows. We are at what I would consider our traditional level of support as it is. The only time in recent history we have exceeded this is when the “Hateful Three” were throwing money at us, and people had names they knew to watch. Watch in an all-seater, purpose built stadium. They would never have been attracted to us in our current status on a regular basis.

Excellent post and mostly sums it up for me, disagree that the present board have cocked up, they took over a situation to get us back to town, they did it, remember the posts saying it would never happen ? Can any fan honestly say that we would be where we we are today 5 years ago?
Fan owned = fan funded, we have a fan base of around 2000 ish the last call on cash raised £100k from donations of circa 290 people if we can increase that commitment from the rest of the faithful we will achieve the quoted ground grading

[Quakerz]

The board have dropped a bollock. Mistakes happen. Will we be in any greater position if they resign? I doubt it. They all appear on paper to have the right skill sets for the position from what I can see. The one thing missing - experience of running a football club. Have we anyone out there eager to take their place who matches their skill sets and have that additional missing element? (and crucially don't live outside of Darlington as, even in this technologically joined up world, that appears to bar you from any active role in the club, though not from commenting on every minutiae of the running of the club). I doubt it, or they would have appeared by now. Until we pay someone to take on the responsibility then we have to accept that mistakes will happen.

Frankly, I can’t get worked up about it. There are way bigger things going on in the world that I am more concerned with. At the end of the day, we are talking about a provincial amateur football club, that means a great deal to about 1800 people, is looked on with fondness by about 1000 people, and is of minimal interest to the rest, outside of promotion games and Wembley visits. I go to the games, I give my money when called upon, but would I get involved with the day to day running of the club? No. I am therefore grateful to those who do in order that I have my Saturday afternoon filled. Having been involved in the running of a Sunday morning team for a while, I can only imagine the complexities at this level, and am amazed anyone would take on the role for nothing. Since I’m not prepared to walk in their shoes, I’m not prepared to castigate them for what I believe was a genuine mistake.

We are in no way, shape or form ready or able to take promotion to the Conference. That should be blatantly obvious to everyone. Our off field infrastructure lags far behind our on field progress. For all Spennymoor were lambasted for ensuring they had the infrastructure in place before they progressed through the leagues, perhaps they were not that stupid after all. Our rush to get ahead has probably played a part in this episode.

Somebody said that this episode will harm our reputation with the floating fans and stop them coming. A season of struggle in the Conference would also harm that reputation and stop them coming. In fact, I’m not sure many floating fans will ever become regulars whilst we are at Blackwell Meadows. We are at what I would consider our traditional level of support as it is. The only time in recent history we have exceeded this is when the “Hateful Three” were throwing money at us, and people had names they knew to watch. Watch in an all-seater, purpose built stadium. They would never have been attracted to us in our current status on a regular basis.

Top post, agree 100%

[Quakerz]

Right, well we need at least 1,000 seats on two sides on the pitch to get into the football league. Where in your grand strategy does that figure exactly?

Expect it will be some form of extension of the modules of the existing stand - again incremental increase.

Plus I wouldn't be surprised if there would be a need to redevelop the existing seating at Blackwell Meadows (clubhouse side) to make it at least 4 tiers deep (the minimum to be included in ground grading). I actually believe if you took out the 3 tiers that are there now and assuming there is adequate head room 4 tiers of seats could be added instead. It wouldn't actually increase capacity but it would increase seating volume. (http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.c ... s/4048210/)

There is also the option to be flexible like Macclesfield Town have been (https://magyarsteve.files.wordpress.com ... 120146.jpg). You make the terrace 12 tiers deep then you can get 8 of standing plus 4 of seating.

These are just guesses, but I just imagine planting a fixed 250 seat module at that end as quick as possible for the purpose of competing in the playoffs, which would in effect restrict capacity at that end to 500 is not a long term solution.

Basically if we ever get in the league, although entry is 1,000 seats we need to have 2,000 seats after a certain timescale.

I wonder why we built the seated stand as high as we did for such a low level 6 row block of seating? Pointless.

Mind you we could potentially get blocks of seating 10 rows or so high and fit them in that stand, but then why not buy them in the first place.

[darlo_baron]

The board have dropped a bollock. Mistakes happen. Will we be in any greater position if they resign? I doubt it. They all appear on paper to have the right skill sets for the position from what I can see. The one thing missing - experience of running a football club. Have we anyone out there eager to take their place who matches their skill sets and have that additional missing element? (and crucially don't live outside of Darlington as, even in this technologically joined up world, that appears to bar you from any active role in the club, though not from commenting on every minutiae of the running of the club). I doubt it, or they would have appeared by now. Until we pay someone to take on the responsibility then we have to accept that mistakes will happen.

Frankly, I can’t get worked up about it. There are way bigger things going on in the world that I am more concerned with. At the end of the day, we are talking about a provincial amateur football club, that means a great deal to about 1800 people, is looked on with fondness by about 1000 people, and is of minimal interest to the rest, outside of promotion games and Wembley visits. I go to the games, I give my money when called upon, but would I get involved with the day to day running of the club? No. I am therefore grateful to those who do in order that I have my Saturday afternoon filled. Having been involved in the running of a Sunday morning team for a while, I can only imagine the complexities at this level, and am amazed anyone would take on the role for nothing. Since I’m not prepared to walk in their shoes, I’m not prepared to castigate them for what I believe was a genuine mistake.

We are in no way, shape or form ready or able to take promotion to the Conference. That should be blatantly obvious to everyone. Our off field infrastructure lags far behind our on field progress. For all Spennymoor were lambasted for ensuring they had the infrastructure in place before they progressed through the leagues, perhaps they were not that stupid after all. Our rush to get ahead has probably played a part in this episode.

Somebody said that this episode will harm our reputation with the floating fans and stop them coming. A season of struggle in the Conference would also harm that reputation and stop them coming. In fact, I’m not sure many floating fans will ever become regulars whilst we are at Blackwell Meadows. We are at what I would consider our traditional level of support as it is. The only time in recent history we have exceeded this is when the “Hateful Three” were throwing money at us, and people had names they knew to watch. Watch in an all-seater, purpose built stadium. They would never have been attracted to us in our current status on a regular basis.

This! I am struggling to find the logic in calling for resignations of board members with immediate effect. Of course this has been a huge mistake however, there is hardly a glut of experienced individuals willing to run a football club voluntarily.

I am hoping at the fans forum that firstly, the board is as open as possible about the situation as possible with a frank admission of error. Secondly, the fans express any frustrations and criticisms constructively. It cannot be forgotten that a five year plan to improve our infrastructure, to support the club going forward, is to be announced and that fundraising alongside this. I hope as a club we can move forward positively after this setback in order to ensure its future.

[lo36789]

Fan owned = fan funded, we have a fan base of around 2000 ish the last call on cash raised £100k from donations of circa 290 people if we can increase that commitment from the rest of the faithful we will achieve the quoted ground grading

I think the other thing which somehow keeps being missed there seems to be a "the board don't care about the fans" perception on social media.

I just can't quite comprehend that thought pattern. Are people thinking that the board is made up of just random people who fancy volunteering significant amounts of time to a football club.

They are fans, they will be hurting as much (if not more) than anyone else over this. The fan on the street has basically put a bit of money into something (if that because only 290 people actually did). The board members are people who have put significant quantities of money in on top of their time.

[Yarblockos]

The board have dropped a bollock. Mistakes happen. Will we be in any greater position if they resign? I doubt it. They all appear on paper to have the right skill sets for the position from what I can see. The one thing missing - experience of running a football club. Have we anyone out there eager to take their place who matches their skill sets and have that additional missing element? (and crucially don't live outside of Darlington as, even in this technologically joined up world, that appears to bar you from any active role in the club, though not from commenting on every minutiae of the running of the club). I doubt it, or they would have appeared by now. Until we pay someone to take on the responsibility then we have to accept that mistakes will happen.

Nobody is asking for the entire board to resign, this is a complete straw man. If people don't trust those in charge (and I certainly don't) then some of those responsible will have to go. We are not here to say "fine you are a volunteer, its OK if you do a s*** job, we don't mind". What matters most is the future wellbeing of this football club. We expect a certain level of competence, and we need to trust that those in charge are able to run the club.

Reputation matters in the real world. We want local businesses to trust us. Its taken years to shake off our bad reputation, but if they look at us and think those in charge are incompetent then they will not invest and they will not back us. What do we say to businesses and the council, "Yes, I know our board are incompetent, but hey, there is a war in Syria, so lighten up".

IMO we need a full-time club secretary. Obviously whatever "skill sets" the current board members have they have not proven to be adequate enough to prevent this huge cock up. Last season we almost lost 12 points because of another administrative cock-up. It makes sense to stabilise the off field foundations first even if that means cutting the playing budget, which IMO, the board have also been over generous with.

To put it simply, I do not have trust in the board as it stands, and I don't think I am the only one. We don't want to punish people, we understand they will be hurting and they will probably be deeply upset. But, we want the club to do well and to be run correctly. It would not be in the best interests of the football club for all those responsible to remain in control.

[Daidy]

The board have dropped a bollock. Mistakes happen. Will we be in any greater position if they resign? I doubt it. They all appear on paper to have the right skill sets for the position from what I can see. The one thing missing - experience of running a football club. Have we anyone out there eager to take their place who matches their skill sets and have that additional missing element? (and crucially don't live outside of Darlington as, even in this technologically joined up world, that appears to bar you from any active role in the club, though not from commenting on every minutiae of the running of the club). I doubt it, or they would have appeared by now. Until we pay someone to take on the responsibility then we have to accept that mistakes will happen.

Frankly, I can’t get worked up about it. There are way bigger things going on in the world that I am more concerned with. At the end of the day, we are talking about a provincial amateur football club, that means a great deal to about 1800 people, is looked on with fondness by about 1000 people, and is of minimal interest to the rest, outside of promotion games and Wembley visits. I go to the games, I give my money when called upon, but would I get involved with the day to day running of the club? No. I am therefore grateful to those who do in order that I have my Saturday afternoon filled. Having been involved in the running of a Sunday morning team for a while, I can only imagine the complexities at this level, and am amazed anyone would take on the role for nothing. Since I’m not prepared to walk in their shoes, I’m not prepared to castigate them for what I believe was a genuine mistake.

We are in no way, shape or form ready or able to take promotion to the Conference. That should be blatantly obvious to everyone. Our off field infrastructure lags far behind our on field progress. For all Spennymoor were lambasted for ensuring they had the infrastructure in place before they progressed through the leagues, perhaps they were not that stupid after all. Our rush to get ahead has probably played a part in this episode.

Somebody said that this episode will harm our reputation with the floating fans and stop them coming. A season of struggle in the Conference would also harm that reputation and stop them coming. In fact, I’m not sure many floating fans will ever become regulars whilst we are at Blackwell Meadows. We are at what I would consider our traditional level of support as it is. The only time in recent history we have exceeded this is when the “Hateful Three” were throwing money at us, and people had names they knew to watch. Watch in an all-seater, purpose built stadium. They would never have been attracted to us in our current status on a regular basis.

One of the interesting things about all of this seems to be the disconnect between different sets of fans about what our expectations are regarding the board and the running of the club.

My own belief is that yes, I am glad that they are willing to volunteer but that as a shareholder of the club, and someone who has donated to the fund to build the stadium, that we should be allowed to question the decision making of the board and that they are not immune to criticism.

Of course we are a relatively small football club but this is still a business which generates a decent amount of revenue and is also asking for significant sums of money on a regular basis from its stakeholders (the two bail outs spring to mind). If those in charge make basic errors and are called out on that, well then I think that actually comes with the territory of the role they chose to stand for and were elected to.

I'm not saying your view is wrong either; I just suspect that the differences between those two views is what is causing a lot of the friction between fans regarding this issue.

Football is an emotive sport and we have to remember that it is just a game, it isn't a matter of life and death. I am sure the person responsible for this feels terrible and hopefully we can move forward in a positive and constructive manner, whatever shape that takes.

[tezza]

The board have dropped a bollock. Mistakes happen. Will we be in any greater position if they resign? I doubt it. They all appear on paper to have the right skill sets for the position from what I can see. The one thing missing - experience of running a football club. Have we anyone out there eager to take their place who matches their skill sets and have that additional missing element? (and crucially don't live outside of Darlington as, even in this technologically joined up world, that appears to bar you from any active role in the club, though not from commenting on every minutiae of the running of the club). I doubt it, or they would have appeared by now. Until we pay someone to take on the responsibility then we have to accept that mistakes will happen.

Nobody is asking for the entire board to resign, this is a complete straw man. If people don't trust those in charge (and I certainly don't) then some of those responsible will have to go. We are not here to say "fine you are a volunteer, its OK if you do a s*** job, we don't mind". What matters most is the future wellbeing of this football club. We expect a certain level of competence, and we need to trust that those in charge are able to run the club.

Reputation matters in the real world. We want local businesses to trust us. Its taken years to shake off our bad reputation, but if they look at us and think those in charge are incompetent then they will not invest and they will not back us. What do we say to businesses and the council, "Yes, I know our board are incompetent, but hey, there is a war in Syria, so lighten up".

IMO we need a full-time club secretary. Obviously whatever "skill sets" the current board members have they have not proven to be adequate enough to prevent this huge cock up. Last season we almost lost 12 points because of another administrative cock-up. It makes sense to stabilise the off field foundations first even if that means cutting the playing budget, which IMO, the board have also been over generous with.

To put it simply, I do not have trust in the board as it stands, and I don't think I am the only one. We don't want to punish people, we understand they will be hurting and they will probably be deeply upset. But, we want the club to do well and to be run correctly. It would not be in the best interests of the football club for all those responsible to remain in control.

Where are these replacement board members coming from ? There have been several appeals for more Directors. To my knowledge the silence was deafening. We cannot get enough volunteers to man the car parks. Get real , these Directors, despite this mistake have delivered beyond what most of us could have achieved. The blood letting will not solve anything.

[lo36789]

Football is an emotive sport and we have to remember that it is just a game, it isn't a matter of life and death. I am sure the person responsible for this feels terrible and hopefully we can move forward in a positive and constructive manner, whatever shape that takes.

I am not convinced that someone on the current board was ultimately responsible for this. Which I don't think you or Yarblockos seem to comprehend.

Look even in the wider business word current CEOs do not lose their jobs over the alleged misdemeanours of previous role holders (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... case-june/)

Yarblockos keeps making reference to things that happened before any of the existing board were on board, and that is affecting his confidence in the current members.

I'm half tempted to put my name forward to sit on the board until next Thursday and hand my resignation in as the person responsible for this - as that would somehow give everyone full confidence once again.