Gateshead

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, botrash, charlie, uncovered

tdk1
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:21 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Gateshead

Post by tdk1 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:58 pm

Heed are up for sale now as well. Hard to imagine there'll be another deep-pocketed benefactor out there just now, although they're probably a bit less complicated than pools or York as they are being sold debt-free.

tdk1
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:21 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by tdk1 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:00 pm

An awful lot of our local contemporaries with the begging bowls out though. Aren't spenny "inviting fresh investment" to help whatshisname too, and Singh I think wants more to help him at pools.

Gow9900
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:09 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Gow9900 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:21 pm

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/f ... b-14509245

This article states that their current owners have put in £3 million since they took the club over in 2015. Crazy money for non league football, but I think it's blatantly obvious that the National League and now the National League North are full of clubs spending crazy money on minimal incomes that cannot be sustained long term.

Their current average crowd this season is 852, and that is with a few games against the likes of Tranmere/Pools etc that have brought big followings with them to boost that figure, so unless they get someone with a lot of money that are prepared to pump more money in their is a chance of them being part time next season.

Does anyone know out of curiosity how many of the current 24 clubs in the National League are actually part time?

Vodka_Vic
Posts: 1455
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Vodka_Vic » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:11 pm

The NL is an absolute basket case of a league with teams owned by benefactors willing to put in anything to get to the FL and the promised land of TV money. Once you get there then it's so much easier to cut your cloth. It's become an absolute monster and it's sad to see the likes of Chester and Torquay doing so badly. What's the answer though? If TV payments trickle down to the NL then benefactors will be scrambling to get to clubs in the NLN and NLS to get into the NL and it would just push the problem further down the pyramid.

spen666
Posts: 1408
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by spen666 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:18 pm

Football at all levels (perhaps below the Premiership - only difference there is TV money) is a financial basket case

Clubs at all levels are paying out far more money than they can afford. I agree with all the comments on here so far.

It would be nice if it could be possible for the FA to introduce rules that make it an offence for a club to make a loss in a season. Also to limit the amount any one individual could invest into a club either personally or via persons or companies connected to him to say 10% of clubs income.

This would have effect of forcing clubs to limit the amount of wages they pay and to spread the financial burden so that if any sponsor/ investor/ benefactor pulls out ( for whatever reason) , club will only lose 10% of its income or less. [ Perhaps an exception to allow funds for ground developments above the 10% figure to be given, but clubs must prove it was used for that purpose]

It would benefit fan owned clubs as they would be able to compete on a more level playing field and should hopefully reduce the need for boost the budget type appeals
_________________________________________________________________
Twitter: @spen_666

Vodka_Vic
Posts: 1455
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Vodka_Vic » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:21 pm

Very true Spen but unfortunately in a free capitalist society something like that appears unenforceable. Would be nice though.

spen666
Posts: 1408
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by spen666 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:24 pm

Vodka_Vic wrote:Very true Spen but unfortunately in a free capitalist society something like that appears unenforceable. Would be nice though.

Revolution time? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
_________________________________________________________________
Twitter: @spen_666

LoidLucan
Posts: 2518
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by LoidLucan » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:34 pm

Yeah, you've got this situation where individual owners are just ploughing seven-figure sums into clubs chasing the dream :D
Last edited by LoidLucan on Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Quakerz
Posts: 20959
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Quakerz » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:34 pm

spen666 wrote:Football at all levels (perhaps below the Premiership - only difference there is TV money) is a financial basket case

Clubs at all levels are paying out far more money than they can afford. I agree with all the comments on here so far.

It would be nice if it could be possible for the FA to introduce rules that make it an offence for a club to make a loss in a season. Also to limit the amount any one individual could invest into a club either personally or via persons or companies connected to him to say 10% of clubs income.

This would have effect of forcing clubs to limit the amount of wages they pay and to spread the financial burden so that if any sponsor/ investor/ benefactor pulls out ( for whatever reason) , club will only lose 10% of its income or less. [ Perhaps an exception to allow funds for ground developments above the 10% figure to be given, but clubs must prove it was used for that purpose]

It would benefit fan owned clubs as they would be able to compete on a more level playing field and should hopefully reduce the need for boost the budget type appeals
Let's get a few things straight here...

1 Boost the budget isn't an "appeal".

It is an initiative where the fans can contribute towards an extra income stream for the club, which in turn increases the club's spending power - and where the fans feel like they can have a positive impact towards that income stream. It will be a permanent fan engagement feature IMO, and I'm for one happy to contribute to it on a seasonal basis.

2 If the FA had introduced a rule where an individual can only invest a maximum of 10% via himself or persons or companies associated with himself then I dare say that you would not currently be playing at this level. Take Brad's 7 figure plus investment from the last few seasons away and you simply wouldn't have had the same spending power and would have not been able to hang on to our coat tails up the league ladder.

3 I like how you add the caveat where perhaps the 10% can be increased for ground improvements because you know fine well that Brad, I mean the ground improvement fairies, will have to put more than that in to get your ground up to the 5,000 planned for.

4 Regarding 2 - you still have not acknowledged Brad's 7 figure investment (his words) into Spennymoor Town, despite being shown the article where it is stated many times - instead preferring to pretend it's not true.

5 Regarding 4 - Fuck off spen.
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

spen666
Posts: 1408
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by spen666 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:51 pm

Quakerz wrote:
spen666 wrote:Football at all levels (perhaps below the Premiership - only difference there is TV money) is a financial basket case

Clubs at all levels are paying out far more money than they can afford. I agree with all the comments on here so far.

It would be nice if it could be possible for the FA to introduce rules that make it an offence for a club to make a loss in a season. Also to limit the amount any one individual could invest into a club either personally or via persons or companies connected to him to say 10% of clubs income.

This would have effect of forcing clubs to limit the amount of wages they pay and to spread the financial burden so that if any sponsor/ investor/ benefactor pulls out ( for whatever reason) , club will only lose 10% of its income or less. [ Perhaps an exception to allow funds for ground developments above the 10% figure to be given, but clubs must prove it was used for that purpose]

It would benefit fan owned clubs as they would be able to compete on a more level playing field and should hopefully reduce the need for boost the budget type appeals
Let's get a few things straight here...

1 Boost the budget isn't an "appeal".

It is an initiative where the fans can contribute towards an extra income stream for the club, which in turn increases the club's spending power - and where the fans feel like they can have a positive impact towards that income stream. It will be a permanent fan engagement feature IMO, and I'm for one happy to contribute to it on a seasonal basis.

2 If the FA had introduced a rule where an individual can only invest a maximum of 10% via himself or persons or companies associated with himself then I dare say that you would not currently be playing at this level. Take Brad's 7 figure plus investment from the last few seasons away and you simply wouldn't have had the same spending power and would have not been able to hang on to our coat tails up the league ladder.

3 I like how you add the caveat where perhaps the 10% can be increased for ground improvements because you know fine well that Brad, I mean the ground improvement fairies, will have to put more than that in to get your ground up to the 5,000 planned for.

4 Regarding 2 - you still have not acknowledged Brad's 7 figure investment (his words) into Spennymoor Town, despite being shown the article where it is stated many times - instead preferring to pretend it's not true.

5 Regarding 4 - Fuck off spen.


Very inciteful and intelligent conversation.


Presumably you are happy with the boom and bust of football clubs because they overspend
_________________________________________________________________
Twitter: @spen_666

Vodka_Vic
Posts: 1455
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Vodka_Vic » Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:00 pm

Serious question here Spen. As Brad Groves is the benefactor at Spennymoor, is yourself or other Spenny fans worried that at some point he'll do the same as York and Heed's chairmen and pull out? I'm glad that it's a nagging doubt that Darlo fans don't have.

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by don'tbuythesun » Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:30 pm

I see you swerved any acknowledgement of Quakerz point 4. It really did happen, Spen!

Quakerz
Posts: 20959
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Quakerz » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:25 pm

spen666 wrote:
Very inciteful and intelligent conversation.

Presumably you are happy with the boom and bust of football clubs because they overspend
No - how did you arrive at that presumption? :crazy:

Don't bother answering because your reasoning will be worthless, and I want you to fuck off anyway :wave:
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

LoidLucan
Posts: 2518
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by LoidLucan » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:26 pm

Don't want to go all cruel on Gateshead for finally hitting a wall after years of unsustainably spending way over the top but I wouldn't mind Danny Johnson if there's a firesale needed... I think he may be out of contract in the summer anyway.

Quakerz
Posts: 20959
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Quakerz » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:29 pm

LoidLucan wrote:Don't want to go all cruel on Gateshead for finally hitting a wall after years of unsustainably spending way over the top but I wouldn't mind Danny Johnson if there's a firesale needed.
Gateshead will manage to find another rich backer from somewhere, who won't do them any harm when they up and leave. They've managed twice already, these clubs always do.
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

polam
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:31 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by polam » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:29 pm

Does anyone know out of curiosity how many of the current 24 clubs in the National League are actually part time?[/quote]

I believe that the answer is 2 - AFC Halifax Town and Maidenhead United

LoidLucan
Posts: 2518
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by LoidLucan » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:32 pm

Guiseley are part-time, I believe. They certainly were last season. Plus Chester.

polam
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:31 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by polam » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:44 pm

LoidLucan wrote:Guiseley are part-time, I believe. They certainly were last season. Plus Chester.
Fair enough - 2 clubs was quote by Maidenhead manager but probably suits his case to make that claim even if inaccurate

shildonlad
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:14 pm

Gow9900 wrote:https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/f ... b-14509245

This article states that their current owners have put in £3 million since they took the club over in 2015. Crazy money for non league football, but I think it's blatantly obvious that the National League and now the National League North are full of clubs spending crazy money on minimal incomes that cannot be sustained long term.

Their current average crowd this season is 852, and that is with a few games against the likes of Tranmere/Pools etc that have brought big followings with them to boost that figure, so unless they get someone with a lot of money that are prepared to pump more money in their is a chance of them being part time next season.

Does anyone know out of curiosity how many of the current 24 clubs in the National League are actually part time?
Off the top of my head:
Halifax
Woking
Maidenhead
Chester
Sollihull
Dover
Guiesley- have some part time and some full time players very off setup

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
Last edited by shildonlad on Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

shildonlad
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:19 pm

A few intresting points on here. As a gateshead fan myself althougth only started going 5 year back its no shock. Poor crowds and the chairman (richard bennot) never seemed like a liar so can believe the figure invested which never even got the team into the playoffs. He gave it a go and the club are in no debt so could be worse. And yeah national league is a basket case these days r.e. money. Richard is infact the 3rd benafactor, 1st was john halls company in the 90s, graeme wood and then richard. None got promotion infact they only came close for 1 season, also none managed to get the club a ground which to me is needed for a long term future. To be honest even a oart time team would need money from somewhere. Future looked bleak when graeme wood put it up for sale and a sale happend to a good rich football fan. Erd time lucky, who knows

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

LoidLucan
Posts: 2518
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by LoidLucan » Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:36 pm

They really do need a new ground. That stadium is the most dreadful place to watch a football match and even more depressing with just a few hundred inside.

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 11553
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Spyman » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:17 pm

Quakerz wrote:
spen666 wrote:Football at all levels (perhaps below the Premiership - only difference there is TV money) is a financial basket case

Clubs at all levels are paying out far more money than they can afford. I agree with all the comments on here so far.

It would be nice if it could be possible for the FA to introduce rules that make it an offence for a club to make a loss in a season. Also to limit the amount any one individual could invest into a club either personally or via persons or companies connected to him to say 10% of clubs income.

This would have effect of forcing clubs to limit the amount of wages they pay and to spread the financial burden so that if any sponsor/ investor/ benefactor pulls out ( for whatever reason) , club will only lose 10% of its income or less. [ Perhaps an exception to allow funds for ground developments above the 10% figure to be given, but clubs must prove it was used for that purpose]

It would benefit fan owned clubs as they would be able to compete on a more level playing field and should hopefully reduce the need for boost the budget type appeals
Let's get a few things straight here...

1 Boost the budget isn't an "appeal".

It is an initiative where the fans can contribute towards an extra income stream for the club, which in turn increases the club's spending power - and where the fans feel like they can have a positive impact towards that income stream. It will be a permanent fan engagement feature IMO, and I'm for one happy to contribute to it on a seasonal basis.

2 If the FA had introduced a rule where an individual can only invest a maximum of 10% via himself or persons or companies associated with himself then I dare say that you would not currently be playing at this level. Take Brad's 7 figure plus investment from the last few seasons away and you simply wouldn't have had the same spending power and would have not been able to hang on to our coat tails up the league ladder.

3 I like how you add the caveat where perhaps the 10% can be increased for ground improvements because you know fine well that Brad, I mean the ground improvement fairies, will have to put more than that in to get your ground up to the 5,000 planned for.

4 Regarding 2 - you still have not acknowledged Brad's 7 figure investment (his words) into Spennymoor Town, despite being shown the article where it is stated many times - instead preferring to pretend it's not true.

5 Regarding 4 - Fuck off spen.
He's trolling - he knows he's talking about Spennymoor and he knows it'll get a bite.

It's weird behaviour, but don't rise to it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 5932
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by loan_star » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:21 pm

Quakerz wrote:
spen666 wrote:Football at all levels (perhaps below the Premiership - only difference there is TV money) is a financial basket case

Clubs at all levels are paying out far more money than they can afford. I agree with all the comments on here so far.

It would be nice if it could be possible for the FA to introduce rules that make it an offence for a club to make a loss in a season. Also to limit the amount any one individual could invest into a club either personally or via persons or companies connected to him to say 10% of clubs income.

This would have effect of forcing clubs to limit the amount of wages they pay and to spread the financial burden so that if any sponsor/ investor/ benefactor pulls out ( for whatever reason) , club will only lose 10% of its income or less. [ Perhaps an exception to allow funds for ground developments above the 10% figure to be given, but clubs must prove it was used for that purpose]

It would benefit fan owned clubs as they would be able to compete on a more level playing field and should hopefully reduce the need for boost the budget type appeals
Let's get a few things straight here...

1 Boost the budget isn't an "appeal".

It is an initiative where the fans can contribute towards an extra income stream for the club, which in turn increases the club's spending power - and where the fans feel like they can have a positive impact towards that income stream. It will be a permanent fan engagement feature IMO, and I'm for one happy to contribute to it on a seasonal basis.

2 If the FA had introduced a rule where an individual can only invest a maximum of 10% via himself or persons or companies associated with himself then I dare say that you would not currently be playing at this level. Take Brad's 7 figure plus investment from the last few seasons away and you simply wouldn't have had the same spending power and would have not been able to hang on to our coat tails up the league ladder.

3 I like how you add the caveat where perhaps the 10% can be increased for ground improvements because you know fine well that Brad, I mean the ground improvement fairies, will have to put more than that in to get your ground up to the 5,000 planned for.

4 Regarding 2 - you still have not acknowledged Brad's 7 figure investment (his words) into Spennymoor Town, despite being shown the article where it is stated many times - instead preferring to pretend it's not true.

5 Regarding 4 - Fuck off spen.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

I can't believe that knobhead Spen dares show his face on here after all his comments on Facebook about it being "kyle uncovered".
Fuck off Spen!

shildonlad
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:40 pm

Talk about a thread going off track. Banter about spenny on a thread about gateshead

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

DARLO333
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:01 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by DARLO333 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:26 pm

“off track” says the part Newcastle part Gateshead fan , in Luton , from Shildon ....

shildonlad
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:33 pm

DARLO333 wrote:“off track” says the part Newcastle part Gateshead fan , in Luton , from Shildon ....
I'm not a Luton fan I just lived there but that was 5 year ago can't change my location on here for some reason. A few Newcastle fans watch Gateshead especially during the play off season. Same as a few Newcastle, Boro and Sunderland fans watch Darlington. I'd love to see all the north east teams flying. I suppose shildons my northern league team I was born there

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

Comfortably_numb
Posts: 1822
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:23 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Comfortably_numb » Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:08 pm

Quakerz wrote:
spen666 wrote:Football at all levels (perhaps below the Premiership - only difference there is TV money) is a financial basket case

Clubs at all levels are paying out far more money than they can afford. I agree with all the comments on here so far.

It would be nice if it could be possible for the FA to introduce rules that make it an offence for a club to make a loss in a season. Also to limit the amount any one individual could invest into a club either personally or via persons or companies connected to him to say 10% of clubs income.

This would have effect of forcing clubs to limit the amount of wages they pay and to spread the financial burden so that if any sponsor/ investor/ benefactor pulls out ( for whatever reason) , club will only lose 10% of its income or less. [ Perhaps an exception to allow funds for ground developments above the 10% figure to be given, but clubs must prove it was used for that purpose]

It would benefit fan owned clubs as they would be able to compete on a more level playing field and should hopefully reduce the need for boost the budget type appeals
Let's get a few things straight here...

1 Boost the budget isn't an "appeal".

It is an initiative where the fans can contribute towards an extra income stream for the club, which in turn increases the club's spending power - and where the fans feel like they can have a positive impact towards that income stream. It will be a permanent fan engagement feature IMO, and I'm for one happy to contribute to it on a seasonal basis.

2 If the FA had introduced a rule where an individual can only invest a maximum of 10% via himself or persons or companies associated with himself then I dare say that you would not currently be playing at this level. Take Brad's 7 figure plus investment from the last few seasons away and you simply wouldn't have had the same spending power and would have not been able to hang on to our coat tails up the league ladder.

3 I like how you add the caveat where perhaps the 10% can be increased for ground improvements because you know fine well that Brad, I mean the ground improvement fairies, will have to put more than that in to get your ground up to the 5,000 planned for.

4 Regarding 2 - you still have not acknowledged Brad's 7 figure investment (his words) into Spennymoor Town, despite being shown the article where it is stated many times - instead preferring to pretend it's not true.

5 Regarding 4 - Fuck off spen.
Spen....you've been owned by Quakerz. Your time is up. Adios.

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by don'tbuythesun » Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:35 pm

Up the Toon/Heed/Hatters?!!

shildonlad
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:39 pm

don'tbuythesun wrote:Up the Toon/Heed/Hatters?!!
Delete the last one ha ha. I'm for the north eastern teams although I have been to luton to see Gateshead and yous in your final conference season. I will attempt to change my location again

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

LoidLucan
Posts: 2518
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by LoidLucan » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:20 am

What the owners don't say is what will happen if there aren't any takers to chuck away a million quid a year for a few hundred people to watch a heavily bankrolled team play in a largely empty athletics stadium.

Post Reply