Darlo Uncovered

The 59 post thread about Martin Gray - where he gets mentioned twice.

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

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...

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.

Are you saying that Swansea are a fans run club?.. And that they had no money ?

I remember watching Swansea at Southport and look at where they both are now!

Quakerz wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote: and don't forget the seats need to be across two different sides?

Do they?

Yes, i'm pretty sure two seated stands are required.

The obvious solution to that would be to move the dugouts to the other side of the pitch, alter the existing seating to four rows at the clubhouse so it counts to capacity. It'd also mean the stand on the other side wouldn't need to be quite so deep if you can get 250 ish at the clubhouse.

Anyway, as said there just needs to be a plan. The current seated stand being so shallow isn't the best.

H1987 wrote:

Quakerz wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote: and don't forget the seats need to be across two different sides?

Do they?

Yes, i'm pretty sure two seated stands are required.

The obvious solution to that would be to move the dugouts to the other side of the pitch, alter the existing seating to four rows at the clubhouse so it counts to capacity. It'd also mean the stand on the other side wouldn't need to be quite so deep if you can get 250 ish at the clubhouse.

Anyway, as said there just needs to be a plan. The current seated stand being so shallow isn't the best.

You have misread the rules.

They require the seats to be in not more than 2 stands. All the seats can be in one stand. The seats cannot be in 3 separate stands to make up the total ( in the National League. In the Football League criteria there is no mention of the number of stands

My opinion wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

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...

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.

Are you saying that Swansea are a fans run club?.. And that they had no money ?

At the start we were yes... when the fans bought the club from Tony Petty... and even after Petty had gone, we nearly went bust as a fan owned club. It was then structured differently with fans (who happened to have money) came in, but right at the start we competed in League 2 (then Division 3) as a fan owned club.

don'tbuythesun wrote:I remember watching Swansea at Southport and look at where they both are now!

Yeah, 10 years is like 100 in football... saying that Swansea's fan base (or potential fanbase) was far bigger than Darlo's... with nobody but Crapdiff around us to compete with.

Respect... Well done Swansea... I did not know that.....

SwansQuaker83 wrote:At the start we were yes... when the fans bought the club from Tony Petty... and even after Petty had gone, we nearly went bust as a fan owned club. It was then structured differently with fans (who happened to have money) came in, but right at the start we competed in League 2 (then Division 3) as a fan owned club.

Must have been a heartbreaking time.

They still beat us 4-0 even when they were crap. Anyone there for the 6-0 in 1985?

Yes, 4-0 up at half time, 2 goals from Dave McLean.

Funnily enough, the 6-0 v Swansea was during a run of 3 straight wins which also included a 2-0 away win at Reading (we were the first to beat them that season) and a 3-0 away win at Bolton. Proper, proper clubs there, and we smashed them all.

Happy days.

We also beat Wolves and Derby County that season! (from memory). And lost 7-0 at York lol.

The problem in those days was your match day squad was 11 players plus only 1 sub (which then became 2 then 3 subs), and when you only needed 12 players on a match day, you'd only have a squad of about 15 contracted players. What this meant was that if you got a handful of injuries or a bit of illness, you needed to blood kids or borrow northern league players to make up the numbers, if you couldn't get an emergency signing or loan player in.

So in that 85/86 division 3 season we had a couple of injury crisis which meant we were everyone's whipping boys for parts of the season - hence the 7-0 drubbing at York - but when we had a full strength side we were actually a bloody good team who could beat anyone, as you can see from the wins against the likes of Swansea, Bolton, Reading, Wolves, Derby County.

We started with a major injury crisis, were invincible through the middle of the season, then finished with a major injury crisis and finished just in the bottom half. If we'd have been more lucky with injuries we'd have been easy top 6/7 that year.

We had some great players - Kev Smith, Gary Morgan, Phil Lloyd, Fred Barber (though I think we sold him), Dave McLean, Paul Ward, Alan Roberts, Carl Airey, and Garry MacDonald at his absolute best just before he picked up a nasty injury and was never the same player again.

Imagine having 15 players now, we'd have to take our boots along!

darlo2001uk wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote:At the start we were yes... when the fans bought the club from Tony Petty... and even after Petty had gone, we nearly went bust as a fan owned club. It was then structured differently with fans (who happened to have money) came in, but right at the start we competed in League 2 (then Division 3) as a fan owned club.

Must have been a heartbreaking time.

Under Petty it was bad... he tried to sell all our players, and anything else that wasn't nailed down... before the North Bank Alliance exposed everything...

http://www.angelfire.com/nb/pettyout/crookreport.html

But before that there was Michael Thompson... who had come in and taken over as Chairman from Doug Sharp, promising Premier League football... Frankie Burrows had just left and the new manager was about to be unveiled... talk was Ian Rush and Trevor Francis. Who we got was Kevin Cullis, who was brought in from his previous role as Under 16s manager of Cradley Town in the West Midlands League.

Cullis was clueless, he lasted 2 games, both hammerings, half way through the second he was thrown out of the changing rooms at half time.. Thompson, it turned out, didn't have any money, he was just looking to get hold of the club for free somehow and sell all the players and run off with the money... well worth a google.

But yeah we were a farce... from the collapse in the early to mid 80s, right up until the mid noughties.

I think the question does need to be asked when Gray does go, which may be sooner than later on current form are we able to make a clean break from all of his connections, academy etc.
While I wont question Gray's work ethic and the job he has done, as part owner of the club the way he acted by going behind the fans/owners back with the Raj Singh affair - not only trying to bring him on board, but diluting our shareholding - I am seriously questioning Grays agenda.

Likewise. The harm he inflicted is having consequences now.

I do not question we need external investment, however, the way he did what he did was simply wrong.

It showed an arrogance and disregard for all the effort and investment from the fan base over the last few years.

I have put my share into all of the pitches and additional, but i am damned if i will contribute to a playing budget supplement. Doing so , in my opinion only encourages his arrogance further

tezza wrote:Likewise. The harm he inflicted is having consequences now.

I do not question we need external investment, however, the way he did what he did was simply wrong.

It showed an arrogance and disregard for all the effort and investment from the fan base over the last few years.

I have put my share into all of the pitches and additional, but i am damned if i will contribute to a playing budget supplement. Doing so , in my opinion only encourages his arrogance further

We only need external investment to meet the expectations of Martin Gray and a section of our fanbase.

We do not need external investment for Darlington FC to exist and compete in the football pyramid.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

tezza wrote:Likewise. The harm he inflicted is having consequences now.

I do not question we need external investment, however, the way he did what he did was simply wrong.

It showed an arrogance and disregard for all the effort and investment from the fan base over the last few years.

I have put my share into all of the pitches and additional, but i am damned if i will contribute to a playing budget supplement. Doing so , in my opinion only encourages his arrogance further

Time to move on from that night, we have to look forward not back and stay positive.Cannot see the point in digging all this up again.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

I guess things will get easier after we have raised funds and extended that bloody stand, and when the 500 club has come to an end. When the 5 year season tickets are over, that should net us somewhere in the region of 100k per annum shouldn't it? (I'm basing this on 400 ST x£250 per ST). We could then use half to improve ground per year ,terracing etc. Or put in the pot if we do gain promotion and half for the Budget. Trouble is, this is nearly 2 years away and it appears some people are unwilling to 'stand still' as they see it. In my view, we are not standing still though. Each year should see an improvement in financial turnover and infrastructure.

Vodka_Vic wrote:I guess things will get easier after we have raised funds and extended that bloody stand, and when the 500 club has come to an end. When the 5 year season tickets are over, that should net us somewhere in the region of 100k per annum shouldn't it? (I'm basing this on 400 ST x£250 per ST). We could then use half to improve ground per year ,terracing etc. Or put in the pot if we do gain promotion and half for the Budget. Trouble is, this is nearly 2 years away and it appears some people are unwilling to 'stand still' as they see it. In my view, we are not standing still though. Each year should see an improvement in financial turnover and infrastructure.

My issue isn't standing still, my issue is manager throwing a strop to get his budget increased, fans putting 42k into it when gambling on the fact that we raise the money for the seats.

The seats should have been the focus 100% we shouldn't have chanced our arm, yes we may well pull it off but I don't see how anyone can think it was a sensible use of money.

I'd rather the ticket increase was used to fund the seats too rather than the budget, I feel this has just been another financial screw up by the club...we can't seem to go a season without having one

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

shawry wrote:

Vodka_Vic wrote:I guess things will get easier after we have raised funds and extended that bloody stand, and when the 500 club has come to an end. When the 5 year season tickets are over, that should net us somewhere in the region of 100k per annum shouldn't it? (I'm basing this on 400 ST x£250 per ST). We could then use half to improve ground per year ,terracing etc. Or put in the pot if we do gain promotion and half for the Budget. Trouble is, this is nearly 2 years away and it appears some people are unwilling to 'stand still' as they see it. In my view, we are not standing still though. Each year should see an improvement in financial turnover and infrastructure.

My issue isn't standing still, my issue is manager throwing a strop to get his budget increased, fans putting 42k into it when gambling on the fact that we raise the money for the seats.

The seats should have been the focus 100% we shouldn't have chanced our arm, yes we may well pull it off but I don't see how anyone can think it was a sensible use of money.

I'd rather the ticket increase was used to fund the seats too rather than the budget, I feel this has just been another financial screw up by the club...we can't seem to go a season without having one

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

The "boost the budget" fund was an appeasement for MG.

We should not even have considered that avenue until we had concluded the other funds. They offered certainty over the gamble of the "boost the budget" Accepting that only a part of this was raised, from where I sit I see no real progress in the playing standard.

Opening this appeal was a real mistake, had we not done so, we would not now be in a scramble to make it over the finishing line.

tezza wrote:
The "boost the budget" fund was an appeasement for MG.

We should not even have considered that avenue until we had concluded the other funds. They offered certainty over the gamble of the "boost the budget" Accepting that only a part of this was raised, from where I sit I see no real progress in the playing standard.

Opening this appeal was a real mistake, had we not done so, we would not now be in a scramble to make it over the finishing line.

Were you expecting an improvement in playing standard because we raised money for boost the budget?

Boost the budget kept playing budget as it was the year before, so on that argument then no increase in standard should occur and you are seeing exactly what you expect.

We decided to appease rightly or wrongly, we need to move on from that really. Priority now is how we get to the end of the year and raise the 62k which is left.

Another worry on the back of that is as attendances drop to lower than many expect, if this happens longer term then MG's budget will need to be cut this season.

Gray normally turns things around, he just needs to do this soon.

super_les_mcjannet wrote:

tezza wrote:
The "boost the budget" fund was an appeasement for MG.

We should not even have considered that avenue until we had concluded the other funds. They offered certainty over the gamble of the "boost the budget" Accepting that only a part of this was raised, from where I sit I see no real progress in the playing standard.

Opening this appeal was a real mistake, had we not done so, we would not now be in a scramble to make it over the finishing line.

Were you expecting an improvement in playing standard because we raised money for boost the budget?

Boost the budget kept playing budget as it was the year before, so on that argument then no increase in standard should occur and you are seeing exactly what you expect.

I do not accept that argument: The changes in playing personnel were surely meant to improve the squad and by definition the playing standard.