You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Sun May 20, 2018 5:16 pm View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4904
Team Supported: Darlington
theoriginalfatcat wrote:

The 500 club members should all be applauded :clap: and as these latest ideas seem to be voluntary they can choose whether or not to help out again. Also I like the way it's pitched, as in no dreaded VAT.


What makes you think no VAT, I would assume VAT is required as the money is in exchange of goods/service (entrance to the games)?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4904
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlo-and-Back wrote:
divas wrote:
I’m sure when the accounts are published at the AGM that will be clear. At the moment the club is offering fans the chance to extend season tickets in order to structure and consolidate the debt position not tapping everyone up to clear the debt. The outcome will be the same in that a certain amount of current debt will be paid down but it’s the club managing it through operationally


The published accounts certainly won’t show cashflow problems due to postponed games. It’s time for transparency, the club wants funds and it should be clear what the monies are being used for. We are fan owned after all so why would the board seek to avoid transparency?


Johnston was very clear, it's carried over debt from last season, he expects us make a 10k loss this year or we could break even.

It's not one thing individually we basically spent more than we brought in last season, seemed quite clear at the forum. If you really need to know more I would suggest contacting the club/DFCSG to try and get a response on the exact debt now, but in theory it will have been turned over a number of times.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4904
Team Supported: Darlington
B_Little wrote:
al_quaker wrote:
I've no real issue with this offer - as long as we start budgeting properly (and the fact that we will be cutting the budget next season and have a manager who is more amenable to that should help). To those complaining - if you have better ideas for clearing the debt then I'm sure the club will be delighted to hear them

I'm looking forwards to hearing more about the affiliate marketing scheme


The only way is to focus on 'BIG CUP RUNS'. Lincoln did this last year and are on a better financial footing because of this alone. An FA cup run to the 3th round and get Liverpool @ Anfield should solve it. That should be the focus to clear debt rather than pinch from Peter to pay Paul.


So we need to either raise around 50k now or the directors/someone has to put that money in out of their own pocket but you think the solution is wait until 3rd round of the FA Cup in 2019 to resolve our current cash flow challenges.

I am not convinced by your current plan to help the current cash flow, whilst I do agree a cup run would be fantastic it will sadly do nothing for our immediate term challenge.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:24 pm
Posts: 90
Team Supported: Darlington
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
Darlo-and-Back wrote:
divas wrote:
I’m sure when the accounts are published at the AGM that will be clear. At the moment the club is offering fans the chance to extend season tickets in order to structure and consolidate the debt position not tapping everyone up to clear the debt. The outcome will be the same in that a certain amount of current debt will be paid down but it’s the club managing it through operationally


The published accounts certainly won’t show cashflow problems due to postponed games. It’s time for transparency, the club wants funds and it should be clear what the monies are being used for. We are fan owned after all so why would the board seek to avoid transparency?


Johnston was very clear, it's carried over debt from last season, he expects us make a 10k loss this year or we could break even.

It's not one thing individually we basically spent more than we brought in last season, seemed quite clear at the forum. If you really need to know more I would suggest contacting the club/DFCSG to try and get a response on the exact debt now, but in theory it will have been turned over a number of times.



The point is that the board / DFCSG should be very clear in explaining what raised funds are being used for. Just hiding behind ‘debt’ isn’t being transparent. At one extreme the club could be trading as insolvent which is a huge concern, at the other extreme it could be simply temporary funds to bridge cashflow due to postponements. The Board simply cannot be allowed to trade at a loss in the hope that fans will put hands in pockets. That’s plain bad management.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:33 pm
Posts: 1072
Team Supported: Darlington
B_Little wrote:
The only way is to focus on 'BIG CUP RUNS'. Lincoln did this last year and are on a better financial footing because of this alone. An FA cup run to the 3th round and get Liverpool @ Anfield should solve it. That should be the focus to clear debt rather than pinch from Peter to pay Paul.


As much as I would love nothing more than a series of cup runs, we simply cannot budget for that occurrence, nor can we expect it as a Conference North team.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:33 pm
Posts: 1072
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlo-and-Back wrote:
The point is that the board / DFCSG should be very clear in explaining what raised funds are being used for. Just hiding behind ‘debt’ isn’t being transparent. At one extreme the club could be trading as insolvent which is a huge concern, at the other extreme it could be simply temporary funds to bridge cashflow due to postponements. The Board simply cannot be allowed to trade at a loss in the hope that fans will put hands in pockets. That’s plain bad management.


Johnson has been entirely transparent on this, in fact much more so than any of his predecessors, and explained exactly how the residual debt has affected us. He cannot blame any single source as we are continually recycling it and there is no long-term single debt the blame can be pinned on.

To put it simply, we overspent last season, built debts with suppliers, etc, using credit facilities to extend the period of repayment and the lack of current cashflow has made further payments extremely challenging with our credit period already at its limit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4904
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlo-and-Back wrote:
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
Darlo-and-Back wrote:
divas wrote:
I’m sure when the accounts are published at the AGM that will be clear. At the moment the club is offering fans the chance to extend season tickets in order to structure and consolidate the debt position not tapping everyone up to clear the debt. The outcome will be the same in that a certain amount of current debt will be paid down but it’s the club managing it through operationally


The published accounts certainly won’t show cashflow problems due to postponed games. It’s time for transparency, the club wants funds and it should be clear what the monies are being used for. We are fan owned after all so why would the board seek to avoid transparency?


Johnston was very clear, it's carried over debt from last season, he expects us make a 10k loss this year or we could break even.

It's not one thing individually we basically spent more than we brought in last season, seemed quite clear at the forum. If you really need to know more I would suggest contacting the club/DFCSG to try and get a response on the exact debt now, but in theory it will have been turned over a number of times.



The point is that the board / DFCSG should be very clear in explaining what raised funds are being used for. Just hiding behind ‘debt’ isn’t being transparent. At one extreme the club could be trading as insolvent which is a huge concern, at the other extreme it could be simply temporary funds to bridge cashflow due to postponements. The Board simply cannot be allowed to trade at a loss in the hope that fans will put hands in pockets. That’s plain bad management.


They were quite clear though, we have debt of 65k the original debt has been paid in theory but other costs come through and we have never closed this gap.

Johnston advised at the forum how many days the debt age now was and it was much lower than previous.

It's not temporary due to postponements as it happens the same time every season hence why directors have put their own cash in to keep things ticking over. The Board have accepted that we can't keep going at a loss like the last few season hence the target to run as near as possible to break even this year. However this doesn't remove the debt and current cash flow challenges which this will resolve, were you at the forum as a lot of your questions have been answered in theory but maybe not in the exact manner you want them to be?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:24 pm
Posts: 90
Team Supported: Darlington
You’re right Super Les, my Qs are coming over as technical, apologies. My concern is that this is the fourth debt problem we’ve had in five years and it shouldn’t be smooth talked under the table. The football club doesn’t have many debtors outside of wages and ground rent so there isn’t scope for juggling aged debt which makes it nervous. My guess, and it is a guess, is that we are being run at a loss and someone is covering the loss. Not good and something as shareholder the DFCSG should be all over and be in a position to explain to us.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20831
Team Supported: Darlington
But it has been explained to us, crystal clear. We made a loss last year so have a legacy debt which is always being carried over.

Unfortunately we're not in a position where we have retained profits from previous years sloshing around in the bank, so cash flow problems are always going to arise when we overspend or if income drops.

As for creditors, I there's a whole lot more to it than paying players and rent. You might not think it but we're likely to have loads of suppliers for all kinds of stuff.

_________________
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  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 104
Team Supported: Darlington
Quakerz wrote:
But it has been explained to us, crystal clear. We made a loss last year so have a legacy debt which is always being carried over.

Unfortunately we're not in a position where we have retained profits from previous years sloshing around in the bank, so cash flow problems are always going to arise when we overspend or if income drops.

As for creditors, I there's a whole lot more to it than paying players and rent. You might not think it but we're likely to have loads of suppliers for all kinds of stuff.


For example the companies involved in the construction and pitch work.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20831
Team Supported: Darlington
I would bloody hope not - as we received grants for that work and the money raised by us for the work was raised independently from the club. It should be separate money not club money, which should have went straight to those suppliers.

_________________
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  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:38 pm
Posts: 12366
Team Supported: Darlington
Unless the amount raised was not enough in the end. We know fine well from RC at one of the forums that the original costings done for BM were miles out.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 4:30 pm
Posts: 34
Team Supported: Darlington
Hi all. Hopefully the below from DFC / DFCSG will help with some of the questions in this thread.

• The club started this season with £65k of debt of which £35k was to the construction companies associated with the phase 1 seating build. Other creditors were match day suppliers. The profile of this aged debt was the majority of it was between 90-120 days old. The club had also been running for the previous season with an operating loss.

• The playing budget for the current season had been set after discussions with MG, players were secured on contracts towards the end of last season and in the close season. This cost is then fixed for the year as it is very difficult to move players on who are on 2 year contracts with good wages.

• The forecast income was based on crowds of 1800 for home games (based on the previous year’s average) together with the projected sponsorship income the club was aware of. If the gates fall below 1800 then there will be a cash shortfall.

• David Johnston on joining viewed the budget position and raised the gate entry price by £2 as the projected P/L was showing a substantial loss for the season.

• Raising the gate income with our current mix of adults/children/seniors reduced the projected loss by half but the Board agreed to work hard on commercial activity to close the gap.

• The current position, depending gate income, the club is forecast to break even or lose up to £10k by season end – the best trading position it has been since 2012. This has been achieved by cutting the playing budget and through generating profit on player transfers. The aged debt is now mainly 30-60 days which is becoming more manageable but still distracts the directors. This position is needs to be resolved and the outstanding debt has to be paid down.

• As shown as recent forum the cash flow position deteriorates up to March but recovers through to April as the Early Bird Season Ticket sales income is received. This is an important part of this seasons income and obviously this position is replicated every year in our cash flow i.e. the cash received last season for this season ticket sales gave us no benefit this season but we get the benefit this season of next years Early Bird sales.

• The club would be hard pushed to manage the cash flow of the current debt plus the above cashflow position so the club is now asking to clear the legacy debt from last year by the end of February. This would leave the club debt free for the first time since 2012 and would be a superb achievement.

• The playing budget will be set at a level next season by the Board to reflect sustainable income, which is forecast to still allow TW put a competitive team on the pitch. There will be the option for the fans to continue with a Boost the Budget scheme to provide Tommy with the funds to further strengthen the squad to enhance the probability of competing at a play off level. This cash amount is forecast to be at similar or higher level to this season’s Boost the Budget amount across the season. The fans however do not have to do this but this would be the preferred option of DFC Board / DFCSG as DFC will no longer run a budget that predicts a financial loss and risks the clubs future. This type of financial management has to stop.

• The club will not be redeveloping Blackwell Meadows next season whilst the outcome of the Sporting Village proposal is unknown but the Board will be looking to create an infrastructure fund which would be ring fenced by the DFCSG to start creating a cash surplus to support the future development of income generating assets (4G pitch to be used commercially for 6-aside leagues, also incorporating our own academy, club house and bar) so when the outcome of the Sporting Village is known DFC is in a position to proceed quickly with its own asset development. This when developed will provide sustainable income for DFC to avoid the immediate need for future fan donations. The difference here being is that the club is being financially controlled, and the fans donations will start to be used to develop assets that will generate future income for the club.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3283
Team Supported: Darlington
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
theoriginalfatcat wrote:

The 500 club members should all be applauded :clap: and as these latest ideas seem to be voluntary they can choose whether or not to help out again. Also I like the way it's pitched, as in no dreaded VAT.


What makes you think no VAT, I would assume VAT is required as the money is in exchange of goods/service (entrance to the games)?



I thought I read it somewhere. I thought I read that certain payments can be treated as donations so subsequently 100% goes to the club and there is no VAT situation.

On looking through -- I can't find where I read it.

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 4980
Team Supported: Darlington
DFCSG_Secretary wrote:
DFC will no longer run a budget that predicts a financial loss and risks the clubs future. This type of financial management has to stop.


Thanks for the very informative post. This is the part that is most pleasing to read.

_________________
https://fundraising.darlingtonfcsupportersgroup.org/

http://buytickets.at/dfcsg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Posts: 879
Team Supported: Darlington
Only hope of no VAT would be if we were a registered charity. I know our defence have played like one but officially this is not an option!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:39 am
Posts: 1914
Team Supported: Darlington
DFCSG_Secretary wrote:
DFC will no longer run a budget that predicts a financial loss and risks the clubs future. This type of financial management has to stop.


DFCSG_Secretary wrote:
The club will not be redeveloping Blackwell Meadows next season whilst the outcome of the Sporting Village proposal is unknown but the Board will be looking to create an infrastructure fund which would be ring fenced by the DFCSG to start creating a cash surplus to support the future development of income generating assets (4G pitch to be used commercially for 6-aside leagues, also incorporating our own academy, club house and bar) so when the outcome of the Sporting Village is known DFC is in a position to proceed quickly with its own asset development.


Very pleasing to hear these two statements in particular and very well done to those who have, and continue to, give their time and effort to working behind the scenes.

_________________
Jazz Maverick wrote:
If I win the 50/50 draw I'm going to use the money to pay a tramp to throw dog s*** at you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:49 pm
Posts: 477
Team Supported: Darlington
jjljks wrote:
Only hope of no VAT would be if we were a registered charity. I know our defence have played like one but officially this is not an option!

Genuine donations are not subject to VAT.

VAT is a tax on the value of goods/services provided. There’s no value returned by the recipient to the donor for a genuine donation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20831
Team Supported: Darlington
al_quaker wrote:
DFCSG_Secretary wrote:
DFC will no longer run a budget that predicts a financial loss and risks the clubs future. This type of financial management has to stop.


Thanks for the very informative post. This is the part that is most pleasing to read.


Except we said exactly the same last year.

_________________
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  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:36 am
Posts: 1426
Team Supported: Darlington
DFCSG_Secretary wrote:
Hi all. Hopefully the below from DFC / DFCSG will help with some of the questions in this thread.

• The club started this season with £65k of debt of which £35k was to the construction companies associated with the phase 1 seating build. Other creditors were match day suppliers. The profile of this aged debt was the majority of it was between 90-120 days old. The club had also been running for the previous season with an operating loss.

• The playing budget for the current season had been set after discussions with MG, players were secured on contracts towards the end of last season and in the close season. This cost is then fixed for the year as it is very difficult to move players on who are on 2 year contracts with good wages.

• The forecast income was based on crowds of 1800 for home games (based on the previous year’s average) together with the projected sponsorship income the club was aware of. If the gates fall below 1800 then there will be a cash shortfall.

• David Johnston on joining viewed the budget position and raised the gate entry price by £2 as the projected P/L was showing a substantial loss for the season.

• Raising the gate income with our current mix of adults/children/seniors reduced the projected loss by half but the Board agreed to work hard on commercial activity to close the gap.

• The current position, depending gate income, the club is forecast to break even or lose up to £10k by season end – the best trading position it has been since 2012. This has been achieved by cutting the playing budget and through generating profit on player transfers. The aged debt is now mainly 30-60 days which is becoming more manageable but still distracts the directors. This position is needs to be resolved and the outstanding debt has to be paid down.

• As shown as recent forum the cash flow position deteriorates up to March but recovers through to April as the Early Bird Season Ticket sales income is received. This is an important part of this seasons income and obviously this position is replicated every year in our cash flow i.e. the cash received last season for this season ticket sales gave us no benefit this season but we get the benefit this season of next years Early Bird sales.

• The club would be hard pushed to manage the cash flow of the current debt plus the above cashflow position so the club is now asking to clear the legacy debt from last year by the end of February. This would leave the club debt free for the first time since 2012 and would be a superb achievement.

• The playing budget will be set at a level next season by the Board to reflect sustainable income, which is forecast to still allow TW put a competitive team on the pitch. There will be the option for the fans to continue with a Boost the Budget scheme to provide Tommy with the funds to further strengthen the squad to enhance the probability of competing at a play off level. This cash amount is forecast to be at similar or higher level to this season’s Boost the Budget amount across the season. The fans however do not have to do this but this would be the preferred option of DFC Board / DFCSG as DFC will no longer run a budget that predicts a financial loss and risks the clubs future. This type of financial management has to stop.

• The club will not be redeveloping Blackwell Meadows next season whilst the outcome of the Sporting Village proposal is unknown but the Board will be looking to create an infrastructure fund which would be ring fenced by the DFCSG to start creating a cash surplus to support the future development of income generating assets (4G pitch to be used commercially for 6-aside leagues, also incorporating our own academy, club house and bar) so when the outcome of the Sporting Village is known DFC is in a position to proceed quickly with its own asset development. This when developed will provide sustainable income for DFC to avoid the immediate need for future fan donations. The difference here being is that the club is being financially controlled, and the fans donations will start to be used to develop assets that will generate future income for the club.


Just a question on the first paragraph, which says;

The club started this season with £65k of debt of which £35k was to the construction companies associated with the phase 1 seating build.

I was under the impression we had raised the money for the seated stand, have the construction companies not been paid?

_________________
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
Image link: http://www.mydarlo.co.uk/img/BTD-therm-350x100.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3811
Team Supported: Darlington
Quakerz wrote:
al_quaker wrote:
DFCSG_Secretary wrote:
DFC will no longer run a budget that predicts a financial loss and risks the clubs future. This type of financial management has to stop.


Thanks for the very informative post. This is the part that is most pleasing to read.


Except we said exactly the same last year.
And the three years before that. In the last five years only in the Martin Jesper era did we get near to running without a loss.

And even then we were helped big style by the Dan Burn clauses.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20831
Team Supported: Darlington
poppyfield wrote:

Just a question on the first paragraph, which says;

The club started this season with £65k of debt of which £35k was to the construction companies associated with the phase 1 seating build.

I was under the impression we had raised the money for the seated stand, have the construction companies not been paid?


I think this has already been alluded to - basically the build cost more than what we expected so it doesn't look like enough was raised initially.

_________________
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  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:45 pm
Posts: 167
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlogramps wrote:
Quakerz wrote:
al_quaker wrote:
DFCSG_Secretary wrote:
DFC will no longer run a budget that predicts a financial loss and risks the clubs future. This type of financial management has to stop.


Thanks for the very informative post. This is the part that is most pleasing to read.


Except we said exactly the same last year.
And the three years before that. In the last five years only in the Martin Jesper era did we get near to running without a loss.

And even then we were helped big style by the Dan Burn clauses.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


Without the Dan Burn money we would have definitely gone into another administration as Laura Drew was calling her loan in, the transfer money saved the day.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3811
Team Supported: Darlington
Yep, Martin Jesper is on record as saying the club probably wouldn't be here had it not been for the Dan Burn clauses.

And the man who ultimately ensured those clauses were put into the deal? Raj Singh. Sweet irony. The man who did his best to ruin us ended up ensuring we fought on.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Posts: 1157
Team Supported: Darlington
I'm struggling with work that cost £35,000 more than was budgeted for. We hit all our ground development targets didn't we?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:38 pm
Posts: 12366
Team Supported: Darlington
don'tbuythesun wrote:
I'm struggling with work that cost £35,000 more than was budgeted for. We hit all our ground development targets didn't we?


The quote which the fundraising was based on was hundreds of thousands short. When Richard Cook came to the club and instructed Richardson’s the cost was much much higher than we’d originally been told by the previous board/project manager

If it hadn’t been for us being promoted and receiving extra grant money the move would never have happened at all. In addition the original costing was to build a 500 capacity seated stand - in the end we could only afford 300


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:45 pm
Posts: 167
Team Supported: Darlington
don'tbuythesun wrote:
I'm struggling with work that cost £35,000 more than was budgeted for. We hit all our ground development targets didn't we?


Lots of extra paving, dugouts moved back and 4G added in front on them, remedial work on current stand. added fencing work etc it all adds up plus the VAT which wasnt accounted for when fundraising you can get it back but you never get it all back.

We have come along way in the 12 months since been at Blackwell Meadows once we clear the debt and with reduced playing budget next season we will be in a much better place.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Posts: 578
Team Supported: Darlington
Not really related, but perhaps something to stimulate income. I noticed the other day that Gateshead offer 'flex' tickets, which include ten or 15 games of your choosing. They market to them to people who can't make every game, whether they live away or sometimes work on a weekend or whatever. It's obviously cheaper than a season ticket also, but doesn't represent the same level of savings. It'd maybe be a good way for the club to get money down and stimulate attendances? (Mind, not that it's helped Gateshead all that much, but getting people to commit to multiple games has always got to be a good thing?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3811
Team Supported: Darlington
H1987 wrote:
Not really related, but perhaps something to stimulate income. I noticed the other day that Gateshead offer 'flex' tickets, which include ten or 15 games of your choosing. They market to them to people who can't make every game, whether they live away or sometimes work on a weekend or whatever. It's obviously cheaper than a season ticket also, but doesn't represent the same level of savings. It'd maybe be a good way for the club to get money down and stimulate attendances? (Mind, not that it's helped Gateshead all that much, but getting people to commit to multiple games has always got to be a good thing?


Send the idea to the club. Enthusiasm and ideas are to be admired but surely it's much better to email the club than posting on here. Or even better - do both!

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3283
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlogramps wrote:
Yep, Martin Jesper is on record as saying the club probably wouldn't be here had it not been for the Dan Burn clauses.

And the man who ultimately ensured those clauses were put into the deal? Raj Singh. Sweet irony. The man who did his best to ruin us ended up ensuring we fought on.



That's as maybe but personally I would give him no credit for inserting said clauses.

If my cat (Floyd) had been chairman at the time of the Burn sale, he would of done the same!

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 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