Darlo Uncovered

After the events of the last few days, it is pretty obvious that there is a disconnect concerning the level of expertise between on-field and off-field activities. This is in no way a slight at the volunteers who have stepped up to the plate, its that Martin and his management team are from professional football backgrounds.
There seems to be a consensus that we need a salaried secretary / head of off-field activities whose skill-set is at a level that matches our on-field capabilities in order to mitigate the risk of errors / oversights being made in the future. The problem being that funding such an individual would cost a chunk of the playing budget, especially until the five year season ticket deal has run its course.
One idea would be for those of us who have the five year deal (plus any other willing participants such as exiles) to set up a monthly S.O. for the remainder of the five year term. 250 participants at £10 per month would equate to £30K a year which seems to be the salary band being quoted.

Q8Quaker wrote:After the events of the last few days, it is pretty obvious that there is a disconnect concerning the level of expertise between on-field and off-field activities. This is in no way a slight at the volunteers who have stepped up to the plate, its that Martin and his management team are from professional football backgrounds.
There seems to be a consensus that we need a salaried secretary / head of off-field activities whose skill-set is at a level that matches our on-field capabilities in order to mitigate the risk of errors / oversights being made in the future. The problem being that funding such an individual would cost a chunk of the playing budget, especially until the five year season ticket deal has run its course.
One idea would be for those of us who have the five year deal (plus any other willing participants such as exiles) to set up a monthly S.O. for the remainder of the five year term. 250 participants at £10 per month would equate to £30K a year which seems to be the salary band being quoted.

It is a fair idea. Probably one worth sharing with the SG as part of the 5 year plan as a means to fund.

Challenge you will have is that we generally have an investor base of about 290 fans so you are looking for an 86% take up from that audience. Also what happens if the S/Os suddenly stop? These individuals would need to be legally committed to their investment otherwise you are left with an unfinanced liability on the club.

Q8Quaker wrote:After the events of the last few days, it is pretty obvious that there is a disconnect concerning the level of expertise between on-field and off-field activities. This is in no way a slight at the volunteers who have stepped up to the plate, its that Martin and his management team are from professional football backgrounds.
There seems to be a consensus that we need a salaried secretary / head of off-field activities whose skill-set is at a level that matches our on-field capabilities in order to mitigate the risk of errors / oversights being made in the future. The problem being that funding such an individual would cost a chunk of the playing budget, especially until the five year season ticket deal has run its course.
One idea would be for those of us who have the five year deal (plus any other willing participants such as exiles) to set up a monthly S.O. for the remainder of the five year term. 250 participants at £10 per month would equate to £30K a year which seems to be the salary band being quoted.

I'm not sure there's a consensus that this is what we need, a few people have suggested it but thats by no means a consensus.

I'm a 500 club member and wouldn't object to voluntarily putting some monthly funds in, but I'm not convinced this is where I want it to go. I have a feeling from reading the tea leaves and various comments that we'll find out next week we have to raise additional capital pretty quickly in any case which will probably mean this is suddenly less important.

Having a paid official wouldn't guarantee anything. We have more pressing needs for our funds. When a mistake is made, the measure is how well it's rectified and we as fans have to play our part in that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think fans should be funding wages through standing orders. Fans contributions are variable, yet the club would be stuck with a wage to pay regardless. Fans contributing extra money to the club in my mind should be used for infrastructure.

I also have my doubts as to whether a paid position would have averted this issue either. I think this is more of a case of resources being stretched too thin, made worse by a lack of communications expertise.

When Richard Cook was appointed the club said "We are continuing our search for new directors. I’m regularly asked what skills the club require for a Director appointment. Firstly prospective candidates must have the experience of working as a Director with knowledge of Profit and Loss, board level leadership, strong company governance as well as maintaining a high degree of confidentiality". I'd hazard a guess the average fan doesn't have those skills. Perhaps the way forward is more "sub-directors" to do some of the more basic tasks regarding running a football club, leaving those with director experience more time to focus on the higher level details? Plus also trying to find someone with PR experience to help develop communications between club and fans.

This issue has told me I don't really know the structure of the club, who's responsible for what etc etc

Employing someone is not just their gross salary, but what about employers NI?

Employers must provide a pension scheme as well.

Then need to have safe work place, appraisals, H&S etc

It's a lot more than their salary to consider.


As others have said it's also no guarantee that things will not be overlooked by an employee as opposed to a volunteer.


BTW didn't Sunderland pay their club secretary £250k pa?

Spen, I think you're overdoing it - surely somebody could be employed on a self employed basis, 30 or so hours a week. Working from home or a little office at B. Meadows.

Personally I think we need someone now, it just has to be the right person.

al_quaker wrote:I don't think fans should be funding wages through standing orders. Fans contributions are variable, yet the club would be stuck with a wage to pay regardless. Fans contributing extra money to the club in my mind should be used for infrastructure.

I also have my doubts as to whether a paid position would have averted this issue either. I think this is more of a case of resources being stretched too thin, made worse by a lack of communications expertise.

When Richard Cook was appointed the club said "We are continuing our search for new directors. I’m regularly asked what skills the club require for a Director appointment. Firstly prospective candidates must have the experience of working as a Director with knowledge of Profit and Loss, board level leadership, strong company governance as well as maintaining a high degree of confidentiality". I'd hazard a guess the average fan doesn't have those skills. Perhaps the way forward is more "sub-directors" to do some of the more basic tasks regarding running a football club, leaving those with director experience more time to focus on the higher level details? Plus also trying to find someone with PR experience to help develop communications between club and fans.

This issue has told me I don't really know the structure of the club, who's responsible for what etc etc

Regards penultimate sentence above, I thought one of our Sponsors "Feethams Darlington" was also our PR Agency, or have I got that wrong?

al_quaker wrote:When Richard Cook was appointed the club said "We are continuing our search for new directors. I’m regularly asked what skills the club require for a Director appointment. Firstly prospective candidates must have the experience of working as a Director with knowledge of Profit and Loss, board level leadership, strong company governance as well as maintaining a high degree of confidentiality".

No mention of the ability to read documents.

bga wrote:Regards penultimate sentence above, I thought one of our Sponsors "Feethams Darlington" was also our PR Agency, or have I got that wrong?

Feethams Darlington is the leisure / food place on the roundabout opposite our old ground (if only...!) - I don't know who our PR agency is meant to be these days, or if we even have one.

mikkyx wrote:

bga wrote:Regards penultimate sentence above, I thought one of our Sponsors "Feethams Darlington" was also our PR Agency, or have I got that wrong?

Feethams Darlington is the leisure / food place on the roundabout opposite our old ground (if only...!) - I don't know who our PR agency is meant to be these days, or if we even have one.

Thanks I found the link I had recalled
http://darlingtonfootballclub.co.uk/22882-2/
As you say they are not our PR Agency rather our Media Sponsors.

Yarblockos wrote:

al_quaker wrote:When Richard Cook was appointed the club said "We are continuing our search for new directors. I’m regularly asked what skills the club require for a Director appointment. Firstly prospective candidates must have the experience of working as a Director with knowledge of Profit and Loss, board level leadership, strong company governance as well as maintaining a high degree of confidentiality".

No mention of the ability to read documents.

I suppose if you're going to be like that, there's no mention of the ability to locate the correct documents.

With all the stuff that has been going on I can understand why such a mistake has been made by a board no doubt stretched thin. Doesn't make it easier to take, and the subsequent actions and communications have been poor, but we all need to start moving on (and the first steps do need to be from the board - proper apologies, an open discussion etc).

spen666 wrote:BTW didn't Sunderland pay their club secretary £250k pa?

Doctors get a salary over £55k pa and firemen get £30kish pa.

Is there any reason that completely unrelated salaries have come up in this debate?

The latest email from the Supporters group suggest it is not an idea they like due to cost. The alternative is to reallocate the roles of the fans Board (Corporate Director) so that it is seen as more than a fund raising arm of the club and something that actually shapes the policy direction of the club. I still remain interested as to how much input they have on the big issues. My personal view is that some things are controlled very well (shop, 50-50, hospitality) but there are noticeable gaps in other functions that largely seem reliant on individual initiative. A volunteer co-ordinator (paid/unpaid), preferably with communication skills, is an absolute must for me if we are to continue with this vulnerable staffing platform. At the start of the new campaign in the northern league I really liked the volunteer system but as we've gone up the leagues I've become doubtful as to whether it is robust enough to service all requirements at step 3. It doesn't have a feeling of permanence or continuity to it.

QuakerPete wrote:Having a paid official wouldn't guarantee anything. We have more pressing needs for our funds. When a mistake is made, the measure is how well it's rectified and we as fans have to play our part in that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pete - There are no guarantee's in this life, however, having a paid official with the right skillset and enough time to execute his / her duties would significantly reduce the probability of mistakes being made.
Since becoming fan owned, we have collectively made a number of high value blunders costing many tens of thousands of pounds, which may or may not have also impacted on potential revenue streams and opportunities.
We pay a salary to the on-field management team and they have shown YoY that they are worth this outlay. What is the difference in paying for the management of off-field activities?
I would say it's not a matter of if we can afford to hire the right personnel, its more a matter of whether we can afford not to!!

theoriginalfatcat wrote:Spen, I think you're overdoing it - surely somebody could be employed on a self employed basis,.......

I think you are confusing yourself. You are either employed or you are self employed.

You cannot be employed on a self employed basis. That is simply a contradiction in terms.

lo36789 wrote:

spen666 wrote:BTW didn't Sunderland pay their club secretary £250k pa?

Doctors get a salary over £55k pa and firemen get £30kish pa.

Is there any reason that completely unrelated salaries have come up in this debate?

Because you are effectively wanting to employ a club secretary, so it is relevant what club secretaries get played.
You are not going to get a competent club secretary paying a tiny percentage of what other clubs do for a similar role.

There is no benefit in employing someone not up to the role. Why would a competent club secretary work for a fraction of the salary they can get elsewhere?

Q8Quaker wrote:

QuakerPete wrote:Having a paid official wouldn't guarantee anything. We have more pressing needs for our funds. When a mistake is made, the measure is how well it's rectified and we as fans have to play our part in that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pete - There are no guarantee's in this life, however, having a paid official with the right skillset and enough time to execute his / her duties would significantly reduce the probability of mistakes being made.
Since becoming fan owned, we have collectively made a number of high value blunders costing many tens of thousands of pounds, which may or may not have also impacted on potential revenue streams and opportunities.
We pay a salary to the on-field management team and they have shown YoY that they are worth this outlay. What is the difference in paying for the management of off-field activities?
I would say it's not a matter of if we can afford to hire the right personnel, its more a matter of whether we can afford not to!!

Exactly my thoughts, and I wrote as such further back on this thread.

We are a club with the ambition and capabilities of playing in the Conference/National League - a level we were at before "the event" - and a level where there is simply too much big stuff going on to be managed by volunteers, however well intentioned and capable they are. In my opinion we need at least one person on a wage, whose responsibility is to (in a nutshell) keep things right.

We can't continue as we are.

spen666 wrote:

theoriginalfatcat wrote:Spen, I think you're overdoing it - surely somebody could be employed on a self employed basis,.......

I think you are confusing yourself. You are either employed or you are self employed.

You cannot be employed on a self employed basis. That is simply a contradiction in terms.

I'm not confused at all. I'm self employed, and I work X amount of hours for a certain firm every week. All sorts of people work on a freelance basis, in fact you can work on a self employed basis for one firm and be employed by another in the same tax year.

You're talking complete bollocks.

I think the term you are looking for is contracted. Spen is right you can't be employed strictly speaking as self employed. NI contribution is the main difference. By definition you can't be self employed if you are an employee.

lo36789 wrote:I think the term you are looking for is contracted. Spen is right you can't be employed strictly speaking as self employed. NI contribution is the main difference. By definition you can't be self employed if you are an employee.

I agree although agency staff may be the exception.

If your self employed and work for a number of people that's fine and you are classed as SE. However if you are working for one company as self employed HMRC can and will chase that company for employers NI and back date it which adds another 22%to the over all wage bill and the HMRC will insist you are in future employed as PAYE.