Poole Town Play Off Issue and Darlo

[Yarblockos]

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.

I think you are absolutely correct. Both sets of fans have the best interests of the football club at heart. For some its an attitude of "the board are volunteers, they made a mistake, not too much damage done, we have to move on". Personally, I think its such a serious mistake that changes need to be made before we move on. Firstly, so we don't make such mistakes in future and mainly so that the fans have trust in the board again. I think the general consensus on social media is more similar to my view than the other. I appreciate that others feel this represents a thirst for blood or for punishment, but for me it's about establishing trust.

If I was a volunteer and I was responsible for this would I resign? Yes. In any case, whether anyone resigns or not, if fans are unhappy with the performance of board members then they will be voted off.

[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.

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.

A surgeon who performs a 1000 succesfull operations will still be struck off through one act of gross misconduct. The question is whether you, or others, consider this mistake to be serious or trivial. You use the rather emotive term "blood letting" where others may use the term "not very good at their job so was asked to leave". This mistake will damage the reputation of the board and the club both with the fans and the local community, that is my concern.

I am hopeful this latest debacle will inspire more potential directors to come forward. If not, then maybe we can't really make a go of it as a fan owned club.

[lo36789]

A surgeon who performs a 1000 succesfull operations will still be struck off through one act of gross misconduct.

You think this mistake in any employment tribunal would constitute gross misconduct?

[H1987]

Look, I don't think see how putting those seats behind the goal would matter. In addition, the roof would be the only permanent structure, so if it needed to be moved around the ground, it would be an option. I honestly believe the best solution behind that goal is seating. I also believe, for the sake of admission to the Football league you have to provide seated provisions for away fans so you need something there. I'm pretty sure that block contains 300 seats doesn't it? You can fit at least two of them behind the goal before reaching the pipe, if not more.

Developing the clubhouse side was a possibility before we opted for massive, obstructive dugouts which need moving even to accommodate people standing. At the end of the day, we have the ability to give us something to play for next season in a cost effective way. It doesn't have to go there, but there is more than enough room for it to go somewhere else. We're supposed to be living within our means. You can put a terrace next to it if you really want to later. It was, and still is, the cheapest solution not only to ground grading, but also better views and seats for kids. Not moving it is absolute nuts, and a sold out playoff game could potentially have generated the money to do it.

[H1987]

Also, no one should be sacked or anything else, but it looks like this season is a write off because of a fuck up, and at the very least an apology should be forthcoming, rather than a statement that just tries to pass the buck.

[Yarblockos]

A surgeon who performs a 1000 succesfull operations will still be struck off through one act of gross misconduct.

You think this mistake in any employment tribunal would constitute gross misconduct?

I have no idea. The point I am making is that having done your job as you were supposed to in the past does not mean a huge mistake should be ignored. The board represent the fans. If we think they have acted in an incompetent manner then we replace them, whether you like it or not. Of course, the other option is that we have nobody to replace them with, which is not exactly an inspiring vote of confidence.

Do you know someone on the board btw?

[Daidy]

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.

If you think this doesn't fall under someone's remit who is currently on the board then I'm not sure it's even worth carrying on this debate.

Richard Cook was appointed to the board in February 2016, John Tempest was already there. This rule changed in May 2016. Building work at Blackwell Meadows hadn't even started.

If you think that it is acceptable and constitutes due diligence to get plans approved and funding into place, then never check again on whether what you are building meets current or new regulations (despite knowing rules are updated in May of each year), then maybe that is the disconnect between mine and your expectations. I would argue that your expectations are frankly so low, practically anyone of any experience could meet them.

I find it hard to comprehend and utterly baffling that you don't think someone on the current board bears responsibility for this.

[Beano]

Do you know someone on the board btw?

Judging the desperately defensive nature of his recent posts, yes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[al_quaker]

I wonder if we will hear from the supporters group? They are the majority shareholder, and represent (a lot of) the fans.

I'll be honest I'm not 100% sure of our board structure. Do the SG have someone who sits on the football club board? Do the SG challenge the football club directors on the decisions they take? The FC statement says that the SG are regularly updated on developments, but there is a feeling among many fans regarding "being kept in the dark".

Please don't take this as criticism of the SG - I know they do lots of great work, and I know they have been busy with the 5 year development plans. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, there is a chance to use this event to look at how the club is functioning off the pitch, and perhaps make improvements for the long term improvement of the football club.

[Vodka_Vic]

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.

If you think this doesn't fall under someone's remit who is currently on the board then I'm not sure it's even worth carrying on this debate.

Richard Cook was appointed to the board in February 2016, John Tempest was already there. This rule changed in May 2016. Building work at Blackwell Meadows hadn't even started.

If you think that it is acceptable and constitutes due diligence to get plans approved and funding into place, then never check again on whether what you are building meets current or new regulations (despite knowing rules are updated in May of each year), then maybe that is the disconnect between mine and your expectations. I would argue that your expectations are frankly so low, practically anyone of any experience could meet them.

I find it hard to comprehend and utterly baffling that you don't think someone on the current board bears responsibility for this.

I'm pretty sure no-one on the board knew that the regulations changed in May every year or they would have checked and this would have been avoided.

[lo36789]

Do you know someone on the board btw?

Nope. I know who they are - obviously since I am a DFCSG member so was able to vote.

If you think this doesn't fall under someone's remit who is currently on the board then I'm not sure it's even worth carrying on this debate.

No I am asking you who - who is Head of Policy and Regulation? That is my point. I actually think that the whole R&R piece since day 1 hasn't ever been that clear, and that issue pre-dates any current board member.

I'd be more than happy to facilitate an operational risk assessment for the club if that would in anyway help, given that is my specialisation - but frankly we get about as much buy in from businesses mandated to have us by the regulators - not sure how a football club would respond. I am also not convinced how much Information Security, Financial Crime and Fraud risks are prominent in the business, but I suppose the methodology is the same...

[Daidy]

Do you know someone on the board btw?

Nope. I know who they are - obviously since I am a DFCSG member so was able to vote.

If you think this doesn't fall under someone's remit who is currently on the board then I'm not sure it's even worth carrying on this debate.

No I am asking you who - who is Head of Policy and Regulation? That is my point. I actually think that the whole R&R piece since day 1 hasn't ever been that clear, and that issue pre-dates any current board member.

I'd be more than happy to facilitate an operational risk assessment for the club if that would in anyway help, given that is my specialisation - but frankly we get about as much buy in from businesses mandated to have us by the regulators - not sure how a football club would respond.

I am also not convinced how much Information Security, Financial Crime and Fraud risks are prominent in the business, but I suppose the methodology is the same...

Nobody knows the breakdown of each director's role, otherwise the one person it fell to would have been named already. Quite frankly, I actually think all three directors will have a level of responsibility on this one. It has been such a crucial and vital part of what the club has been doing for the past two years, that I would be surprised if all three hadn't been involved in discussions, meetings etc about or involving the ground grading.

Whether there was one person responsible for clarifying the National League rules in respect to the ground grading we shall see, and that is something the board need to communicate. If no-one was assigned that task, then that is firstly absolutely ridiculous and cavalier, and secondly, I would expect the entire board to take responsibility for that decision.

[lo36789]

I would expect the entire board to take responsibility for that decision.

I actually think they already have. I'll be honest that is how I read the comms, they didn't pass blame on that.

The problem is the collective board taking responsibility doesn't give Yarblockos his person to shout at next time he sees him at a Darlo game.

[Daidy]

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.

If you think this doesn't fall under someone's remit who is currently on the board then I'm not sure it's even worth carrying on this debate.

Richard Cook was appointed to the board in February 2016, John Tempest was already there. This rule changed in May 2016. Building work at Blackwell Meadows hadn't even started.

If you think that it is acceptable and constitutes due diligence to get plans approved and funding into place, then never check again on whether what you are building meets current or new regulations (despite knowing rules are updated in May of each year), then maybe that is the disconnect between mine and your expectations. I would argue that your expectations are frankly so low, practically anyone of any experience could meet them.

I find it hard to comprehend and utterly baffling that you don't think someone on the current board bears responsibility for this.

I'm pretty sure no-one on the board knew that the regulations changed in May every year or they would have checked and this would have been avoided.

I'll rephrase that then. Once we were promoted into the National League North, the board surely have a duty to make themselves familiar with the 2016/17 rules and regulations for the league and those from the FA (and by extension, not just assumed that the rules would stay the same as they did the year before).

Clearly, they didn't do this. If they had, you are right, we wouldn't be where we are now. That is why I see it as such a basic error.

[lo36789]

Clearly, they didn't do this. If they had, you are right, we wouldn't be where we are now. That is why I see it as such a basic error.

Nope we'd be probably fighting relegation...

[Daidy]

I would expect the entire board to take responsibility for that decision.

I actually think they already have. I'll be honest that is how I read the comms, they didn't pass blame on that.

The problem is the collective board taking responsibility doesn't give Yarblockos his person to shout at next time he sees him at a Darlo game.

Fair enough. I didn't personally read it like that (thought there was too much buck passing as I've said earlier in the thread) but I'm not going to second guess their intentions and I am sure they will clarify at the fans forum.

I think that is unfair on Yarblockos. He has already said he isn't just calling for someone's head for the sake of it but he does (like me) want to find out why this happened, make sure the person/people are held accountable (doesn't necessarily mean they will lose their place on the board) and see how steps will be taken to ensure this doesn't happen again. For me, this is what needs to happen to see trust regained and rebuilt so that we can get on with the next steps as a club.

[Daidy]

Clearly, they didn't do this. If they had, you are right, we wouldn't be where we are now. That is why I see it as such a basic error.

Nope we'd be probably fighting relegation...

You've lost me.....

[lo36789]

Clearly, they didn't do this. If they had, you are right, we wouldn't be where we are now. That is why I see it as such a basic error.

Nope we'd be probably fighting relegation...

You've lost me.....

£150k is 50% of our revenue - god knows how much of our playing budget.

[Daidy]

Clearly, they didn't do this. If they had, you are right, we wouldn't be where we are now. That is why I see it as such a basic error.

Nope we'd be probably fighting relegation...

You've lost me.....

£150k is 50% of our revenue - god knows how much of our playing budget.

........or the board would have openly acknowledged that we don't have the grading to get promoted at this stage and therefore plan a careful blueprint of how we raise those funds over a certain period to get the ground up to scratch, whilst adequately competing in the division to ensure we don't get relegated.

You know, how a normal, balanced, well-run non-league football club would do it.

I think, as you can tell by many of the comments on here, most fans acknowledge we have progressed quicker than we imagined and also that a couple of years at this level whilst we build off the field and try to make the finances as sustainable as possible would be no bad thing.

If this could have been done without the loss of goodwill, the embarrassment caused to the club, the loss of potential finance which could have been spent on the stadium but has gone on the squad this year, the harm this may have done to any future fundraising drive, then I think everyone would have been quite accepting.

[darlo2001uk]

Those calling for resignations should address the natural follow-up question:

Is there anyone better out there who is willing and capable to devote many hundreds of unpaid hours into running a football club so that we can enjoy our Saturday afternoon's watching the team?

The one clear message to come out of this is that we are now at a level where we need to invest in a part-time employee to manage the day-to-day running of the club off the pitch.

If that results in a smaller playing budget, so be it.

[princes town]

I'll be honest I'm not 100% sure of our board structure. Do the SG have someone who sits on the football club board? Do the SG challenge the football club directors on the decisions they take? The FC statement says that the SG are regularly updated on developments, but there is a feeling among many fans regarding "being kept in the dark".

Please don't take this as criticism of the SG - I know they do lots of great work, and I know they have been busy with the 5 year development plans. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, there is a chance to use this event to look at how the club is functioning off the pitch, and perhaps make improvements for the long term improvement of the football club.

The fans group is excellent. There is a "corporate director" position which effectively is the fans group. I don't think the post is filled by an individual as it requires significant capital but that shouldn't mean that the role isn't a conduit to shape policy.

If there is one good thing to result from this situation is that it has moved the focus to off the field issues. My own take is there needs to be a complete review of club functions and risks as I'm not really sure they are all covered satisfactorily. The move to Bm has clearly exposed vulnerabilities. The fans group seems disproportionately dominated by retail and fund raising functions which I accept are important objectives. However, it is less obvious where accountability for other delivery functions lie that support the club.

We should be encouraged that the fans group are working on a 5 year plan, and organisational overview. Absolutely right. The fans group has great people on it who are very competent and committed but I'm not sure the functional cover is quite there yet or perhaps not obvious. Saying that, no doubt there are much fewer volunteers than needed for the tasks required.

My position since year 1 has been that the focus has been far too much on the playing issues. Very difficult to offer this argument when the football success is so rapid but I've always said it. For example, staffing strategy should include volunteers as much as players. Do we need a full-time paid secretary? Do we have enough volunteers? who manages them? What needs doing to run a club? In fact, several weeks ago I posted that the functional staffing budget should not be compromised to feed fans desire for a maximised playing budget. It is short term lunacy when you have a fan base like we do and service a large entertainment spectacle.

In this respect, I thought the board made a perfectly good decision in linking the playing budget to season ticket sales. It would be crazy to syphon all our money on the playing budget for the conference without an infrastructure to support it. I'd also be quite worried as well about holding another 3000 + crowd event after Halifax. I love the playoffs but that concerns me.

[princes town]

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.

I think you are absolutely correct. Both sets of fans have the best interests of the football club at heart. For some its an attitude of "the board are volunteers, they made a mistake, not too much damage done, we have to move on". Personally, I think its such a serious mistake that changes need to be made before we move on. Firstly, so we don't make such mistakes in future and mainly so that the fans have trust in the board again. I think the general consensus on social media is more similar to my view than the other. I appreciate that others feel this represents a thirst for blood or for punishment, but for me it's about establishing trust.

If I was a volunteer and I was responsible for this would I resign? Yes. In any case, whether anyone resigns or not, if fans are unhappy with the performance of board members then they will be voted off.

the vast majority of volunteers apply the same professionalism to the club as they probably do the day job. The harsh truth is, however, it is an inherently unstable system, moreso for a club of our size. I suspect we need a hybrid system accepting that this may lead to a reduction in the playing budget.

[princes town]

The one clear message to come out of this is that we are now at a level where we need to invest in a part-time employee to manage the day-to-day running of the club off the pitch.

If that results in a smaller playing budget, so be it.

I completely agree.

[Vodka_Vic]

What will be interesting will be the build-up to normal games from now on until the end of the season on the official website. Obviously there won't be any headline captions like 'Quakers seek to maintain play-off push'. I wonder if there will be much fewer interviews. I wouldn't envy being in Ray Simpson's shoes doing interviews with the players and especially MG.

[al_quaker]

I'll be honest I'm not 100% sure of our board structure. Do the SG have someone who sits on the football club board? Do the SG challenge the football club directors on the decisions they take? The FC statement says that the SG are regularly updated on developments, but there is a feeling among many fans regarding "being kept in the dark".

Please don't take this as criticism of the SG - I know they do lots of great work, and I know they have been busy with the 5 year development plans. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, there is a chance to use this event to look at how the club is functioning off the pitch, and perhaps make improvements for the long term improvement of the football club.

The fans group is excellent. There is a "corporate director" position which effectively is the fans group. I don't think the post is filled by an individual as it requires significant capital but that shouldn't mean that the role isn't a conduit to shape policy.

Thanks - I like to think I'm reasonably clued up about the FC, but I don't really know the structure. Links back to my thoughts that we can use this as an opportunity to reshape some of the parts of the club which aren't working as well as the could be - communications between those making decisions and fans being one of them.

I have no doubt the fans group do some great work by the way.

[princes town]

I'll be honest I'm not 100% sure of our board structure. Do the SG have someone who sits on the football club board? Do the SG challenge the football club directors on the decisions they take? The FC statement says that the SG are regularly updated on developments, but there is a feeling among many fans regarding "being kept in the dark".

Please don't take this as criticism of the SG - I know they do lots of great work, and I know they have been busy with the 5 year development plans. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, there is a chance to use this event to look at how the club is functioning off the pitch, and perhaps make improvements for the long term improvement of the football club.

The fans group is excellent. There is a "corporate director" position which effectively is the fans group. I don't think the post is filled by an individual as it requires significant capital but that shouldn't mean that the role isn't a conduit to shape policy.

Thanks - I like to think I'm reasonably clued up about the FC, but I don't really know the structure. Links back to my thoughts that we can use this as an opportunity to reshape some of the parts of the club which aren't working as well as the could be - communications between those making decisions and fans being one of them.

I have no doubt the fans group do some great work by the way.

I think work is currently going on as part of the 5 year planning. Mo reason me to think that I wouldn't welcome conference football until this is sorted.

[Darlo_Pete]

The sorry debacle has just featured on Look North

[HarrytheQuaker]

It all went Pete tong when Martin Jesper and Dave(sorry forgot his surname) left..


Dave Mills!!!!!sorry Dave if you read this

[quakerste]

I agree with you Harry, I feel that since Martin Jesper left there has been a lack of communication from the club.

[coles]

Seriously guys come on this public execution of our board is uncalled for yes questions need answering but without these guys and the hours they put in and I mean hours we are talking 30-40 hours a week then we would not be able to watch a game of footy this weekend. Give these guys the respect they deserve as volunteer board members yes mistakes have been made but this personal attack of board members is too much