Advertise Here
You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:00 pm View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 564 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 843
Team Supported: Darlington
lo36789 wrote:
Darl-Zero wrote:
Sorry if this has been mentioned but do the 200ish red seats in the clubhouse not count?


Nope got to be 4 rows deep to count for ground grading. There are only 3 rows.


Also too low down and (to quote the much-maligned FA grading document) 'Do not afford a good view of the pitch'. To be used you'd have to add a 4th row and raise that entire block. Not going to happen unless it was really cost-effective because our capacity would then be reduced as you couldn't have standing in front of it. Might be worth raising with the club.

Actually, one thing to come out of this is the conduit for ideas. Many of us on the message board say things like 'I wonder if that would be an idea, but I bet the club have pursued it'. Actually, it seems they have less time on our hands that we maybe thought. Perhaps we should be more forthcoming and e-mail thoughts and ideas. If we all look out for things as fans, like ground grading regulations, yes I know it's not 'our job' but it's the sort of thing we do anyway, then more things like this would be spotted. If it means the club getting a lot more communication, then I guess so be it if they need our help more. This would obviously mean them getting a lot more communication, but what is preferable.
Neil Johnson - just don't e-mail after too many real ales!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7543
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
Not necessarily there is current an allowance for 4 deep standing in front of that stand. You make a 4 deep stand behind and you don't lose anything.

You would lose a wee bit as I think the space for standing is smaller than seating but not a full whack.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:50 am
Posts: 31
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
The statement from the DFCSG makes no mention of this being any kind of oversight or mistake. No apology again. They state that every effort was made by the directors to explore alternative options and the club have been in discussion with the league for some time. The error was clealy discovered a while ago?

They then go on to pass the buck by saying that the board inherited a situation where the move to BM was incorrectly costed. DFCSG appear to have been very happy with the previous board who undercosted. It's not my fault, it's the guy before me.

They also state that every possible penny of the operating income has been provided to support the playing budget. If funds were to be diverted to employ full time directors or club secretary, e.g. a secretary would be in the region of £30k, this would restrict the playing budget significantly.

Yes, it would, but why mention the idea of employing a full-time director unless you are aware the current ones haven't done their job properly.

Neither of these statements show any contrition at the moment. Blaming everyone else and everything else. I think they've badly misjudged the current mood. I'm seriously not sure whether I trust these people with my money anymore.


Pretty much sums up my thoughts. A cock up has been made. admit it, stop blaming everyone else for it, remember who owns the club, move on....

The SG statement merely appeases that of the one issued by the FC and is not representative of me as a member. It's a time for clarity, honesty and transparency but until that happens, we are going nowhere sadly


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3029
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Actually, one thing to come out of this is the conduit for ideas. Many of us on the message board say things like 'I wonder if that would be an idea, but I bet the club have pursued it'. Actually, it seems they have less time on our hands that we maybe thought. Perhaps we should be more forthcoming and e-mail thoughts and ideas. If we all look out for things as fans, like ground grading regulations, yes I know it's not 'our job' but it's the sort of thing we do anyway, then more things like this would be spotted. If it means the club getting a lot more communication, then I guess so be it if they need our help more. This would obviously mean them getting a lot more communication, but what is preferable.


I was thinking the same thing. The Ask 1883 Forum should never have been closed - it was a good channel of communication.


Vodka_Vik also wrote "Interesting that I made the same mistake as the club, and came to the same conclusion about the timing of the rule change. It appears that the mistake is made if you don't google specifically enough. I'd better not volunteer my services in the future then."

I disagree Vik, your posts and ideas on this subject in my opinion have been spot on :thumbup:

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 843
Team Supported: Darlington
A further look at the FSIF website shows the following:

The FA National Ground Grading Criteria requires clubs at Step 2 to have 250 seats. Whilst it is acknowledged that the National League requires Step 2 clubs to have 500 seats to be eligible to participate in the “play-offs”, the additional 250 seats would not be eligible unless there was a demonstrable need in terms of average attendance.

So this is why we have to fund the full 150k ourselves.

This makes this 500 seats rule even more disgusting and discriminatory against community clubs like ourselves. The NL have a rule which simply prevents clubs like ourselves progressing. It is out of step with the rest of the ground grading rules. It is appalling that the FA have sanctioned this rule to stand when it is most likely over and above FSIF grants. OK if you are a club which has recently dropped down from the Conference or are rolling in money like Fylde and Salford but for up and coming clubs like ourselves and Poole then it is simply unacceptable. Yes it is a National League rule, but has to be sanctioned by the FA. It simply appears to be a barrier to stopping smaller or Community clubs progressing. The FA really are a disgrace. This should be able to form part of our appeal, but won't of course because the FA won't give a toss where the money is coming from. There should be more support for fan owned clubs like ourselves, or with Project Clubs you risk another Rushden and Diamonds when the owners get fed up.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 843
Team Supported: Darlington
Cheers for that FatCat, but I didn't do very well on that particular one!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3029
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
This makes this 500 seats rule even more disgusting and discriminatory against community clubs like ourselves. The NL have a rule which simply prevents clubs like ourselves progressing. It is out of step with the rest of the ground grading rules. It is appalling that the FA have sanctioned this rule to stand when it is most likely over and above FSIF grants. OK if you are a club which has recently dropped down from the Conference or are rolling in money like Fylde and Salford but for up and coming clubs like ourselves and Poole then it is simply unacceptable. Yes it is a National League rule, but has to be sanctioned by the FA. It simply appears to be a barrier to stopping smaller or Community clubs progressing. The FA really are a disgrace. This should be able to form part of our appeal, but won't of course because the FA won't give a toss where the money is coming from. There should be more support for fan owned clubs like ourselves, or with Project Clubs you risk another Rushden and Diamonds when the owners get fed up.


You're cooking on gas now Vik. Email this to the club ...

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 4707
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
A further look at the FSIF website shows the following:

The FA National Ground Grading Criteria requires clubs at Step 2 to have 250 seats. Whilst it is acknowledged that the National League requires Step 2 clubs to have 500 seats to be eligible to participate in the “play-offs”, the additional 250 seats would not be eligible unless there was a demonstrable need in terms of average attendance.

So this is why we have to fund the full 150k ourselves.


Good digging. I wonder if we have a case for needing more seats based on crowd demographics? Older fans and really young fans needing seating.

It does make the rule about needing 500 seats even harder to take when there is no external help for clubs to build them

_________________
https://fundraising.darlingtonfcsupportersgroup.org/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4616
Team Supported: Darlington
I believe the 500 seat rule was voted on and agreed by all clubs at the time. If we wanted to we could propose the rule is removed and see if everyone agrees.

I think the rule makes sense it means you need to start preparing for the next level and then when you get there it won't be as big an ask to develop the ground by 31st March.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4616
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Cheers for that FatCat, but I didn't do very well on that particular one!


Wouldn't worry about it Vic neither did the club.

Keep going though, you investigate things and are up for sensible debate, just what we need. :thumbup:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 4707
Team Supported: Darlington
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
I believe the 500 seat rule was voted on and agreed by all clubs at the time. If we wanted to we could propose the rule is removed and see if everyone agrees.

I think the rule makes sense it means you need to start preparing for the next level and then when you get there it won't be as big an ask to develop the ground by 31st March.

I can sort of understand the reasoning, but it is out of step with other levels of the pyramid. And it turns out you can't get FSIF funding for the improvements - which seems more than a little unfair.

_________________
https://fundraising.darlingtonfcsupportersgroup.org/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 843
Team Supported: Darlington
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
I believe the 500 seat rule was voted on and agreed by all clubs at the time. If we wanted to we could propose the rule is removed and see if everyone agrees.

I think the rule makes sense it means you need to start preparing for the next level and then when you get there it won't be as big an ask to develop the ground by 31st March.


It does make some sense, but not if you then implement it and expect clubs to pay for it fully. A rule which requires extra funding should not be out of harmony with the FSIF regulations, no matter how sensible it is. You seem to have a connection with the club Les. How would we go about getting this rule reviewed at the next National League meeting, which I'm sure we'll have a representative at, or at least ensuring that it is eligible for FSIF funding?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 577
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Hang on... According to the ground grading doc from the FA website, the May 2016 amendments are in red italics... Says it at the top of the page... Yet the 500 seats for promotion bit isnt in red italics, the only amendments in May 2016 were around 3G pitches... So was this in the previous version, presumably May 2015????


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4616
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
I believe the 500 seat rule was voted on and agreed by all clubs at the time. If we wanted to we could propose the rule is removed and see if everyone agrees.

I think the rule makes sense it means you need to start preparing for the next level and then when you get there it won't be as big an ask to develop the ground by 31st March.


It does make some sense, but not if you then implement it and expect clubs to pay for it fully. A rule which requires extra funding should not be out of harmony with the FSIF regulations, no matter how sensible it is. You seem to have a connection with the club Les. How would we go about getting this rule reviewed at the next National League meeting, which I'm sure we'll have a representative at, or at least ensuring that it is eligible for FSIF funding?


I have no connection to the club so not sure, they will be an AGM though for all clubs same as any league and I would assume from what I have read that you could propose a change.

I see the financing question and haven't read up on it but can't you get finance for any stand in advance? Is it not that we spent our allowed grant on other things whilst still spending close to 250k on player/staff budget.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4616
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Hang on... According to the ground grading doc from the FA website, the May 2016 amendments are in red italics... Says it at the top of the page... Yet the 500 seats for promotion bit isnt in red italics, the only amendments in May 2016 were around 3G pitches... So was this in the previous version, presumably May 2015????


Only version with the temp stand allowed that has been found is from 2008, so question to the board which documents were they reading. The last 3 seasons minimum temp stands have not been allowed.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 843
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Hang on... According to the ground grading doc from the FA website, the May 2016 amendments are in red italics... Says it at the top of the page... Yet the 500 seats for promotion bit isnt in red italics, the only amendments in May 2016 were around 3G pitches... So was this in the previous version, presumably May 2015????


I've looked into this in one of my previous posts.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 4707
Team Supported: Darlington
super_les_mcjannet wrote:

I have no connection to the club so not sure, they will be an AGM though for all clubs same as any league and I would assume from what I have read that you could propose a change.

I see the financing question and haven't read up on it but can't you get finance for any stand in advance? Is it not that we spent our allowed grant on other things whilst still spending close to 250k on player/staff budget.

I've only had a quick read of the FSIF site (so I'm far from an expert!), but it looks to me like we could only get a grant towards 250 seats. It says that:

"You are eligible to apply for grant aid to meet the membership conditions of your current league. If you are promoted, you are eligible to apply for grant aid to meet the membership conditions of the new league, but only after your promotion has been confirmed by the league."

and, separately,

"The FA National Ground Grading Criteria requires clubs at Step 2 to have 250 seats. Whilst it is acknowledged that the National League requires Step 2 clubs to have 500 seats to be eligible to participate in the “play-offs”, the additional 250 seats would not be eligible unless there was a demonstrable need in terms of average attendance."

That to me suggests help for 250 seats (that is, the cat B requirement), but no more than that (without demonstrable need), at step 2. Which makes the 500 seats needed for promotion quite unfair - which perhaps is the basis of our appeal.

_________________
https://fundraising.darlingtonfcsupportersgroup.org/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 577
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Vodka_Vic wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Hang on... According to the ground grading doc from the FA website, the May 2016 amendments are in red italics... Says it at the top of the page... Yet the 500 seats for promotion bit isnt in red italics, the only amendments in May 2016 were around 3G pitches... So was this in the previous version, presumably May 2015????


I've looked into this in one of my previous posts.


Seems very clear to me that this was not a May 16 rule change as the club have stated...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4616
Team Supported: Darlington
al_quaker wrote:
super_les_mcjannet wrote:

I have no connection to the club so not sure, they will be an AGM though for all clubs same as any league and I would assume from what I have read that you could propose a change.

I see the financing question and haven't read up on it but can't you get finance for any stand in advance? Is it not that we spent our allowed grant on other things whilst still spending close to 250k on player/staff budget.

I've only had a quick read of the FSIF site (so I'm far from an expert!), but it looks to me like we could only get a grant towards 250 seats. It says that:

"You are eligible to apply for grant aid to meet the membership conditions of your current league. If you are promoted, you are eligible to apply for grant aid to meet the membership conditions of the new league, but only after your promotion has been confirmed by the league."

and, separately,

"The FA National Ground Grading Criteria requires clubs at Step 2 to have 250 seats. Whilst it is acknowledged that the National League requires Step 2 clubs to have 500 seats to be eligible to participate in the “play-offs”, the additional 250 seats would not be eligible unless there was a demonstrable need in terms of average attendance."

That to me suggests help for 250 seats (that is, the cat B requirement), but no more than that (without demonstrable need), at step 2. Which makes the 500 seats needed for promotion quite unfair - which perhaps is the basis of our appeal.


I read that as we could possibly argue for financial support for 500 seats due to our average attendances but that wouldn't help a smaller club.

It does seem a little harsh, I have little to believe we will be successful in our appeal but maybe the FSIF need to look into that.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4616
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Hang on... According to the ground grading doc from the FA website, the May 2016 amendments are in red italics... Says it at the top of the page... Yet the 500 seats for promotion bit isnt in red italics, the only amendments in May 2016 were around 3G pitches... So was this in the previous version, presumably May 2015????


I've looked into this in one of my previous posts.


Seems very clear to me that this was not a May 16 rule change as the club have stated...


That's my assumption also.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 4707
Team Supported: Darlington
super_les_mcjannet wrote:

I read that as we could possibly argue for financial support for 500 seats due to our average attendances but that wouldn't help a smaller club.

It does seem a little harsh, I have little to believe we will be successful in our appeal but maybe the FSIF need to look into that.

I suppose the argument could be that if you can't afford to fund 250 seats yourself, then there's no chance of being able to fund a competitive conference team.

Like you say, we may be able to argue based on our attendances that we have people who want to sit who can't therefore we need more seats, but if one of the smaller clubs in the division had a surprisingly good season then they would have no chance of FSIF help. All comes back to the anomalous nature of the rule at this step - although I'll be staggered if the appeal is successful.

_________________
https://fundraising.darlingtonfcsupportersgroup.org/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 843
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Hang on... According to the ground grading doc from the FA website, the May 2016 amendments are in red italics... Says it at the top of the page... Yet the 500 seats for promotion bit isnt in red italics, the only amendments in May 2016 were around 3G pitches... So was this in the previous version, presumably May 2015????


I've looked into this in one of my previous posts.


Seems very clear to me that this was not a May 16 rule change as the club have stated...


Just remembered actually Swans that after I discovered the 2008 document I e-mailed the National League back in October to ask for further clarification, but they never got back to me. Unfortunately, it's one of those internal e-mail systems, so no record in my Sentbox. If they had bothered, then no doubt this rule change would have come to light. I've e-mailed them again and asked them to find my original e-mail and to ask why it never got acted upon. Just goes to show that it just takes one person in the chain to not do their job or this could have been discovered in October.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 2066
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Hang on... According to the ground grading doc from the FA website, the May 2016 amendments are in red italics... Says it at the top of the page... Yet the 500 seats for promotion bit isnt in red italics, the only amendments in May 2016 were around 3G pitches... So was this in the previous version, presumably May 2015????


I've looked into this in one of my previous posts.


Seems very clear to me that this was not a May 16 rule change as the club have stated...


Just remembered actually Swans that after I discovered the 2008 document I e-mailed the National League back in October to ask for further clarification, but they never got back to me. Unfortunately, it's one of those internal e-mail systems, so no record in my Sentbox. If they had bothered, then no doubt this rule change would have come to light. I've e-mailed them again and asked them to find my original e-mail and to ask why it never got acted upon. Just goes to show that it just takes one person in the chain to not do their job or this could have been discovered in October.


So in some parallel universe where the National league reply to emails we are now taking 500 down to Alfreton tomorrow before selling out on Bank Holiday Monday in an exciting play off push.. :wtf:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 843
Team Supported: Darlington
Don't overblow it. You know what I'm saying. It's just such an attitude that's hardly helpful at this time. The point I'm making is the point I made that it just takes someone in the chain to supply a piece of info that it comes to light. What exactly is your problem with what I've just said?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 2066
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Don't overblow it. You know what I'm saying. It's just such an attitude that's hardly helpful at this time. The point I'm making is the point I made that it just takes someone in the chain to supply a piece of info that it comes to light. What exactly is your problem with what I've just said?


Ha no you've got me wrong - I meant if they'd have answered the emails we'd have had a chance at doing something about it!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3029
Team Supported: Darlington
The appeal.

I'd love to know how they're going to play it? And who is organising it?

It has to be stronger than "we misunderstood the rules/didn't have time" etc

Will these details come out?

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 843
Team Supported: Darlington
m62exile wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Don't overblow it. You know what I'm saying. It's just such an attitude that's hardly helpful at this time. The point I'm making is the point I made that it just takes someone in the chain to supply a piece of info that it comes to light. What exactly is your problem with what I've just said?


Ha no you've got me wrong - I meant if they'd have answered the emails we'd have had a chance at doing something about it!


OK mate sorry for being oversensitive. Probably pissed off like the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:10 pm
Posts: 1175
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
The statement from the DFCSG makes no mention of this being any kind of oversight or mistake. No apology again. They state that every effort was made by the directors to explore alternative options and the club have been in discussion with the league for some time. The error was clealy discovered a while ago?

They then go on to pass the buck by saying that the board inherited a situation where the move to BM was incorrectly costed. DFCSG appear to have been very happy with the previous board who undercosted. It's not my fault, it's the guy before me.

They also state that every possible penny of the operating income has been provided to support the playing budget. If funds were to be diverted to employ full time directors or club secretary, e.g. a secretary would be in the region of £30k, this would restrict the playing budget significantly.

Yes, it would, but why mention the idea of employing a full-time director unless you are aware the current ones haven't done their job properly.

Neither of these statements show any contrition at the moment. Blaming everyone else and everything else. I think they've badly misjudged the current mood. I'm seriously not sure whether I trust these people with my money anymore.


Go on then. Put yourself forward for a position on the board. Put your head above the parapet, like the current encumbents have done, and stand.

And God help you when you make a cock up.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 843
Team Supported: Darlington
I'm sure the board want to make a public apology but just imagine if they did before the appeal is heard. It could well be read as an admission of guilt and a Blyth fan with a vendetta about the Bell incident last year would forward it straight to the FA. I'm sure someone will apologise in time but now is not the moment.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4616
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
I'm sure the board want to make a public apology but just imagine if they did before the appeal is heard. It could well be read as an admission of guilt and a Blyth fan with a vendetta about the Bell incident last year would forward it straight to the FA. I'm sure someone will apologise in time but now is not the moment.


Not convinced anything matters on the appeal.

I don't see any real grounds, other than please feel sorry for us we read the wrong rules and then when we found out we didn't have enough time or money to do anything.

Unless the League are feeling really nice then I can't see any reason to let us play.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 564 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JE93 and 38 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group