Advertise Here
You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:12 am View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 974
Team Supported: Darlington
If it was just one club appealing no chance but with 3 you never know


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Posts: 10661
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Ok so why didn't they say anything about getting the Bishop seats over in January? Two months go by before they find out that it needs to be covered seats. So at the start of February they had left themselves one month to find 33k, find someone to do the work, then actually do it. They never mentioned this before then.

Then... They continued selling early bird seasons and didn't say a word to the fans... And from the moment they found out in February, to the moment they made the previous statement in April, they STILL hadn't properly read the ground grading document? Because had they done so they wouldn't have stated that the rule change came in May 2016, because at the top of the May 16 document, the first words are that all amends from the May 15 doc are in RED ITALICS, which the bit about 500 seats to be promoted wasn't.


Correct. They knew on the 21st December 2016 that they were required to have “500 seats” in order to participate in the play offs. Why no mention of this in the 6 weeks before the "covered seating" criteria was discovered? Why no fund raising to address something that they knew would exclude us from the play-offs back in 2016? They said we didn't then have enough time to raise funds for the covered seats, but what were they doing in the previous 6 weeks to raise funds for shifting the temporary seats?

Maybe they had the funds in place to move the temporary seats?

Maybe they wanted to wait until we were closer to a playoff place before spending the money on the basis a playoff game would offset some of the cost?

All questions for the AGM.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

_________________
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:
Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:45 pm
Posts: 116
Team Supported: Darlington
Spyman wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Ok so why didn't they say anything about getting the Bishop seats over in January? Two months go by before they find out that it needs to be covered seats. So at the start of February they had left themselves one month to find 33k, find someone to do the work, then actually do it. They never mentioned this before then.

Then... They continued selling early bird seasons and didn't say a word to the fans... And from the moment they found out in February, to the moment they made the previous statement in April, they STILL hadn't properly read the ground grading document? Because had they done so they wouldn't have stated that the rule change came in May 2016, because at the top of the May 16 document, the first words are that all amends from the May 15 doc are in RED ITALICS, which the bit about 500 seats to be promoted wasn't.


Correct. They knew on the 21st December 2016 that they were required to have “500 seats” in order to participate in the play offs. Why no mention of this in the 6 weeks before the "covered seating" criteria was discovered? Why no fund raising to address something that they knew would exclude us from the play-offs back in 2016? They said we didn't then have enough time to raise funds for the covered seats, but what were they doing in the previous 6 weeks to raise funds for shifting the temporary seats?

Maybe they had the funds in place to move the temporary seats?

Maybe they wanted to wait until we were closer to a playoff place before spending the money on the basis a playoff game would offset some of the cost?

All questions for the AGM.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Questions for the AGM that's likely to be in November?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:31 am
Posts: 327
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Ok so why didn't they say anything about getting the Bishop seats over in January? Two months go by before they find out that it needs to be covered seats. So at the start of February they had left themselves one month to find 33k, find someone to do the work, then actually do it. They never mentioned this before then.

Then... They continued selling early bird seasons and didn't say a word to the fans... And from the moment they found out in February, to the moment they made the previous statement in April, they STILL hadn't properly read the ground grading document? Because had they done so they wouldn't have stated that the rule change came in May 2016, because at the top of the May 16 document, the first words are that all amends from the May 15 doc are in RED ITALICS, which the bit about 500 seats to be promoted wasn't.


Correct. They knew on the 21st December 2016 that they were required to have “500 seats” in order to participate in the play offs. Why no mention of this in the 6 weeks before the "covered seating" criteria was discovered? Why no fund raising to address something that they knew would exclude us from the play-offs back in 2016? They said we didn't then have enough time to raise funds for the covered seats, but what were they doing in the previous 6 weeks to raise funds for shifting the temporary seats?

And off go the Chuckle Brothers again :roll:
For Christs sake give it a rest.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 511
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Emdubya wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Ok so why didn't they say anything about getting the Bishop seats over in January? Two months go by before they find out that it needs to be covered seats. So at the start of February they had left themselves one month to find 33k, find someone to do the work, then actually do it. They never mentioned this before then.

Then... They continued selling early bird seasons and didn't say a word to the fans... And from the moment they found out in February, to the moment they made the previous statement in April, they STILL hadn't properly read the ground grading document? Because had they done so they wouldn't have stated that the rule change came in May 2016, because at the top of the May 16 document, the first words are that all amends from the May 15 doc are in RED ITALICS, which the bit about 500 seats to be promoted wasn't.


Correct. They knew on the 21st December 2016 that they were required to have “500 seats” in order to participate in the play offs. Why no mention of this in the 6 weeks before the "covered seating" criteria was discovered? Why no fund raising to address something that they knew would exclude us from the play-offs back in 2016? They said we didn't then have enough time to raise funds for the covered seats, but what were they doing in the previous 6 weeks to raise funds for shifting the temporary seats?

And off go the Chuckle Brothers again :roll:
For Christs sake give it a rest.


Sorry... You got a bucket of sand I can bury my head in?

Do you have an opinion? Or are you the comedian nobody ordered?

If you disagree with our points why not address them?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:31 am
Posts: 327
Team Supported: Darlington
You've been spouting the same points over and over again for days .Hopefully you will be putting them to the board tomorrow night.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 511
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Emdubya wrote:
You've been spouting the same points over and over again for days .Hopefully you will be putting them to the board tomorrow night.


These are brand new points based on the fact that this statement just came out

Try again

And yeah, never been to a forum before but hopefully I'll get the opportunity to ask a few of these questions.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:35 pm
Posts: 4729
Location: Stockton
Team Supported: Darlington
There not though are they, its just re-hashed from a lot of the points you've made over the last few days. Yes you've made some very valid points as has Yarblockos, both have plenty to say on a msgboard, I hope both are big enough to put heads above the paraphet and raise these points tomorrow night

_________________
QuakerSam ...Once a Quaker, always a Quaker


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Posts: 10661
Team Supported: Darlington
DarloDave40 wrote:
Spyman wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Ok so why didn't they say anything about getting the Bishop seats over in January? Two months go by before they find out that it needs to be covered seats. So at the start of February they had left themselves one month to find 33k, find someone to do the work, then actually do it. They never mentioned this before then.

Then... They continued selling early bird seasons and didn't say a word to the fans... And from the moment they found out in February, to the moment they made the previous statement in April, they STILL hadn't properly read the ground grading document? Because had they done so they wouldn't have stated that the rule change came in May 2016, because at the top of the May 16 document, the first words are that all amends from the May 15 doc are in RED ITALICS, which the bit about 500 seats to be promoted wasn't.


Correct. They knew on the 21st December 2016 that they were required to have “500 seats” in order to participate in the play offs. Why no mention of this in the 6 weeks before the "covered seating" criteria was discovered? Why no fund raising to address something that they knew would exclude us from the play-offs back in 2016? They said we didn't then have enough time to raise funds for the covered seats, but what were they doing in the previous 6 weeks to raise funds for shifting the temporary seats?

Maybe they had the funds in place to move the temporary seats?

Maybe they wanted to wait until we were closer to a playoff place before spending the money on the basis a playoff game would offset some of the cost?

All questions for the AGM.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Questions for the AGM that's likely to be in November?

Sorry, fans forum.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

_________________
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:
Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 511
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
quakersam wrote:
There not though are they, its just re-hashed from a lot of the points you've made over the last few days. Yes you've made some very valid points as has Yarblockos, both have plenty to say on a msgboard, I hope both are big enough to put heads above the paraphet and raise these points tomorrow night


Nope... so I've commented on the timescales that they stated in this statement... so we now know that they found out in December about needing more seats, that they planned on moving the Bishop seats, that they then realised their error about needing covered seats in February. So there's a time frame here but it doesn't add up. My comments are based on this new information.

And yeah I'll stick my head above it no bother


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7421
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Nope... so I've commented on the timescales that they stated in this statement... so we now know that they found out in December about needing more seats, that they planned on moving the Bishop seats, that they then realised their error about needing covered seats in February. So there's a time frame here but it doesn't add up. My comments are based on this new information.

And yeah I'll stick my head above it no bother


That was already known Swans. That was known from the last statement the club made.

And it is already commented on that during March the club have been in discussion with the league and FA. It has taken until a week or so ago for it to be confirmed by the league that we would be unable to compete - and then the appeals have gone in.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Posts: 816
Team Supported: Darlington
I accept we should have known the Rules before December 2016. Even if the Judicial Review Committee agree we were mis-informed initially regards whether they needed to be covered or not, unless we have evidence we could have then (December 2016) have taken a DIFFERENT course of action to comply with the rule, (500 covered seats) they are not going to find in our favour.
It is a separate argument as to whether the rule itself is unfair or unreasonable.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 411
Team Supported: Darlington
lo36789 wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Nope... so I've commented on the timescales that they stated in this statement... so we now know that they found out in December about needing more seats, that they planned on moving the Bishop seats, that they then realised their error about needing covered seats in February. So there's a time frame here but it doesn't add up. My comments are based on this new information.

And yeah I'll stick my head above it no bother


That was already known Swans. That was known from the last statement the club made.

And it is already commented on that during March the club have been in discussion with the league and FA. It has taken until a week or so ago for it to be confirmed by the league that we would be unable to compete - and then the appeals have gone in.


It was not known that the club knew they needed 500 seats in December 2016 and did nothing up to he middle of February 2017. That is new information. We are asking why? Although, I know it makes you a traitor if you ask questions like this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 411
Team Supported: Darlington
Emdubya wrote:
You've been spouting the same points over and over again for days .Hopefully you will be putting them to the board tomorrow night.


I presume you'll be as quiet as a mouse, like a true fan?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 411
Team Supported: Darlington
quakersam wrote:
There not though are they, its just re-hashed from a lot of the points you've made over the last few days. Yes you've made some very valid points as has Yarblockos, both have plenty to say on a msgboard, I hope both are big enough to put heads above the paraphet and raise these points tomorrow night


What do you mean "big enough to put our heads over the paraphet"? What's so brave about asking a question? I get the impression some people are trying to create an air of menance (not helped by club statements blaming fans for Richard Cook's resignation) in order to silence people who have legitimate questions and care about the well being of the football club.

Who will be brave enough to raise their concerns in public when faced with a mass of "true" Darlo fans? You know, the ones who would never question anything the board has done. As I have said, the only people hurling personal abuse on this thread are those who will not entertain a single criticism of the board. This does not bode well for an open discussion tomorrow night where criticism, concerns and questions need to be aired. Some people need to grow up and realise that people can have different opinions on things.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5355
Team Supported: Darlington
I would guess the club has also got supporting evidence such as copies of emails and letters etc and aren't relying on a short statement published here.

Aside from this, I would like to bet if the club had moved the seats over from Bishop earlier and people found out it cost £30k upwards and still didn't let us qualify for the playoffs then the same people whinging about the situation would be asking why we wasted money on seats that didn't count towards the grading.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 411
Team Supported: Darlington
loan_star wrote:
I would guess the club has also got supporting evidence such as copies of emails and letters etc and aren't relying on a short statement published here.

Aside from this, I would like to bet if the club had moved the seats over from Bishop earlier and people found out it cost £30k upwards and still didn't let us qualify for the playoffs then the same people whinging about the situation would be asking why we wasted money on seats that didn't count towards the grading.


Obviously, because it would have still been a mistake! They would have spent 30K on seats thinking it meant we could qualify for the play-offs. If they were wrong and had wasted the 30K then why the hell would we not question their decision making?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 722
Team Supported: Darlington
Which is why it is such an utter wankstain of a rule. 30k just in case. At least if you spend money on permanent seats then it's not money down the drain if you miss the play-offs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 411
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Which is why it is such an utter wankstain of a rule. 30k just in case. At least if you spend money on permanent seats then it's not money down the drain if you miss the play-offs.


But the rule says the seats must be permanent.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5355
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
loan_star wrote:
I would guess the club has also got supporting evidence such as copies of emails and letters etc and aren't relying on a short statement published here.

Aside from this, I would like to bet if the club had moved the seats over from Bishop earlier and people found out it cost £30k upwards and still didn't let us qualify for the playoffs then the same people whinging about the situation would be asking why we wasted money on seats that didn't count towards the grading.


Obviously, because it would have still been a mistake! They would have spent 30K on seats thinking it meant we could qualify for the play-offs. If they were wrong and had wasted the 30K then why the hell would we not question their decision making?


The club can't win. Yes they misunderstood the rule or have been misguided without double checking things. The fact is that there would be some who would complain about money spent on the Bishop seats no matter what.
If you are so competent Yarblockos then maybe you should offer to help them out in future? I'm sure they would welcome the help of someone with expertise in things like this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:31 pm
Posts: 29
Team Supported: Darlington
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... ugh-seats/

also mentions Darlo in passing


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 722
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Which is why it is such an utter wankstain of a rule. 30k just in case. At least if you spend money on permanent seats then it's not money down the drain if you miss the play-offs.


But the rule says the seats must be permanent.


OK let's rephrase that. It is a wankstain of a rule in its previous (sometime before May2014) and current guise.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 411
Team Supported: Darlington
loan_star wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:
loan_star wrote:
I would guess the club has also got supporting evidence such as copies of emails and letters etc and aren't relying on a short statement published here.

Aside from this, I would like to bet if the club had moved the seats over from Bishop earlier and people found out it cost £30k upwards and still didn't let us qualify for the playoffs then the same people whinging about the situation would be asking why we wasted money on seats that didn't count towards the grading.


Obviously, because it would have still been a mistake! They would have spent 30K on seats thinking it meant we could qualify for the play-offs. If they were wrong and had wasted the 30K then why the hell would we not question their decision making?


The club can't win. Yes they misunderstood the rule or have been misguided without double checking things. The fact is that there would be some who would complain about money spent on the Bishop seats no matter what.

If you are so competent Yarblockos then maybe you should offer to help them out in future? I'm sure they would welcome the help of someone with expertise in things like this.


Well, I can't say anything about the views of imaginary people on an event that didn't happen. All that I, and others, are complaining about are mistakes that were made, and we are seeking assurance that future money will not be wasted and that there are realistic long-term plans for the future. Of course, if you don't care about these things then you are perfectly justfied in not expressing any concerns, especially as to do so means that one must immediately volunteer to run the club.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:35 pm
Posts: 4729
Location: Stockton
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
quakersam wrote:
There not though are they, its just re-hashed from a lot of the points you've made over the last few days. Yes you've made some very valid points as has Yarblockos, both have plenty to say on a msgboard, I hope both are big enough to put heads above the paraphet and raise these points tomorrow night


What do you mean "big enough to put our heads over the paraphet"? What's so brave about asking a question? I get the impression some people are trying to create an air of menance (not helped by club statements blaming fans for Richard Cook's resignation) in order to silence people who have legitimate questions and care about the well being of the football club.

Who will be brave enough to raise their concerns in public when faced with a mass of "true" Darlo fans? You know, the ones who would never question anything the board has done. As I have said, the only people hurling personal abuse on this thread are those who will not entertain a single criticism of the board. This does not bode well for an open discussion tomorrow night where criticism, concerns and questions need to be aired. Some people need to grow up and realise that people can have different opinions on things.


Now who's acting all defensive. What do you think putting heads above the paraphet mean? Anyone can say what they like from behind a keyboard where they won't be identified, I've read what you've had to say and I have said you've made some valid points, all I'm saying is ask these questions tomorrow where they can be answered.

I haven't even had a say about it on here so how you can come out with the impression i'm trying to silence people who have legitimate questions is quite impressive.

I've said my piece on social media, I've discussed with people I see at both home and away games and I have my own views but I'm willing to listen to what the board have to say tomorrow night before I start questioning them and throwing criticisms if they are rightly due. However, at the end of the night we need to be coming away with a plan of how as a club we are going to move forward and progress.

I'm not even going to bite at the "true" Darlo fans comment either, what a silly thing to say.

_________________
QuakerSam ...Once a Quaker, always a Quaker


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 411
Team Supported: Darlington
quakersam wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:
quakersam wrote:
There not though are they, its just re-hashed from a lot of the points you've made over the last few days. Yes you've made some very valid points as has Yarblockos, both have plenty to say on a msgboard, I hope both are big enough to put heads above the paraphet and raise these points tomorrow night


What do you mean "big enough to put our heads over the paraphet"? What's so brave about asking a question? I get the impression some people are trying to create an air of menance (not helped by club statements blaming fans for Richard Cook's resignation) in order to silence people who have legitimate questions and care about the well being of the football club.

Who will be brave enough to raise their concerns in public when faced with a mass of "true" Darlo fans? You know, the ones who would never question anything the board has done. As I have said, the only people hurling personal abuse on this thread are those who will not entertain a single criticism of the board. This does not bode well for an open discussion tomorrow night where criticism, concerns and questions need to be aired. Some people need to grow up and realise that people can have different opinions on things.


Now who's acting all defensive. What do you think putting heads above the paraphet mean? Anyone can say what they like from behind a keyboard where they won't be identified, I've read what you've had to say and I have said you've made some valid points, all I'm saying is ask these questions tomorrow where they can be answered.

I haven't even had a say about it on here so how you can come out with the impression i'm trying to silence people who have legitimate questions is quite impressive.

I've said my piece on social media, I've discussed with people I see at both home and away games and I have my own views but I'm willing to listen to what the board have to say tomorrow night before I start questioning them and throwing criticisms if they are rightly due. However, at the end of the night we need to be coming away with a plan of how as a club we are going to move forward and progress.

I'm not even going to bite at the "true" Darlo fans comment either, what a silly thing to say.


Fair enough, but if I am not there tomorrow night will you ask these questions?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:35 pm
Posts: 4729
Location: Stockton
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
quakersam wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:
quakersam wrote:
There not though are they, its just re-hashed from a lot of the points you've made over the last few days. Yes you've made some very valid points as has Yarblockos, both have plenty to say on a msgboard, I hope both are big enough to put heads above the paraphet and raise these points tomorrow night


What do you mean "big enough to put our heads over the paraphet"? What's so brave about asking a question? I get the impression some people are trying to create an air of menance (not helped by club statements blaming fans for Richard Cook's resignation) in order to silence people who have legitimate questions and care about the well being of the football club.

Who will be brave enough to raise their concerns in public when faced with a mass of "true" Darlo fans? You know, the ones who would never question anything the board has done. As I have said, the only people hurling personal abuse on this thread are those who will not entertain a single criticism of the board. This does not bode well for an open discussion tomorrow night where criticism, concerns and questions need to be aired. Some people need to grow up and realise that people can have different opinions on things.


Now who's acting all defensive. What do you think putting heads above the paraphet mean? Anyone can say what they like from behind a keyboard where they won't be identified, I've read what you've had to say and I have said you've made some valid points, all I'm saying is ask these questions tomorrow where they can be answered.

I haven't even had a say about it on here so how you can come out with the impression i'm trying to silence people who have legitimate questions is quite impressive.

I've said my piece on social media, I've discussed with people I see at both home and away games and I have my own views but I'm willing to listen to what the board have to say tomorrow night before I start questioning them and throwing criticisms if they are rightly due. However, at the end of the night we need to be coming away with a plan of how as a club we are going to move forward and progress.

I'm not even going to bite at the "true" Darlo fans comment either, what a silly thing to say.


Fair enough, but if I am not there tomorrow night will you ask these questions?


If its not answered in whatever the board have to say then yes possibly. Really all we want to hear is an apology, hold our hands up we got it wrong and what we're going to implement to make sure this doesn't happen again, if that means someone needs to be in charge of checking ground grading every season so be it.

_________________
QuakerSam ...Once a Quaker, always a Quaker


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 411
Team Supported: Darlington
quakersam wrote:
If its not answered in whatever the board have to say then yes possibly. Really all we want to hear is an apology, hold our hands up we got it wrong and what we're going to implement to make sure this doesn't happen again, if that means someone needs to be in charge of checking ground grading every season so be it.


That's good to know. Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that you yourself were hurling personal insults or creating an air of menance, but there are individuals who's only contribution to these threads has been to abuse those who have expressed citicism of the board and concern about their future plans.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:35 pm
Posts: 4729
Location: Stockton
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
quakersam wrote:
If its not answered in whatever the board have to say then yes possibly. Really all we want to hear is an apology, hold our hands up we got it wrong and what we're going to implement to make sure this doesn't happen again, if that means someone needs to be in charge of checking ground grading every season so be it.


That's good to know. Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that you yourself were hurling personal insults or creating an air of menance, but there are individuals who's only contribution to these threads has been to abuse those who have expressed citicism of the board and concern about their future plans.


Not a problem.

_________________
QuakerSam ...Once a Quaker, always a Quaker


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 946
Team Supported: Darlington
In the end, after things are discussed tomorrow evening, every fan is going to have to make a personal decision about what they want to happen to the club going forward. Be that through season ticket purchases, share purchases or any of the other fund-raising packages available.
I don't expect the appeal to be successful, though I do think it raises some interesting points - particularly that this seating rule only applies at our level and is mandatory without actually achieving promotion. It is rigged against those clubs who are just developing their grounds against those which are already established.
The important point is how both club officials and fans now rectify this situation - and it will require fans digging deep into pockets again to improve the ground for potential National Conference level; then possibly League 2 in the future. But the off-field set up is now years behind the on-field success.
I hope there is an element of restraint at tomorrow's fans' forum as this subject has been done to death now and the last thing we need is resulting acrimonious division. If not, we could be restrained in this division for more than one season - and that WOULD be a disaster.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5355
Team Supported: Darlington
Yarblockos wrote:
Of course, if you don't care about these things then you are perfectly justfied in not expressing any concerns, especially as to do so means that one must immediately volunteer to run the club.


Of course people are entitled to express concerns. However its the whole "made a mistake, useless twats" type of attitude that annoys me. These are people who work full time themselves and do this on the side as a favour and because of this it will be easier to make mistakes. If a few more did offer to help out then this would reduce the risk of mistakes. Easy to criticise from afar, another thing to do something about it constructively.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group