Or hes annoyed at quickly we've got up the leagues and wants too finish us off !DarloDave40 wrote:If it is Raj he is either totally thick skinned and stupid or he feels it's unfinished business. If it's unfinished business let's give him the time to tell us why he wants to get involved again.
Put it this way there's no property involved perhaps he wants to just put things right!!
Raj Singh
Re: Raj Singh
Help get the club back to Darlo by helping to spread the word about the "Back to Darlo!" fund. The image on the right will be constantly updated with the latest total so please feel free to use the image link below the thermometer on your own signatures, blogs, websites, etc. | Image link: http://www.mydarlo.co.uk/img/BTD-therm-350x100.jpg |
Re: Raj Singh
Be an idiot and argue about petty "rivalries" or try using your brain like the majority of fans and consider what is best for the clubtezza wrote:You mean like Spennymoorspen666 wrote:I can't believe people would want him back, nor that he would want to put money into the football club after losing money last time.Lawman3 wrote:
This^
Raj Singh returning is a red line that cannot be crossed.
However, as someone has said previously... Imagine a scenario when an acceptable ( to most fans) investor comes along and puts £millions into the club in return for say 51% (or more of club shares). All is fine and accepted.
2 years later new investor has had enough and wants to sell...
There is nothing anyone could do to stop him selling it to Singh, Houghton, Reynolds, or anyone for that matter.
Once you give up control of club it is lost forever
Re: Raj Singh
I have never understood exactly what happened here re the share.biccynana wrote:I have never understood how the football share can be issued and held in an individual’s name. Surely it should be vested in a role in each club: Chairman, Secretary, whatever, rather than a named individual. So when the Chairman leaves it automatically passes to his/her successor.Vodka_Vic wrote:However, what sort of system/organisation doesn't have a contingency plan for if an individual decides to 'kidnap' an essential document? The FA again.
Surely it had to be held by the club. If not how were Darlington playing in the conference if they did not own the share?
Assuming therefore the club held the share, then on administration all the assets of the club vests in the administrator.
The club was purchased from the administrator wasn't it?
Therefore it would seem that either
1. Singh stole the share by not giving it to the administrator, thus making him guilty of theft of the share or contempt of court by not vesting the share with the administrator or holding it to his orders
And/Or
2. The purchase deal was some how defective and either the board or more likely their lawyers failed to ensure the purchase deal included the share.
I have always thought option 2 needs explanation to the fans one way or the other.
If option 1 also applies, then why was no action ever taken against Singh
Those who invested in Darlington have been let down over this and consequently the FA had to treat it as a new club in terms of the pyramid. Sadly too many people turned their hatred on the FA instead of asking the questions above allowing Singh and or the club lawyers to get away with it
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:01 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Location: Durrington Wiltshire
Re: Raj Singh
All this talk of moving back to the Arena you'll be telling us next that George Reynolds is returning with his worms.
- theoriginalfatcat
- Posts: 6800
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
I have doubts about whether or not there even is a "Golden Share" or "share".spen666 wrote:I have never understood exactly what happened here re the share.
It's tempting to imagine some kind of grand gilded certificate, with hand written gold painted words etched into it, stating 'THE HOLDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE IS ALLOWED TO TAKE DARLINGTON FOOTBALL CLUB ON AN EXCITING JOURNEY'..(please don't lose this certificate)
I'm not sure this magical piece of paper even exists.
Profile pic
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
-
- Posts: 6011
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
I don't understand it fully to be honest, however the DFCSG currently holds a "Golden Share" and there only is one.theoriginalfatcat wrote:I have doubts about whether or not there even is a "Golden Share" or "share".spen666 wrote:I have never understood exactly what happened here re the share.
It's tempting to imagine some kind of grand gilded certificate, with hand written gold painted words etched into it, stating 'THE HOLDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE IS ALLOWED TO TAKE DARLINGTON FOOTBALL CLUB ON AN EXCITING JOURNEY'..(please don't lose this certificate)
I'm not sure this magical piece of paper even exists.
It's on the list of shareholders and shareholdings.
Re: Raj Singh
ah, right. So is it an actual physical thing?!super_les_mcjannet wrote:I don't understand it fully to be honest, however the DFCSG currently holds a "Golden Share" and there only is one.
It's on the list of shareholders and shareholdings.
-
- Posts: 6011
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
If that share is linked to the Football Share/Golden Share or whatever it is then yes. I don't fully get it to be honest but a golden share in the shareholding exists.biccynana wrote:ah, right. So is it an actual physical thing?!super_les_mcjannet wrote:I don't understand it fully to be honest, however the DFCSG currently holds a "Golden Share" and there only is one.
It's on the list of shareholders and shareholdings.
-
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:35 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
The golden Share is 10% of the voting rights and nothing to do with the football Share
-
- Posts: 6011
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
Cool, that makes more sense as if the Football Share was an actual share then the administrator would have had this anyhow.Undercovered wrote:The golden Share is 10% of the voting rights and nothing to do with the football Share
Re: Raj Singh
I see. I was wondering about the football share, then. Whose name is it in, for example. Is it a physical thing? (Not sure why I’m quite so fascinated by the minutiae of this, but there you go...)Undercovered wrote:The golden Share is 10% of the voting rights and nothing to do with the football Share
- grimsbyquaker
- Posts: 478
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:03 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington FC
- Location: 53°22'N, 0°01'W
Re: Raj Singh
Thinking this over I can't help but think that this consortium and any deal would involve the MG academy and a move back to the Arena. It would be cheaper to purchase it back from a struggling DMPRFC and then develop the surrounding land into the once fabled sports village. Maybe this explains MG's enthusiasm for this investment rather than just him being excited about being able to manage a NL or FL club (which he could do ordinarily and wouldn't be a secure existence). The Arena must be an option or these characters wouldn't be interested surely - what's the incentive to invest in BM?
- theoriginalfatcat
- Posts: 6800
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Here you go Biccy
Re: Raj Singh
I still don't think there's such a thing as a "golden share". Surely, you have to agree a CVA to come out of administration or else you're considered a new club in footballing terms. We couldn't, as Singh was the main creditor and he wouldn't sign it.
So in that sense he controlled our footballing destiny but not through the lack of handing over a tangible football share, just because he wouldn't allow a CVA.
From a financial point of view I think he'll have ended up better off accordingly, as he'll have received a cut of the transfer clauses we had, as opposed to a few pence in the pound of the money we paid for the assets.
At least I think that's correct!
So in that sense he controlled our footballing destiny but not through the lack of handing over a tangible football share, just because he wouldn't allow a CVA.
From a financial point of view I think he'll have ended up better off accordingly, as he'll have received a cut of the transfer clauses we had, as opposed to a few pence in the pound of the money we paid for the assets.
At least I think that's correct!
Re: Raj Singh
Singh transferred the golden share into his own name. In the same way I think that Coventry were unable to find ownership of theirs...spen666 wrote:1. Singh stole the share by not giving it to the administrator, thus making him guilty of theft of the share or contempt of court by not vesting the share with the administrator or holding it to his orders
And/Or
2. The purchase deal was some how defective and either the board or more likely their lawyers failed to ensure the purchase deal included the share.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22571496
In the same way the FL withheld Leeds'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... hheld.html
If I am not mistaken there is actually a football share which belongs to the league. So there are 72 shares which make up membership of the Football League, 20 shares in the Premier League etc. etc.
Clearly this share transfers between holding companies - in our situation it was transferred to Raj Singh, who was owner and 100% shareholder of the holding company Darlington FC 2011 Ltd or whatever it was...
It is definitely a thing. It is basically a shareholding in a company (in this case the league you are a member of) and it can definitely be transferred like any other share.
- don'tbuythesun
- Posts: 2416
- Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
What a shame there isn't a highly qualified solicitor on here who could have helped us to clarify all of this and make our world a better place. In fact with so much knowledge and attention to detail I'm surprised they didn't see the seats issue and let us know well in advance of 31st March.
Re: Raj Singh
Thanks for this very helpful explanation.lo36789 wrote: .....
Singh transferred the golden share into his own name. In the same way I think that Coventry were unable to find ownership of theirs...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22571496
......
If I am not mistaken there is actually a football share which belongs to the league. So there are 72 shares which make up membership of the Football League, 20 shares in the Premier League etc. etc......
If Singh owned the football share in his own name, then on what basis were Darlington playing in the Football League / Conference?
Darlington apparently did not hold the football share then
If Singh owned the share, what was to stop him offering it to another club.
The FA/ League or whoever should be looking at the rules around this to prevent the situation Darlington were in ever re-occurring.
The football share should only be capable of being owned by the football club and not be transferable to anyone else.
I would have expected the law firm dealing with the purchase of the club from the administrator to have identified exactly what was being purchased. I still think there is a good argument that either the directors ( at the time) or the law firm representing the club were negligent and let the fans down
Re: Raj Singh
thanks for the confirmation - I thought the share was vested in name of Mr Singh. He owned all of the share capital in the holding company owning the club. Was it not unreasonable for him to hold the share in his sole name in those circumstances?spen666 wrote:Thanks for this very helpful explanation.lo36789 wrote: .....
Singh transferred the golden share into his own name. In the same way I think that Coventry were unable to find ownership of theirs...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22571496
......
If I am not mistaken there is actually a football share which belongs to the league. So there are 72 shares which make up membership of the Football League, 20 shares in the Premier League etc. etc......
If Singh owned the football share in his own name, then on what basis were Darlington playing in the Football League / Conference?
Darlington apparently did not hold the football share then
If Singh owned the share, what was to stop him offering it to another club.
The FA/ League or whoever should be looking at the rules around this to prevent the situation Darlington were in ever re-occurring.
The football share should only be capable of being owned by the football club and not be transferable to anyone else.
I would have expected the law firm dealing with the purchase of the club from the administrator to have identified exactly what was being purchased. I still think there is a good argument that either the directors ( at the time) or the law firm representing the club were negligent and let the fans down
I agree the rules should prevent this but clearly they do not. However that assumes one clear corporate identify owns the club. I doubt, these days, it is as cut and dried as in past years.
It is a bold claim to suggest negligence. You assume Singh was prepared to enter into negotiations to transfer the share. He may well have not been prepared to do so, perhaps misunderstanding what it was that he actually controlled, he may have placed unconscionable conditions or an un affordable level of consideration on such a transfer, or perhaps in a fit a pique was determined to damage the remains of the club.It was, after all, his property to control.
Re: Raj Singh
They did. At the time Spen there were radio interviews, newspaper articles and significant debate on here that we needed Singh to hand over the share.spen666 wrote:If Singh owned the football share in his own name, then on what basis were Darlington playing in the Football League / Conference?
Darlington apparently did not hold the football share then
If Singh owned the share, what was to stop him offering it to another club.
I would have expected the law firm dealing with the purchase of the club from the administrator to have identified exactly what was being purchased. I still think there is a good argument that either the directors ( at the time) or the law firm representing the club were negligent and let the fans down
We knew we had bought all 'intangible' assets of the old club, and all the football debt from the old club (we left behind unsecured debt and Singh's £2million). We also knew that we didn't have the golden share.
Singh repeatedly said he would sign over ownership to the new club but went missing. He repeatedly said he didn't want a penny for it then I am sure he hit us with a £2million bill to buy it off him.
I think the remarks at the time were he could either hand it over and the club survives for nothing or he keeps hold of it - sees our demotion - and gets nothing. He chose the latter option.
It wasn't that he made a mistake, lost a bit of money, so maybe now he wants to make up for that. He made an extremely conscious decision to leave consign us to demotion when he could have been in an identical financial position but we would have been in Conference North with a points deduction...
Re: Raj Singh
That last bits just not true. If he, as the majority creditor, had accepted the CVA that Harvey Madden had offered he would have received a (very) small amount of his money back and we'd have been in the Conference North.lo36789 wrote:They did. At the time Spen there were radio interviews, newspaper articles and significant debate on here that we needed Singh to hand over the share.spen666 wrote:If Singh owned the football share in his own name, then on what basis were Darlington playing in the Football League / Conference?
Darlington apparently did not hold the football share then
If Singh owned the share, what was to stop him offering it to another club.
I would have expected the law firm dealing with the purchase of the club from the administrator to have identified exactly what was being purchased. I still think there is a good argument that either the directors ( at the time) or the law firm representing the club were negligent and let the fans down
We knew we had bought all 'intangible' assets of the old club, and all the football debt from the old club (we left behind unsecured debt and Singh's £2million). We also knew that we didn't have the golden share.
Singh repeatedly said he would sign over ownership to the new club but went missing. He repeatedly said he didn't want a penny for it then I am sure he hit us with a £2million bill to buy it off him.
I think the remarks at the time were he could either hand it over and the club survives for nothing or he keeps hold of it - sees our demotion - and gets nothing. He chose the latter option.
It wasn't that he made a mistake, lost a bit of money, so maybe now he wants to make up for that. He made an extremely conscious decision to leave consign us to demotion when he could have been in an identical financial position but we would have been in Conference North with a points deduction...
He didn't - so received a much larger amount as the half of legacy transfer clauses came in. Remember, the administrator kept half as part of the deal in the hands of the old company.
I don't much like the fella at all but he didn't refuse the CVA (or equate that to a football share if you'd prefer) out of pure spite, it was a clinical financial decision to give him the best chance of getting something back.
- Robbie Painter
- Posts: 2289
- Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:37 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
There have been two dividends paid out to creditors of Darlington Football Club 2009 Ltd (inc Raj Singh companies) totalling 16.5p in the £. Raj Singh companies have received approx £136k.m62exile wrote:That last bits just not true. If he, as the majority creditor, had accepted the CVA that Harvey Madden had offered he would have received a (very) small amount of his money back and we'd have been in the Conference North.lo36789 wrote:They did. At the time Spen there were radio interviews, newspaper articles and significant debate on here that we needed Singh to hand over the share.spen666 wrote:If Singh owned the football share in his own name, then on what basis were Darlington playing in the Football League / Conference?
Darlington apparently did not hold the football share then
If Singh owned the share, what was to stop him offering it to another club.
I would have expected the law firm dealing with the purchase of the club from the administrator to have identified exactly what was being purchased. I still think there is a good argument that either the directors ( at the time) or the law firm representing the club were negligent and let the fans down
We knew we had bought all 'intangible' assets of the old club, and all the football debt from the old club (we left behind unsecured debt and Singh's £2million). We also knew that we didn't have the golden share.
Singh repeatedly said he would sign over ownership to the new club but went missing. He repeatedly said he didn't want a penny for it then I am sure he hit us with a £2million bill to buy it off him.
I think the remarks at the time were he could either hand it over and the club survives for nothing or he keeps hold of it - sees our demotion - and gets nothing. He chose the latter option.
It wasn't that he made a mistake, lost a bit of money, so maybe now he wants to make up for that. He made an extremely conscious decision to leave consign us to demotion when he could have been in an identical financial position but we would have been in Conference North with a points deduction...
He didn't - so received a much larger amount as the half of legacy transfer clauses came in. Remember, the administrator kept half as part of the deal in the hands of the old company.
I don't much like the fella at all but he didn't refuse the CVA (or equate that to a football share if you'd prefer) out of pure spite, it was a clinical financial decision to give him the best chance of getting something back.
Robbie Painter - http://twitter.com/RobbiePainter
Re: Raj Singh
Exactly Robbie, funded mainly by transfer clause monies.Robbie Painter wrote:There have been two dividends paid out to creditors of Darlington Football Club 2009 Ltd (inc Raj Singh companies) totalling 16.5p in the £. Raj Singh companies have received approx £136k.m62exile wrote:That last bits just not true. If he, as the majority creditor, had accepted the CVA that Harvey Madden had offered he would have received a (very) small amount of his money back and we'd have been in the Conference North.lo36789 wrote:They did. At the time Spen there were radio interviews, newspaper articles and significant debate on here that we needed Singh to hand over the share.spen666 wrote:If Singh owned the football share in his own name, then on what basis were Darlington playing in the Football League / Conference?
Darlington apparently did not hold the football share then
If Singh owned the share, what was to stop him offering it to another club.
I would have expected the law firm dealing with the purchase of the club from the administrator to have identified exactly what was being purchased. I still think there is a good argument that either the directors ( at the time) or the law firm representing the club were negligent and let the fans down
We knew we had bought all 'intangible' assets of the old club, and all the football debt from the old club (we left behind unsecured debt and Singh's £2million). We also knew that we didn't have the golden share.
Singh repeatedly said he would sign over ownership to the new club but went missing. He repeatedly said he didn't want a penny for it then I am sure he hit us with a £2million bill to buy it off him.
I think the remarks at the time were he could either hand it over and the club survives for nothing or he keeps hold of it - sees our demotion - and gets nothing. He chose the latter option.
It wasn't that he made a mistake, lost a bit of money, so maybe now he wants to make up for that. He made an extremely conscious decision to leave consign us to demotion when he could have been in an identical financial position but we would have been in Conference North with a points deduction...
He didn't - so received a much larger amount as the half of legacy transfer clauses came in. Remember, the administrator kept half as part of the deal in the hands of the old company.
I don't much like the fella at all but he didn't refuse the CVA (or equate that to a football share if you'd prefer) out of pure spite, it was a clinical financial decision to give him the best chance of getting something back.
I don't at all respect the guy for the way he handled the situation in any way shape or form - but I think his refusal to agree a CVA wasn't pure spite with no financial implication as lo had suggested, he was trying to get a bit of his money back (albeit at the expense of the best interests of DFC)
Re: Raj Singh
That is not true. The distribution of money received would have been equivalent now as in the previous circumstance. Unless of course the only offer on the table was the hand over the share and forego your claim of £2million.m62exile wrote:That last bits just not true. If he, as the majority creditor, had accepted the CVA that Harvey Madden had offered he would have received a (very) small amount of his money back and we'd have been in the Conference North.
It makes no sense that the two would go hand in hand. He held all the power to agree to the CVA. He would have always been entitled to 0.89% of any dividend of debtor money received as part of the admin.
The opportunity to transfer ownership of the golden share could have been treated entirely independent of that. Why would he have to sacrifice what he is owed in return for the golden share?
Remember he publicly went on record and said there was no debt. He publicly went on record and said "I don't want a penny back". It was then publicly on record that Harvey Madden received a £2million claim from Raj Singh.
Re: Raj Singh
Hmmm, that sounds like spite to me, considering he had said previously that he'd walk away without a penny - and then wants a penny at the expense of the club.m62exile wrote:
I don't at all respect the guy for the way he handled the situation in any way shape or form - but I think his refusal to agree a CVA wasn't pure spite with no financial implication as lo had suggested, he was trying to get a bit of his money back (albeit at the expense of the best interests of DFC)
We of course can't judge if it was spite or simply a hard nosed business decision to try and recoup a percentage of his losses - not without a full breakdown of what happened and why from RS himself. He's never made a peep since 2012 so we're all in the dark as to his motivations then and now.
Re: Raj Singh
I agree with your opinion about Singh's morals but our understanding of company law and football insolvency is a quite a bit different. His actions were to try and get as much of his money back as possible and to a certain extent it worked.lo36789 wrote:That is not true. The distribution of money received would have been equivalent now as in the previous circumstance. Unless of course the only offer on the table was the hand over the share and forego your claim of £2million.m62exile wrote:That last bits just not true. If he, as the majority creditor, had accepted the CVA that Harvey Madden had offered he would have received a (very) small amount of his money back and we'd have been in the Conference North.
It makes no sense that the two would go hand in hand. He held all the power to agree to the CVA. He would have always been entitled to 0.89% of any dividend of debtor money received as part of the admin.
The opportunity to transfer ownership of the golden share could have been treated entirely independent of that. Why would he have to sacrifice what he is owed in return for the golden share?
Remember he publicly went on record and said there was no debt. He publicly went on record and said "I don't want a penny back". It was then publicly on record that Harvey Madden received a £2million claim from Raj Singh.
Re: Raj Singh
Ha, yes, and I'm certainly not a Singh apologist, quite the opposite!Quakerz wrote:Hmmm, that sounds like spite to me, considering he had said previously that he'd walk away without a penny - and then wants a penny at the expense of the club.m62exile wrote:
I don't at all respect the guy for the way he handled the situation in any way shape or form - but I think his refusal to agree a CVA wasn't pure spite with no financial implication as lo had suggested, he was trying to get a bit of his money back (albeit at the expense of the best interests of DFC)
We of course can't judge if it was spite or simply a hard nosed business decision to try and recoup a percentage of his losses - not without a full breakdown of what happened and why from RS himself. He's never made a peep since 2012 so we're all in the dark as to his motivations then and now.
I could be persuaded that he probably said all that stuff about not wanting a penny back in good faith, maybe someone sat him down and explained what that would mean in cold hard cash he maybe changed his mind.
Reprehensible of course, if he goes forward with a proposal then he'll have to explain it all and we can judge him at that.
-
- Posts: 5748
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
Sorry but I disagree entirely.44 years wrote:Given that we have made a loss each season (pulled out of trouble several times by generous short term loans from individuals and the transfer clause cash). It may be as a fan owned and run club our sustainable level is possibly Evostick Division 1?
I think in the midst of all this, a number of people are forgetting that we have a significant proportion of revenue tied up in the 5-year Season Ticket deal introduced with effect from the 2015 / 2016 season.
We sold 287 packages in March 2015, and didn't a limited number become available in March 2016?
287 x £210 = £60,270.
However, this won't be realised until the summer of 2020.
Crowds, I accept, have been fairly disappointing at Blackwell Meadows. However I think that it can be attributed down to the poor facilities and match-day experience at BM. A number of issues have been rectified since the Halifax game, and I think further improvements will be made with the improvement of the pitch (dreadful to watch in Feb / March) and the installation of another c210 seats. I also believe that another food kiosk is due to be installed.
Then I think we have to look at installing step terracing behind the open-end.
I do believe that there is scope to grow attendances and the commercial side of the club at BM.
Realistically, I do think that as a fan-owned club we can sustain ourselves as a mid-table Conference National side over the next 5 years.
The issue that we are facing now is, is that we have a fantastic manager who's ambition is in danger of being greater that what this football club can achieve as a fan-owned entity. What Gray has done for this football club since 2012 has been remarkable, and you can only imagine what he could achieve if he was heavily backed financially.
-
- Posts: 1610
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:41 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
Someone suggested that they thought the investor/s were looking at the arena as a possibility but if that was the case surely we would not be spending money on the pitch so looks like ground may be able to reach FL standards
-
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Raj Singh
We have no plans to make BM up to FL standard. The only way it will be able to get up to FL standards is via a millionaire owner who is prepared to put an awful lot of money into it.darlo reborn wrote:Someone suggested that they thought the investor/s were looking at the arena as a possibility but if that was the case surely we would not be spending money on the pitch so looks like ground may be able to reach FL standards