Advertise Here
You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:15 pm View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
lo36789 wrote:
I am not sure when you buy stands in modules it is simply a case of easily adding more rows. You would need to purchase a brand new set of seats?


How much more would it have cost if we had originally set the structure further back and added a bigger set of seats? if we have a grand plan to get a ground to get us back in the EFL then that would have been massively vital to getting 2k seats into that ground.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Craig09 wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Friday night is big for me. If it comes out that BM can't get developed to EFL standard then we won't raise much more money going forward. People will not invest in a structure that doesn't get us into the EFL eventually. The statement from the DFCSG says we want to get back into the EFL. Is this hope or is there a plan?



Exactly i just hope we can get to the EFL standard or all that money the board has used to put into BM plus the grants is just a big waste. Theres alot of good suggestions specially about getting the main water pipe diverted but that will also cost a few quid too


Either diverting the pipe or moving the pitch is vital to achieving a FL ground. As you say, given the events of last week, I really hope they have approved plans to show people on the 21st or they have little hope of funding the next stage.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 4667
Team Supported: Darlington
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
The club plans will hopefully advise on this, after the last 5 years if our biggest worry is how do we get the ground ready for FL then we have done something seriously right these last few years.

Indeed. I have my doubts as to whether we'll ever get back to the football league anyway, without a financial backer - I can't see crowds ever growing to the level we would need them to be to seriously compete at the top of the conference. No harm in (sensibly) trying of course, and we would need a long-term plan if we did ever strike lucky in the conference to get a FL ground. Something I sure will be asked on Friday.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Craig09 wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Friday night is big for me. If it comes out that BM can't get developed to EFL standard then we won't raise much more money going forward. People will not invest in a structure that doesn't get us into the EFL eventually. The statement from the DFCSG says we want to get back into the EFL. Is this hope or is there a plan?



Exactly i just hope we can get to the EFL standard or all that money the board has used to put into BM plus the grants is just a big waste. Theres alot of good suggestions specially about getting the main water pipe diverted but that will also cost a few quid too


Either diverting the pipe or moving the pitch is vital to achieving a FL ground. As you say, given the events of last week, I really hope they have approved plans to show people on the 21st or they have little hope of funding the next stage.


Stop declaring what you don't know a fact. What evidence do you have that this is the case. Whatever it is I raise you that qualified persons have stated there are plans for BM which included a 5,000 capacity ground.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 814
Team Supported: Darlington
Thing is lo, you say you have it on good authority that there's plans to extend BM to 5,000 but then further up you doubt how you could fit 2,000 seats in. If someone's told you that you can extend BM to 5,000 without the 2,000 seats, that's no good, as we'd be automatically relegated out of the EFL after 3 years. You can't blame people for being worried.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 2982
Team Supported: Darlington
Craig09 wrote:
Theres alot of good suggestions specially about getting the main water pipe diverted but that will also cost a few quid too


SwansQuaker83 wrote:
No we can't. Our only option would be to pay to have it diverted.



Scott Thornbury has repeatedly stated on here that the big water pipe thing cannot be messed with in any way.

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Posts: 174
Team Supported: Darlington
I think Reynolds had to move the same pipe when he built the arena. Cost about half a million back in 2007.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Thing is lo, you say you have it on good authority that there's plans to extend BM to 5,000 but then further up you doubt how you could fit 2,000 seats in. If someone's told you that you can extend BM to 5,000 without the 2,000 seats, that's no good, as we'd be automatically relegated out of the EFL after 3 years. You can't blame people for being worried.


someone told me? It was a video launched by the club as part of the BM opening.

Honestly if we are in a position where we get FL and have 3 years to get things sorted there is a good chance our lease on BM will be up by the point that becomes a reality...

Fine tell you what we build a 4,000 terrace stand at the end which is undeveloped. We stick 1,000 seats in there and another 300 in the tin shed. Ultimately the tin shed holds 1,000 at the moment if you make a stand 5.33 times deeper and 75% of the length it holds 4,000.

I am just making this up. The point is that the end opposite the tin shed is undeveloped...just work upwards and backwards!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 814
Team Supported: Darlington
Lo is right, Malcolm Cundick does indeed mention the 5,000 and then says that this is Category A. Now Category A, as he says, is the Conference, which is 4,000 capacity with 500 seats, but also to be able to demonstrate plans for 5,000 with 1,000 seats to get in the EFL. The problem then lies in the extra rule that the EFL have in that you have to upgrade to 5,000 with 2,000 seats by the end of your 3rd year in the EFL. This is the key. BM obviously ticks the first box, as this is what Malcolm has said, but unless BM can be upgraded to the 2,000 seats then having a ground good enough to get in the EFL is pointless unless it is good enough to stay there. Again, we need assurances on this on Friday before people start parting with money. I don't want to get in the EFL if we're relegated again after 3 seasons for not having enough seats. And before anyone says don't get ahead of yourself, this long term plan needs to be out in the open now and is fully relevant now. We have 3 promotions in 4 years. 2 more would put us in this predicament.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:46 am
Posts: 111
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Lo is right, Malcolm Cundick does indeed mention the 5,000 and then says that this is Category A. Now Category A, as he says, is the Conference, which is 4,000 capacity with 500 seats, but also to be able to demonstrate plans for 5,000 with 1,000 seats to get in the EFL. The problem then lies in the extra rule that the EFL have in that you have to upgrade to 5,000 with 2,000 seats by the end of your 3rd year in the EFL. This is the key. BM obviously ticks the first box, as this is what Malcolm has said, but unless BM can be upgraded to the 2,000 seats then having a ground good enough to get in the EFL is pointless unless it is good enough to stay there. Again, we need assurances on this on Friday before people start parting with money. I don't want to get in the EFL if we're relegated again after 3 seasons for not having enough seats. And before anyone says don't get ahead of yourself, this long term plan needs to be out in the open now and is fully relevant now. We have 3 promotions in 4 years. 2 more would put us in this predicament.


Spot on


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:51 am
Posts: 416
Team Supported: Darlington
Scott Thornbury has repeatedly stated on here that the big water pipe thing cannot be messed with in any way.[/quote]

Thats us knackered then


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 814
Team Supported: Darlington
Here it is in black and white:

"Football League Ground Capacity And Seating Requirements. (Conference Clubs)

The Football League require that the ground occupied by a club promoted to League 2 must have a certified capacity of at least 4,000 (with the ability to be increased to 5,000) which shall include at least 500 seats (with the ability to be increased to 1,000).

By 1st May in its first season as a Member of the Football League the club is required to have a certified capacity of 5,000 which shall include at least 1000 seats(with the ability to be increased to 2,000).

By 1st May in its third season as a Member of the Football League the club is required to have a certified capacity of 5,000 which shall include at least 2,000 seats.

As clubs develop their ground to meet the above criteria it is important to remember that by the end of their third season in the Football League the SGSA will require them to have brought any terracing up to the prescribed standard or take that terracing out of use which would therefore reduce the capacity of the ground".


Date: January 9, 2013 - 23:00

If we can get assurances on this, then brilliant, we are good to go.
If not, hmmmmm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
lo36789 wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Craig09 wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Friday night is big for me. If it comes out that BM can't get developed to EFL standard then we won't raise much more money going forward. People will not invest in a structure that doesn't get us into the EFL eventually. The statement from the DFCSG says we want to get back into the EFL. Is this hope or is there a plan?



Exactly i just hope we can get to the EFL standard or all that money the board has used to put into BM plus the grants is just a big waste. Theres alot of good suggestions specially about getting the main water pipe diverted but that will also cost a few quid too


Either diverting the pipe or moving the pitch is vital to achieving a FL ground. As you say, given the events of last week, I really hope they have approved plans to show people on the 21st or they have little hope of funding the next stage.


Stop declaring what you don't know a fact. What evidence do you have that this is the case. Whatever it is I raise you that qualified persons have stated there are plans for BM which included a 5,000 capacity ground.


Would they be the same people who didn't read the NLN criteria properly then released a statement saying they hadn't read the May 16 update when they added the 500 seats bit only to be proven to have messed up again because that wasn't a 16 update and was in fact in the 15 version and the 14 version. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical of their statement about plans for a 5k capacity given these farcical mishaps


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Would they be the same people who didn't read the NLN criteria properly then released a statement saying they hadn't read the May 16 update when they added the 500 seats bit only to be proven to have messed up again because that wasn't a 16 update and was in fact in the 15 version and the 14 version. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical of their statement about plans for a 5k capacity given these farcical mishaps


Nope. It would be an qualified professional architect. Anything else?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 461
Team Supported: Darlington
Of course, we can reach a capacity of 5,000 with 2,000 seats, but it would involve knocking down the tin shed and the existing stand. Thus, there clearly was no long term plan only a short term one. You don't spend money on stands that you will have to knock down if you have a plan.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
Maybe - who knows, all I know is the architect said there was a plan with what we have. People debated whether BM would get anywhere near 3,000 capacity some doubted it would be any greater than HP. Yet what was delivered a ground with 3,300 capacity - as promised.

If we have to knock something down and rebuild in 10 years it will stil be a significantly better investment than the new East Stand was at Feethams or the Arena.


Last edited by lo36789 on Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
lo36789 wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Would they be the same people who didn't read the NLN criteria properly then released a statement saying they hadn't read the May 16 update when they added the 500 seats bit only to be proven to have messed up again because that wasn't a 16 update and was in fact in the 15 version and the 14 version. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical of their statement about plans for a 5k capacity given these farcical mishaps


Nope. It would be an qualified professional architect. Anything else?


Seen the plans?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
No but the announcement was made by a qualified professional architect? To be honest if I saw them I would still need to take his word for it as I wouldn't have the qualification to challenge them.


Last edited by lo36789 on Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 461
Team Supported: Darlington
There was a plan to get to 3,000. It was clear and achieveable. It's simply not possible to achieve EFL grading with the way we have build the ground. It will be very interesting to hear the board declare they are knocking the tin shed down and that was in their plans all along.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
And at December 2016 there was a plan to achieve 5,000? The fundraising to do the next stage of that is due to be launched on Friday.

i can't argue against your point because it's like arguing with religion. They just throw opinions out and just ignore any science (professional opinions) which doesn't fit with their theory.


Last edited by lo36789 on Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
lo36789 wrote:
No but the announcement was made by a qualified professional architect? To be honest if I saw them I would still need to take his word for it as I wouldn't have the qualification to challenge them.


Why announce it then not have the plans to show us? Be interested to see them on Friday


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 814
Team Supported: Darlington
Yes. Malcolm Cundick says that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
Because it was planed to be launched alongside a fundraising launch? Unfortunately since moving in there was about 4-6weeks where the focus was on ironing out teething issues with the ground and there is a 6 week lead in to be able to launch a community share issue?

Martin Jesper when he was director advocates the use of joined up launches of things like this to maximise the money that they drive. Again this is all information and messages that have been detailed at previous fans forums and the like.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Looking forward to seeing them on Friday then


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 814
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
There was a plan to get to 3,000. It was clear and achieveable. It's simply not possible to achieve EFL grading with the way we have build the ground. It will be very interesting to hear the board declare they are knocking the tin shed down and that was in their plans all along.


I'm OK with this if it's properly costed. But only if it's properly costed. I thought we got the Tim Shed cheap because it was kept in storage. If we keep the Tin Shed 5 years and its use short term in getting us back home nets us more money than what it costs to erect/dismantle it then it's done its job.
To be honest with you, though, as far as I'm concerned if we don't get guarantees before the next fundraising that the 5,000/2,000 ratio can be achieved at BM without incurring ridiculous costs for ripping up and starting again then I don't see we can pursue BM any further. Then for me it would be time to approach the more amenable new chairman of Mowden Park and fundraise to pay back FSIF grants.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:
There was a plan to get to 3,000. It was clear and achieveable. It's simply not possible to achieve EFL grading with the way we have build the ground. It will be very interesting to hear the board declare they are knocking the tin shed down and that was in their plans all along.


I'm OK with this if it's properly costed. But only if it's properly costed. I thought we got the Tim Shed cheap because it was kept in storage. If we keep the Tin Shed 5 years and its use short term in getting us back home nets us more money than what it costs to erect/dismantle it then it's done its job.
To be honest with you, though, as far as I'm concerned if we don't get guarantees before the next fundraising that the 5,000/2,000 ratio can be achieved at BM without incurring ridiculous costs for ripping up and starting again then I don't see we can pursue BM any further. Then for me it would be time to approach the more amenable new chairman of Mowden Park and fundraise to pay back FSIF grants.


I completely agree.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 461
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
I'm OK with this if it's properly costed. But only if it's properly costed. I thought we got the Tim Shed cheap because it was kept in storage. If we keep the Tin Shed 5 years and its use short term in getting us back home nets us more money than what it costs to erect/dismantle it then it's done its job.
To be honest with you, though, as far as I'm concerned if we don't get guarantees before the next fundraising that the 5,000/2,000 ratio can be achieved at BM without incurring ridiculous costs for ripping up and starting again then I don't see we can pursue BM any further. Then for me it would be time to approach the more amenable new chairman of Mowden Park and fundraise to pay back FSIF grants.


Spot on. I think it is a more realistic option that the Arena in the long term, although having to rip up what you have already built demonstrates an absolutely shocking lack of medium/long-term planning and is a huge waste of money. Still, the board are beyond reproach in some people's eyes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
Nobody has said or shown that is the plan - you have jumped on that and it's now the main basis of your argument.

The plan may involve just adding more modular stands where space allows. We might end up without about 8 stands in the end in odd places...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Posts: 1698
Team Supported: Darlington
Most sensible people would prefer to get all the facts, figures, explanations, plans, costings and ideas before coming to a proper conclusion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Other Alternatives
PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 4667
Team Supported: Darlington
LoidLucan wrote:
Most sensible people would prefer to get all the facts, figures, explanations, plans, costings and ideas before coming to a proper conclusion.

Yep.

Yarblockos seems to have convinced themselves that we will be ripping up stands at BM, and then is castigating the board on their short term planning and money wastage, purely on speculation on their behalf.

Now, Yarblockos may well be right, but it would seem prudent to wait until Friday and see what is said. There is scope for criticising the board over the ground regulation mistake, but this seems a little over the top in my opinion, certainly at this stage.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Darlofan97 and 40 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