Re: From the Board of Directors Summary of Appeal
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:05 pm
If it was just one club appealing no chance but with 3 you never know
The number one Darlington FC fan's website
https://www.darlofc.co.uk:443/forum/
https://www.darlofc.co.uk:443/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33341
Maybe they had the funds in place to move the temporary seats?Yarblockos wrote: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?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.
Questions for the AGM that's likely to be in November?Spyman wrote:Maybe they had the funds in place to move the temporary seats?Yarblockos wrote: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?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.
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
And off go the Chuckle Brothers againYarblockos wrote: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?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.
Sorry... You got a bucket of sand I can bury my head in?Emdubya wrote:And off go the Chuckle Brothers againYarblockos wrote: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?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.
For Christs sake give it a rest.
These are brand new points based on the fact that this statement just came outEmdubya 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.
Sorry, fans forum.DarloDave40 wrote:Questions for the AGM that's likely to be in November?Spyman wrote:Maybe they had the funds in place to move the temporary seats?Yarblockos wrote: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?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.
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
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.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
That was already known Swans. That was known from the last statement the club made.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
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.lo36789 wrote:That was already known Swans. That was known from the last statement the club made.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
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.
I presume you'll be as quiet as a mouse, like a true fan?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.
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.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
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?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.
But the rule says the seats must be permanent.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.
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.Yarblockos wrote: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?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.
OK let's rephrase that. It is a wankstain of a rule in its previous (sometime before May2014) and current guise.Yarblockos wrote:But the rule says the seats must be permanent.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.
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.loan_star wrote: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.Yarblockos wrote: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?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.
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.
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.Yarblockos wrote: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.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
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.
Fair enough, but if I am not there tomorrow night will you ask these questions?quakersam wrote: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.Yarblockos wrote: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.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
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.
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.
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.Yarblockos wrote:Fair enough, but if I am not there tomorrow night will you ask these questions?quakersam wrote: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.Yarblockos wrote: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.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
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.
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.
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.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.
Not a problem.Yarblockos wrote: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.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.
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.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.