Reality of life

[Polam Lane End]

Having invested on a couple of occasions over the last few years I was hoping to hear last night of a detailed, realistic 5 year plan but now find myself frustrated, yet optimistic.

Frustrated
The call for funds in my opinion is too short-term £150k for the small number of seats to merely take part in the playoffs next year without any visibility as to how we will get Blackwell Meadows to a higher level of grading overall wasn't what I was hoping for.

Optimistic
The news of the potential investors is clearly hugely emotive. For anybody who has followed the club for the last 10+ years are always going to be wary of anybody wanting to 'invest' in the club, worried that yet another charlatan may lead us astray. I am, however, optimistic because we are truely in a different position than we have ever been in before:
1) The challenges over Blackwell Meadows are in this instance a strength - we really do have no assets for unscrupulous individuals to exploit - no one can logically be looking to invest in us to make any sort of profit through the sale of land or other assets - we haven't got any so that should help reassure us about individuals motives!
2) Should we have to give up controlling interest to individuals wishing to invest large sums of money we as fans would still be able to retain a substantial share to both ensure a say in major decisions in a way we have never previously had, but also should the worst come to the worst we wouldn't have to completely pick up the pieces completely from scratch in the way that we did post Raj.
3) The call for funds last night suggest that not exploring major investors won't merely see us plateauing but could actually see us struggle to remain at even the level - no one can be in any doubt the levels of funds being asked for now (£230k) are likely to be repeated in each and every year to maintain the part time wage bill we currently have whilst striving to develop the ground to the level we aspire to. Whilst each and everyone of us wants to help make this happen can a core 1,000 or so adult fans really afford £20k + each and every year - I know I can't so our wage bill would invariably have to drop and quality with it....

Clearly there is a lot to happen and as many have called out already today the sooner it happens the better both for ground improvements but also to be clear about the team we can afford for next season, and we need to understand who the interested parties are and what their plans are - I for one am excited about hearing more (and am certain the Raj Singh and Arena rumours are nothing more than mischief making)

We've had a very tough run of owners in the past why shouldn't people interested in becoming future joint owners with us as fans herald a positive future?

[princes town]

Having invested on a couple of occasions over the last few years I was hoping to hear last night of a detailed, realistic 5 year plan but now find myself frustrated, yet optimistic.

Frustrated
The call for funds in my opinion is too short-term £150k for the small number of seats to merely take part in the playoffs next year without any visibility as to how we will get Blackwell Meadows to a higher level of grading overall wasn't what I was hoping for.

Optimistic
The news of the potential investors is clearly hugely emotive. For anybody who has followed the club for the last 10+ years are always going to be wary of anybody wanting to 'invest' in the club, worried that yet another charlatan may lead us astray. I am, however, optimistic because we are truely in a different position than we have ever been in before:
1) The challenges over Blackwell Meadows are in this instance a strength - we really do have no assets for unscrupulous individuals to exploit - no one can logically be looking to invest in us to make any sort of profit through the sale of land or other assets - we haven't got any so that should help reassure us about individuals motives!
2) Should we have to give up controlling interest to individuals wishing to invest large sums of money we as fans would still be able to retain a substantial share to both ensure a say in major decisions in a way we have never previously had, but also should the worst come to the worst we wouldn't have to completely pick up the pieces completely from scratch in the way that we did post Raj.
3) The call for funds last night suggest that not exploring major investors won't merely see us plateauing but could actually see us struggle to remain at even the level - no one can be in any doubt the levels of funds being asked for now (£230k) are likely to be repeated in each and every year to maintain the part time wage bill we currently have whilst striving to develop the ground to the level we aspire to. Whilst each and everyone of us wants to help make this happen can a core 1,000 or so adult fans really afford £20k + each and every year - I know I can't so our wage bill would invariably have to drop and quality with it....

Clearly there is a lot to happen and as many have called out already today the sooner it happens the better both for ground improvements but also to be clear about the team we can afford for next season, and we need to understand who the interested parties are and what their plans are - I for one am excited about hearing more (and am certain the Raj Singh and Arena rumours are nothing more than mischief making)

We've had a very tough run of owners in the past why shouldn't people interested in becoming future joint owners with us as fans herald a positive future?

A very well-thought out post although I'm probably on a different page. If there is a model out there that attempts to secure the best of both worlds it is the Swansea version. There seems to be 2 visions at the club, those who support the fan owned sustainable club with a volunteering platform at any divisional level and those who are desperate to see the club in the football league. that will be difficult to reconcile.

[lo36789]

Whilst each and everyone of us wants to help make this happen can a core 1,000 or so adult fans really afford £20k + each and every year

It's about £200 each not £20k but I appreciate sentiment is the same..we would only need 10 fans with £20k lieing around.

[Mr_Tibbs]

For those who just jump straight into the forum there's an excellent piece by Scott which has popped up on the site which is well worth a read too...

http://www.darlofc.co.uk/news/1252

My thoughts are more or less in line with what Scott said. We didn't start out on this journey with the aim to be a fan-owned entity, we did it to save our club and - in the absence of any white knights coming galloping along - we did what was necessary to do that... which was to stop running around like headless chickens and to take control of our own destiny.

As Scott said our actual aim was to get the club back to Darlo and playing football at the highest possible level which we fans can sustain. We've not only achieved that but done it in a remarkably short space of time thanks to the efforts of MG and his team of coaching staff, and of course the players who Martin attracted to the club who have outperformed the ability of our small fanbase to support what they want to kick on and achieve on the pitch.

It's little wonder, then, that our collective success has turned heads and we are now beginning to hear of people who DO want to invest in the club but the crucial difference now is that it really is our club, our future, and our choice and, as mentioned earlier in this thread, we do not actually have any assets which an investor could come in and strip - all we have is a great little football club which has evolved from nothing thanks to the tireless efforts of its fans.

The club is nothing without its fans - WE ARE the club and we've now found ourselves in the position of collectively deciding how our club evolves from this point forward but, happily, we can negotiate from a position of strength and ensure that the meaning behind the Barrow slogan is never forgotten and is enshrined in whatever agreement we reach with someone who wants to come in and help propel us up the next ladder.

It's been very tiring getting to where we are. I think we - and all of us currently here can count ourselves as pioneers - owe it to ourselves and to our sons and daughters to make sure that all of our hard work has not been to simply re-build our football club, but to build the foundations of an even greater football club.

It's up to us to decide if or how the club can evolve from here. We didn't set out to become a CIC, or a Community Benefit Society - we became the model we are because it worked for us. We're now faced with either sticking to the hard and fast rules which are imposed on us through legislation - finding a way to allow investors to come along in the guise of whatever we are allowed to divest into, or evolving into yet another model... perhaps even a hitherto unknown model which might be developed.

It's our club - we call the shots.

[Mr_Tibbs]

And while we're all mulling over what to do we need to get the pitch relaid so please get your pledges in... the target date is the 15th May so we need to stop umming and ahhing and do this right now.

Just made mine

https://fundraising.darlingtonfcsupport ... ue-2-pitch

[spen666]

Some very interesting views on this issue have been expressed on both sides of what is a difficult decision.

Getting involved in any relatively lowly ( IE below Premiership level) football club is unlikely to make you money, unless you asset strip...Eg sell ground etc

So, i always question why anyone wants to get financially involved with a football club unless they are a fan and investing from the heart.

Football is littered with clubs ruined by investors who came i promising the earth and by incompetence or greed destroyed the club's.

Vanity or money laundering seem to be behind some of the investors motives.

I have no solutions to the issues being debated, but i do hope the resolving of this issue does not divide Darlington fans

[DarloBear]

Just read Scott's article, it matches what I think a lot of fans will be thinking and if we want to progress it is the only way forward. Anyone who wants further promotions while remaining with the current setup is probably going to be disappointed as it won't get any better than this.

Let's not get deflected though from the immediate task in hand and get the money raised for the pitch.

[Mr_Tibbs]

Just read Scott's article, it matches what I think a lot of fans will be thinking and if we want to progress it is the only way forward. Anyone who wants further promotions while remaining with the current setup is probably going to be disappointed as it won't get any better than this.

Let's not get deflected though from the immediate task in hand and get the money raised for the pitch.

Exactly that!

Just a reminder that in order to buy community shares to pay for this work (which is what your pledge will do) you do need to be a member of the DFCSG so, for anyone who isn't yet a member, you can still do so for just £13 until the end of the current membership year (31st August).

This process is quite painless and takes just a couple of minutes of your time to join online if you're not already a member, and you can do that here:

http://dfcsg.co.uk/join

[Alfie]

For those who just jump straight into the forum there's an excellent piece by Scott which has popped up on the site which is well worth a read too...

http://www.darlofc.co.uk/news/1252

My thoughts are more or less in line with what Scott said. We didn't start out on this journey with the aim to be a fan-owned entity, we did it to save our club and - in the absence of any white knights coming galloping along - we did what was necessary to do that... which was to stop running around like headless chickens and to take control of our own destiny.

As Scott said our actual aim was to get the club back to Darlo and playing football at the highest possible level which we fans can sustain. We've not only achieved that but done it in a remarkably short space of time thanks to the efforts of MG and his team of coaching staff, and of course the players who Martin attracted to the club who have outperformed the ability of our small fanbase to support what they want to kick on and achieve on the pitch.

It's little wonder, then, that our collective success has turned heads and we are now beginning to hear of people who DO want to invest in the club but the crucial difference now is that it really is our club, our future, and our choice and, as mentioned earlier in this thread, we do not actually have any assets which an investor could come in and strip - all we have is a great little football club which has evolved from nothing thanks to the tireless efforts of its fans.

The club is nothing without its fans - WE ARE the club and we've now found ourselves in the position of collectively deciding how our club evolves from this point forward but, happily, we can negotiate from a position of strength and ensure that the meaning behind the Barrow slogan is never forgotten and is enshrined in whatever agreement we reach with someone who wants to come in and help propel us up the next ladder.

It's been very tiring getting to where we are. I think we - and all of us currently here can count ourselves as pioneers - owe it to ourselves and to our sons and daughters to make sure that all of our hard work has not been to simply re-build our football club, but to build the foundations of an even greater football club.

It's up to us to decide if or how the club can evolve from here. We didn't set out to become a CIC, or a Community Benefit Society - we became the model we are because it worked for us. We're now faced with either sticking to the hard and fast rules which are imposed on us through legislation - finding a way to allow investors to come along in the guise of whatever we are allowed to divest into, or evolving into yet another model... perhaps even a hitherto unknown model which might be developed.

It's our club - we call the shots.

WE ARE THE CLUB - still don't understand why MG thinks WE are a laughing stock.

IT'S OUR CLUB - WE CALL THE SHOTS - let's just hope we don't give the gun away for a pot full of money.

[shawry]

For those who just jump straight into the forum there's an excellent piece by Scott which has popped up on the site which is well worth a read too...

http://www.darlofc.co.uk/news/1252

My thoughts are more or less in line with what Scott said. We didn't start out on this journey with the aim to be a fan-owned entity, we did it to save our club and - in the absence of any white knights coming galloping along - we did what was necessary to do that... which was to stop running around like headless chickens and to take control of our own destiny.

As Scott said our actual aim was to get the club back to Darlo and playing football at the highest possible level which we fans can sustain. We've not only achieved that but done it in a remarkably short space of time thanks to the efforts of MG and his team of coaching staff, and of course the players who Martin attracted to the club who have outperformed the ability of our small fanbase to support what they want to kick on and achieve on the pitch.

It's little wonder, then, that our collective success has turned heads and we are now beginning to hear of people who DO want to invest in the club but the crucial difference now is that it really is our club, our future, and our choice and, as mentioned earlier in this thread, we do not actually have any assets which an investor could come in and strip - all we have is a great little football club which has evolved from nothing thanks to the tireless efforts of its fans.

The club is nothing without its fans - WE ARE the club and we've now found ourselves in the position of collectively deciding how our club evolves from this point forward but, happily, we can negotiate from a position of strength and ensure that the meaning behind the Barrow slogan is never forgotten and is enshrined in whatever agreement we reach with someone who wants to come in and help propel us up the next ladder.

It's been very tiring getting to where we are. I think we - and all of us currently here can count ourselves as pioneers - owe it to ourselves and to our sons and daughters to make sure that all of our hard work has not been to simply re-build our football club, but to build the foundations of an even greater football club.

It's up to us to decide if or how the club can evolve from here. We didn't set out to become a CIC, or a Community Benefit Society - we became the model we are because it worked for us. We're now faced with either sticking to the hard and fast rules which are imposed on us through legislation - finding a way to allow investors to come along in the guise of whatever we are allowed to divest into, or evolving into yet another model... perhaps even a hitherto unknown model which might be developed.

It's our club - we call the shots.

WE ARE THE CLUB - still don't understand why MG thinks WE are a laughing stock.

IT'S OUR CLUB - WE CALL THE SHOTS - let's just hope we don't give the gun away for a pot full of money.

Because despite calling the shots we've overspent consistently. We continue to require bucket collections. We don't have a ground suitable for promotion.

And all the while we belittle and demean clubs who have a single investor/benefactor saying it can't work and doesn't work.



Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Robbie Painter]

It would have helped if the initial post had the correct information as presented at Friday's forum.

Can't have a constructive discussion without accurate information.

[dfc4me]

If we stay with the current model all we have to look forward to is several years of mid to lower table obscurity at best with relegation a distinct possibility while we try and stabilise the finances before moving forward again. The question is how many fans, having enjoyed 5 years of continual success, will be prepared to stick with us. My fear is that the answer is not many and, as a result, we get into a downward spiral that we never get out of. While an investor is a risk it does give us a chance of getting back to where most fans still think we belong.

[lo36789]

So we are pandering to the one game a season crowd now? At some point we won't be winning leagues every season is it being suggested that we pay to keep the interests of those people until that inevitable day?

[Santino]

I wonder if the fantastic success we've had over the last five years is both a blessing and a curse. I sincerely hope there aren't too many fans out there who expect to be challenging for promotion in every single season, regardless of what division we're in.

[Darlo_Pete]

You always start off a season hoping for the best and possible promotion, hope springs eternal and all that. If you accept that you can't achieve promotion that season, then it is being defeatist.

[lo36789]

You reckon that Burton Albion fans started this season not accepting that they wouldn't achieve promotion this season?

[wizardofos]

I agree with Scott.

The ownership model we have now was forced on us a last resort when a buyer could not be found in time.

Some people have become pre-occupied with the success of this model, at whatever level that means the Football Club will settle. In some cases that will be due to our past experiences, but in many cases (amongst some influential people) it is the ideology that appeals. To persevere with the model runs the risk of a downward spiral which I think is highly probable.

We know only too well the risks associated with single owners. At least this time we have the chance to accept or reject any proposal with a democratic vote on a constitution change.

Interesting times.

[loan_star]

We know only too well the risks associated with single owners. At least this time we have the chance to accept or reject any proposal with a democratic vote on a constitution change.

Interesting times.

Except from what I understand this isn't one single owner but the two people having 51% control. More chance of success if we aren't relying on one person.

[princes town]

I agree with Scott.

The ownership model we have now was forced on us a last resort when a buyer could not be found in time.

Some people have become pre-occupied with the success of this model, at whatever level that means the Football Club will settle. In some cases that will be due to our past experiences, but in many cases (amongst some influential people) it is the ideology that appeals. To persevere with the model runs the risk of a downward spiral which I think is highly probable.

We know only too well the risks associated with single owners. At least this time we have the chance to accept or reject any proposal with a democratic vote on a constitution change.

Interesting times.

I too have concluded that Scott is right. It is almost impossible to run a club of this size with a diminishing volunteer base. There are so many variables, regulations and tasks to deal with that it is almost impossible to cover all bases. My view changed after the Halifax game where I realised the fan model could not deliver an adequate customer experience, sadly. that is not a criticism of individuals just a hard-headed observation that the model is no longer a best fit. There will still be a role for some activities on a volunteer basis but activities like commercial, match-day security, parking and facilities management will require a professional overview. The saddest thing for me about the forum was to see some of our best people, whom I respect, look tired, on edge and stressed. Sport should be fun and it is unfair to criticise like that. We'll simply lose more people.

The solution is more difficult but I feel the Swansea model probably offers our best hope. The fans group is brilliant, an amalgamation of the CIC, Trust and Supporters group, and they should definitely have a director representative. It need not be a notional role as I don't think any right thinking investors will sack off such an experienced group. The group has a wide sweep although I still think certain functions are are under-represented.

[Mr_Tibbs]

We're bound by the rules and legislation which govern the ownership model we chose to save the club, so it's not so simple as voting to change our constitution because it might not be within the DFCSG's power to do so.

I do like the idea of investing in the development of the football team as that could be seen as being for the benefit of the community while providing a return for investors and a percentage for our club. I think that might satisfy the terms of the restrictions which apply to how we use our assets.

That might work well for all parties.

Other than that I think everyone's barking up the wrong tree by thinking we can just change our ownership model just because someone has dangled a better-looking carrot before our eyes.

[gabbas]

You reckon that Burton Albion fans started this season not accepting that they wouldn't achieve promotion this season?

He didn't say that , most football fans, I think , have this underlying feeling that there club will over achieve, we've all been there. Leicester fan betting on them winning the league is a good example .

[andydarlo]

The debate will rumble on for a lot longer than we really have time for given the numbers being talked of. However one thing no-one seems to be mentioning is that retaining or acquiring players to take us forward (or indeed, consolidate) is going to get a lot harder next season.
The top end of players we would look at now potentially have Gateshead, York and Hartlepool in the National League.
Then Blyth will rejoin us in our league plus possibly Spennymoor. Oh and Harrogate go full time.

So even keeping the same playing budget may not keep the squad as competitive.

[wizardofos]

We're bound by the rules and legislation which govern the ownership model we chose to save the club, so it's not so simple as voting to change our constitution because it might not be within the DFCSG's power to do so.

I do like the idea of investing in the development of the football team as that could be seen as being for the benefit of the community while providing a return for investors and a percentage for our club. I think that might satisfy the terms of the restrictions which apply to how we use our assets.

That might work well for all parties.

Other than that I think everyone's barking up the wrong tree by thinking we can just change our ownership model just because someone has dangled a better-looking carrot before our eyes.

"The ownership model we chose to save our club" - There's a saying in aviation that if your engine fails, you don't choose the field to land in, the field chooses you.

Please elaborate on why the ownership model could not be changed.

[super_les_mcjannet]

We're bound by the rules and legislation which govern the ownership model we chose to save the club, so it's not so simple as voting to change our constitution because it might not be within the DFCSG's power to do so.

I do like the idea of investing in the development of the football team as that could be seen as being for the benefit of the community while providing a return for investors and a percentage for our club. I think that might satisfy the terms of the restrictions which apply to how we use our assets.

That might work well for all parties.

Other than that I think everyone's barking up the wrong tree by thinking we can just change our ownership model just because someone has dangled a better-looking carrot before our eyes.

"The ownership model we chose to save our club" - There's a saying in aviation that if your engine fails, you don't choose the field to land in, the field chooses you.

Please elaborate on why the ownership model could not be changed.

I am sure it could be but I guess the question mark is the CBS, the community shares and how that all works.

I have no idea but the shares were bought under a model, could we change the model whilst having outstanding shares. I would imagine we could but it would certainly need checking.

I also wonder if the DFCSG if we had a vote can then vote proportionally, so if 60% I favour and 40% not in favour they vote that way in the shares they own and then the single share owners have their say also.

[Mr_Tibbs]

No, it's still one member one vote as far as I can tell. There is a process by which a CBS can convert to an ordinary company but I also don't know if or how that process could be followed with the community shares issue. I'm really only guessing but it may even require dissolution of the CBS, with all that that entails - I just don't know. I'm pretty sure MG and his investors won't know, either.

[boorman]

I agree with Scott.

The ownership model we have now was forced on us a last resort when a buyer could not be found in time.

Some people have become pre-occupied with the success of this model, at whatever level that means the Football Club will settle. In some cases that will be due to our past experiences, but in many cases (amongst some influential people) it is the ideology that appeals. To persevere with the model runs the risk of a downward spiral which I think is highly probable.

It's a good point you make about ideology driving opinion. I hold my hands up and say I'm one of those who is hung up about the ideology of fan-run clubs, but it is for a practical reason, i.e. the shelf life of chairmen/owners - even well-intentioned ones - is very low indeed. Where does the club go if new owners run out of money or just get sick of it?

As true as it is we have no assets to pillage, the chances are you're not going to get more than 3 good years out of a set of investors, and as the recent history of the club has proven, you tend to be worse off when they leave than you were when they came in.

Between George Reynolds, George Houghton and Raj Singh I'd guess £25m went into the club, and yet we went backwards. Let's not forget this. The more money that was put in, the worse we ultimately got. Should we really run this gauntlet again?

There are some reasonable arguments for accepting investment - and Scott's article made some good points - but I don't think coming in the top 6 in the Conference North and having to cut the playing budget is a bad enough situation to open up the can of worms above.

[Quakerz]

We won't have to cut the budget if we can raise the 80k required - that buys us more time to properly look into the pros and cons of either staying as we are, or adopting a new model with investment, whilst maintaining a competitive budget next season.

Even if we only raise half of the 80k or even a third, it still reduces the proposed cut and it's impact.

[banktopp]

The core asset of our football club, and we have precious few, is the 'Golden Share' which allows us to field a team in the National league. Without it we cannot play. Only too painful a memory under Strings.
If new investors came in owning 51% would the 'Golden Share' be transferred to them ?

[poppyfield]

The core asset of our football club, and we have precious few, is the 'Golden Share' which allows us to field a team in the National league. Without it we cannot play. Only too painful a memory under Strings.
If new investors came in owning 51% would the 'Golden Share' be transferred to them ?

That is a very good question, Strings held on to that which was a major factor in our going tits up in 2012, one of the wizzes on here will know.

[Spyman]

Surely want we want really, in an ideal world, is any investors to provide initial funding for improvements to the facilities (whether at BM or elsewhere) to allow us to progress on the field and generate some off-field revenue.

We don't necessarily need someone to pump in money year after year endlessly - like Boorman says above you are then solely at the mercy of when this person/people get bored or run out of money or whatever.

If someone came along with the initial investment to get us a Football League ground and perhaps the funds to take on a couple of full-time members of staff to run the club day to day (with a view to those positions generating revenue to self-fund in say 3 years), then we could perhaps become 'sustainable' based on sponsorship and gate receipts in the Conference or perhaps League 2.

As far as the 'golden share' issue goes, surely one of the key aspects of any agreement needs to be that the golden share remains the property of the DFCSG thereby at least protecting the football club if any new investors (whether 51% or 49% shareholders) were to move on. If the investors are well intentioned I can't see why they'd have a problem with this.