Advertise Here
You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:44 pm View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:33 am 
Online

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 814
Team Supported: Darlington
Lo, you have 3 years to get from 1 to 2,000 seats in FL I think.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
lo36789 wrote:
No again - that wasn't what was said.

What was said was there are plans to get a Cat A (NL) ground. Nothing beyond that. The fact of the matter is to have plans for Cat A means eligibility for promotion to FL. There would be a problem at that point as we would be relegated within a year unless there was a redeisgn of tin shed / existing stand is made 'bigger'.

But that fact is at that point once you hit FL you have just guaranteed yourself £2.1m of income plus another 2 years of parachute payments (even if you get relegated) - plus you have an extra amount of matched funding.


So 4k with plans for 5k.

Have you seen plans for a 5k ground?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 85
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
No again - that wasn't what was said.

What was said was there are plans to get a Cat A (NL) ground. Nothing beyond that. The fact of the matter is to have plans for Cat A means eligibility for promotion to FL. There would be a problem at that point as we would be relegated within a year unless there was a redeisgn of tin shed / existing stand is made 'bigger'.

But that fact is at that point once you hit FL you have just guaranteed yourself £2.1m of income plus another 2 years of parachute payments (even if you get relegated) - plus you have an extra amount of matched funding.


So 4k with plans for 5k.

Have you seen plans for a 5k ground?


I was under the impression that the Football League payment to League 2 Clubs is about £240,000 per annum. What is the £2.1m?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
That was amount listed by the Accrington Stanley chairman. Actually just looking back it was £2.2m of total revenue of which over 50% comes from FL payments.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
So 4k with plans for 5k.

Have you seen plans for a 5k ground?


I don't need to. The plans for a 5k ground could be knock the whole lot down and start again for all I care just because they are the plans doesn't mean you have to actually follow them when the time comes. Fact is if you get FL the money available is greater be that from additional revenue streams but also you would expect to have a full allocation of matched funding available again.

To be eligible for promotion to the FL we need 4,000. As we already know to meet current ground regs we need 3,000 with plans for 4,000 so we already know that those plans must exist otherwise we would be relegated right now.

The obvious thought pattern is the extra 500 we need will be coming from a terrace at the current open end.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 85
Team Supported: Darlington
lo36789 wrote:
That was amount listed by the Accrington Stanley chairman. Actually just looking back it was £2.2m of total revenue of which over 50% comes from FL payments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... ague-club/

It's £240,000


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
wizardofos wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
That was amount listed by the Accrington Stanley chairman. Actually just looking back it was £2.2m of total revenue of which over 50% comes from FL payments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... ague-club/

It's £240,000


https://twitter.com/andyhholt/status/898435911024693249

It is over 50% of £2.2million. Why would Andy Holt lie about it - forgive me but I'd expect he'd know.

You have linked to an article of proposed changes if the FL went to 4 divisions of 20 teams.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:38 pm
Posts: 12154
Team Supported: Darlington
The payment is just over £1m and is made up of 2 separate payments - a solidarity payment and TV revenue


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1044
Team Supported: Darlington
lo36789 wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
So 4k with plans for 5k.

Have you seen plans for a 5k ground?


I don't need to. The plans for a 5k ground could be knock the whole lot down and start again for all I care just because they are the plans doesn't mean you have to actually follow them when the time comes. Fact is if you get FL the money available is greater be that from additional revenue streams but also you would expect to have a full allocation of matched funding available again.
To be eligible for promotion to the FL we need 4,000. As we already know to meet current ground regs we need 3,000 with plans for 4,000 so we already know that those plans must exist otherwise we would be relegated right now.

The obvious thought pattern is the extra 500 we need will be coming from a terrace at the current open end.



IIRC the funding when you get to FL is actually a bit different. You can get matched funding up to a certain level, but it takes into account all the grants/ funding etc you have received from the fund previously since 1990 - ie not just in the last 5 years.

Quote:
Grant limits

Football League clubs are eligible for:
◾a maximum £750,000 less any previous grants received from the Football Trust or FSIF at any time since 1990.
◾a maximum grant of 50% of eligible costs.

http://www.fsif.co.uk/funding/football-league/

Thus grants awarded pre 2012 would be taken into account

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
Surely that 1990 rule can't be in place forever - seems a bit arbitrary given well time moves on.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 4669
Team Supported: Darlington
It would be an interesting (hypothetical) argument if funds we received pre-2012 were taken into account considering we were treated as a 'new club' by our beloved friends at the FA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 85
Team Supported: Darlington
lo36789 wrote:
wizardofos wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
That was amount listed by the Accrington Stanley chairman. Actually just looking back it was £2.2m of total revenue of which over 50% comes from FL payments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... ague-club/

It's £240,000


https://twitter.com/andyhholt/status/898435911024693249

It is over 50% of £2.2million. Why would Andy Holt lie about it - forgive me but I'd expect he'd know.

You have linked to an article of proposed changes if the FL went to 4 divisions of 20 teams.


I stand corrected, my figure was the solidarity payment not including the TV revenue. This has gone up a lot since I last looked at it! The £1m pays for a full time team. I wonder what payments are available in the Conference?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 85
Team Supported: Darlington
wizardofos wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
wizardofos wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
That was amount listed by the Accrington Stanley chairman. Actually just looking back it was £2.2m of total revenue of which over 50% comes from FL payments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... ague-club/

It's £240,000


https://twitter.com/andyhholt/status/898435911024693249

It is over 50% of £2.2million. Why would Andy Holt lie about it - forgive me but I'd expect he'd know.

You have linked to an article of proposed changes if the FL went to 4 divisions of 20 teams.




I stand corrected, my figure was the solidarity payment not including the TV revenue. This has gone up a lot since I last looked at it! The £1m pays for a full time team. I wonder what payments are available in the Conference?


Also I wonder how long one can depend on these payments, ie: are they guaranteed for a number of years or could they be reduced or stopped?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
Lol...nowhere near as much!

To be honest I think they only going one way. The more money the Prem gets the more gets filtered down basically.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1044
Team Supported: Darlington
al_quaker wrote:
It would be an interesting (hypothetical) argument if funds we received pre-2012 were taken into account considering we were treated as a 'new club' by our beloved friends at the FA



It would be a very interesting argument

I suspect the FSIF would:

1.claim they are not bound by FA decision in 2012
2. try to differentiate the decision in 2012 by saying it relates to football share not existence or not
3. refer to claims made by supporters etc that Darlo are not a new club to support their treating the club as an existing one

Definitely one that would necessitate Darlington instructing lawyers if they wanted to fight it

I do not know what monies Darlo had between 1990 and 2012, but I suspect it was a lot given the stand at Feethams, the Arena etc

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3431
Team Supported: Darlington
spen666 wrote:

I do not know


This will be your epitaph Spen.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:38 pm
Posts: 12154
Team Supported: Darlington
wizardofos wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
wizardofos wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
That was amount listed by the Accrington Stanley chairman. Actually just looking back it was £2.2m of total revenue of which over 50% comes from FL payments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... ague-club/

It's £240,000


https://twitter.com/andyhholt/status/898435911024693249

It is over 50% of £2.2million. Why would Andy Holt lie about it - forgive me but I'd expect he'd know.

You have linked to an article of proposed changes if the FL went to 4 divisions of 20 teams.


I stand corrected, my figure was the solidarity payment not including the TV revenue. This has gone up a lot since I last looked at it! The £1m pays for a full time team. I wonder what payments are available in the Conference?


Next to nothing. Don't have the exact figure but it's less than £50K. That's why the National League is such a basket case with teams spending large unsustainable sums in order to get to a level whereby being competetive at FT level become possible by being run sustainably.

By being FT with a £800K - £1M playing budget in the National League it used to give you a distinct advantage, until everyone started to do it. I'm amazed at how the league accepts some of the proposed budgets.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:38 am
Posts: 158
Team Supported: Darlington
spen666 wrote:
Definitely one that would necessitate Darlington instructing lawyers if they wanted to fight it


Touting for business, Spen? ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Posts: 958
Team Supported: Darlington
spen666 wrote:
al_quaker wrote:
It would be an interesting (hypothetical) argument if funds we received pre-2012 were taken into account considering we were treated as a 'new club' by our beloved friends at the FA



It would be a very interesting argument

I suspect the FSIF would:

1.claim they are not bound by FA decision in 2012
2. try to differentiate the decision in 2012 by saying it relates to football share not existence or not
3. refer to claims made by supporters etc that Darlo are not a new club to support their treating the club as an existing one

Definitely one that would necessitate Darlington instructing lawyers if they wanted to fight it

I do not know what monies Darlo had between 1990 and 2012, but I suspect it was a lot given the stand at Feethams, the Arena etc



Had a chat some years ago with someone from the Football Stadium group (coincidentally, he lived in Darlington at the time) and he gave me the following information which I posted on here in 2010:

"I've said this a few times - the maximum a league two club could gain in grants was £2m. I'm led to believe that around 40% of this figure was used for Feethams which left 60% for the Arena. This sum then reduces each year until after ten years the grant is forfeit. Therefore, the remaining sum to date would be a small fraction of the total £2m."

Would be interesting if the 10-year limit still applies


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
lo36789 wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
So 4k with plans for 5k.

Have you seen plans for a 5k ground?


I don't need to. The plans for a 5k ground could be knock the whole lot down and start again for all I care just because they are the plans doesn't mean you have to actually follow them when the time comes. Fact is if you get FL the money available is greater be that from additional revenue streams but also you would expect to have a full allocation of matched funding available again.

To be eligible for promotion to the FL we need 4,000. As we already know to meet current ground regs we need 3,000 with plans for 4,000 so we already know that those plans must exist otherwise we would be relegated right now.

The obvious thought pattern is the extra 500 we need will be coming from a terrace at the current open end.


Well you may not but others might... That's my point, if people could visualise the finished article it would gain interest and improve the funding drive...

Knock it all down and start again looks to me to be the only option


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Posts: 1044
Team Supported: Darlington
QuakerPete wrote:
spen666 wrote:
al_quaker wrote:
It would be an interesting (hypothetical) argument if funds we received pre-2012 were taken into account considering we were treated as a 'new club' by our beloved friends at the FA



It would be a very interesting argument

I suspect the FSIF would:

1.claim they are not bound by FA decision in 2012
2. try to differentiate the decision in 2012 by saying it relates to football share not existence or not
3. refer to claims made by supporters etc that Darlo are not a new club to support their treating the club as an existing one

Definitely one that would necessitate Darlington instructing lawyers if they wanted to fight it

I do not know what monies Darlo had between 1990 and 2012, but I suspect it was a lot given the stand at Feethams, the Arena etc



Had a chat some years ago with someone from the Football Stadium group (coincidentally, he lived in Darlington at the time) and he gave me the following information which I posted on here in 2010:

"I've said this a few times - the maximum a league two club could gain in grants was £2m. I'm led to believe that around 40% of this figure was used for Feethams which left 60% for the Arena. This sum then reduces each year until after ten years the grant is forfeit. Therefore, the remaining sum to date would be a small fraction of the total £2m."

Would be interesting if the 10-year limit still applies



FSIF in the link I put above say rule is all grants from 1990 are taken into consideration, so on that basis the 10 year rule you mention is not correct now

_________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow me on

Blog: www.spen666.wordpress.com

Twitter: @spen_666


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Knock it all down and start again looks to me to be the only option


Not really. I think the are of focus will simply be the existing seats.

Ultimately if you have 1000 in the Tin Shed, 1000 in the open end terrace then rebuild the seated stand as a single 2000 seater purpose built stand then you have 4000 + all the other standing areas around the ground which at four deep is easily 1,000 extra. It isn't ideal that money has been spent and it has to be redone but if we ever got to the Premier League we'd need a complete revamp again - would you complain about that?

The reason the funding has dried up is not because people haven't got a picture of the ground for 2030. The reason is because we don't have enough fans with the means / desire to put money in. As things stand we have about 150-200 fans who have historically put into fundraising initiatives - I don't think these fans have infinite pockets though - and that is the challenge now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 339
Team Supported: Darlington
Maybe our CEO has plans for the same type of stand we had at FEETHAMS looks like he's well in with the brewery having just opened a new pub/restaurant.
If not as much as I don't like the place there seems no option but to share with the other rugby club up the road.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
lo36789 wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Knock it all down and start again looks to me to be the only option


Not really. I think the are of focus will simply be the existing seats.

Ultimately if you have 1000 in the Tin Shed, 1000 in the open end terrace then rebuild the seated stand as a single 2000 seater purpose built stand then you have 4000 + all the other standing areas around the ground which at four deep is easily 1,000 extra. It isn't ideal that money has been spent and it has to be redone but if we ever got to the Premier League we'd need a complete revamp again - would you complain about that?

The reason the funding has dried up is not because people haven't got a picture of the ground for 2030. The reason is because we don't have enough fans with the means / desire to put money in. As things stand we have about 150-200 fans who have historically put into fundraising initiatives - I don't think these fans have infinite pockets though - and that is the challenge now.


2030 - you do realise that we could be in League 2 as early as 2019? Regardless of how unrealistic you think it is, there seems to be a desire of fans to see us back there a lot sooner than 2030... showing them that vision could help drive it forward... I work in stats, believe me, it's amazing how you can make someone see something with a nice little graph... they can visualise things.

To make that stand on the side hold 2,000 you would have to almost quadruple the depth would you not? and don't forget the seats need to be across two different sides?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20545
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
and don't forget the seats need to be across two different sides?


Do they?

_________________
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7525
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
And we could be in the Premier League in 2022 by your logic. We'd best get funding for a 10,000 capacity all seater stadium. I do hope nobody has overlooked what ground grading requirements are for the Champions League.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Quakerz wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
and don't forget the seats need to be across two different sides?


Do they?


Pretty sure they do...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
lo36789 wrote:
And we could be in the Premier League in 2022 by your logic. We'd best get funding for a 10,000 capacity all seater stadium. I do hope nobody has overlooked what ground grading requirements are for the Champions League.


I follow Swansea mate, I've seen that happen... :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:13 pm
Posts: 447
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
And we could be in the Premier League in 2022 by your logic. We'd best get funding for a 10,000 capacity all seater stadium. I do hope nobody has overlooked what ground grading requirements are for the Champions League.


I follow Swansea mate, I've seen that happen... :lol:

The difference of course is that Swansea were not a fans run club in the National league north with no money......But yeah you have seen it happen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martin Gray
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 557
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
My opinion wrote:
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
And we could be in the Premier League in 2022 by your logic. We'd best get funding for a 10,000 capacity all seater stadium. I do hope nobody has overlooked what ground grading requirements are for the Champions League.


I follow Swansea mate, I've seen that happen... :lol:

The difference of course is that Swansea were not a fans run club in the National league north with no money......But yeah you have seen it happen


Apart from the NL North bit, all that's wrong.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AndyPark, loan_star, Richie, Vodka_Vic and 66 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group