Darlo Uncovered

shildonlad wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:15 pm

Said it before but considering spennymoors population is under 20k and the fact they have never got beyond non leagues 2nd tier there crowds are good.

Piss off to the Spenny forum.

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:38 am

It’s very easy I guesss as a Spenny fan to think more games is great but you have no worries whether they are profitable or not as Brad can cover any losses.

I can’t see Brad increasing Spenny season tickets by 2 extra games and he has made them cheap already.

He even reduced match prices after initially putting them up this season, I presume to increase crowds. Sadly with only 669 there yesterday for a promotion play off big game and average down from last year then it’s not worked. Which is very strange as you are actually doing better this year and pretty much guaranteed play off place compared to last season.

Not sure what the relevance of your chip on your shoulder about Spennymoor has anything to do with the fact the NLN/S clubs voted to have a bigger division with 4 extra games. Spennymoor are only 1 of the 44 clubs in the 2 divisions.

Why would clubs vote for playing more games if they were going to lose money compared to the current 42 game system?

Clearly a majority of the NLN/S clubs voted for the expanded division size

spen666 wrote:

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:38 am

It’s very easy I guesss as a Spenny fan to think more games is great but you have no worries whether they are profitable or not as Brad can cover any losses.

I can’t see Brad increasing Spenny season tickets by 2 extra games and he has made them cheap already.

He even reduced match prices after initially putting them up this season, I presume to increase crowds. Sadly with only 669 there yesterday for a promotion play off big game and average down from last year then it’s not worked. Which is very strange as you are actually doing better this year and pretty much guaranteed play off place compared to last season.

Not sure what the relevance of your chip on your shoulder about Spennymoor has anything to do with the fact the NLN/S clubs voted to have a bigger division with 4 extra games. Spennymoor are only 1 of the 44 clubs in the 2 divisions.

Why would clubs vite for playing more games if they were going to lose money compared to the current 42 game system?

Clearly a majority of the NLN/S clubs voted for the expanded division size

Fairly obvious what the point about Spenny's ownership is. Any losses can easily be covered by Uncle Brad dipping into his pockets. But for a club run more sustainably on attendances, if games run at a loss, that has more of an impact. Hence why it's not necessarily the case more games equals more money, which is the point Super Les was making.

You've got an obsession with us, so you'll call it a chip on the shoulder. But actually it's fairly basic and sound logic to follow if I'm honest. But your razor-sharp legal mind appears to be struggling.

As for clubs voting on 22/24 teams, being relegated to Step 3 would cost more money in the long run. And with 24 teams, you're more likely to stay up than if there are 22 teams (basic mathematics).

Also, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that DJ is misleading Darlington fans with regards the readjustment of our playing budget? You've gone strangely quiet on your conspiracy theory.

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:00 pm

spen666 wrote:

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:38 am

It’s very easy I guesss as a Spenny fan to think more games is great but you have no worries whether they are profitable or not as Brad can cover any losses.

I can’t see Brad increasing Spenny season tickets by 2 extra games and he has made them cheap already.

He even reduced match prices after initially putting them up this season, I presume to increase crowds. Sadly with only 669 there yesterday for a promotion play off big game and average down from last year then it’s not worked. Which is very strange as you are actually doing better this year and pretty much guaranteed play off place compared to last season.

Not sure what the relevance of your chip on your shoulder about Spennymoor has anything to do with the fact the NLN/S clubs voted to have a bigger division with 4 extra games. Spennymoor are only 1 of the 44 clubs in the 2 divisions.

Why would clubs vite for playing more games if they were going to lose money compared to the current 42 game system?

Clearly a majority of the NLN/S clubs voted for the expanded division size

Hi Spen, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that DJ is misleading Darlington fans? You've gone strangely quiet on your conspiracy theory.

As for clubs voting on 22/24 teams, being relegated to Step 3 would cost more money in the long run. And with 24 teams, you're more likely to stay up than if there are 22 teams (basic mathematics).

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Income may be reduced by relegation, but so are costs.

If increasing the number of games is going to result in clubs losing money, then the majority of NLN/S clubs would not vote to play the extra games.

spen666 wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:56 pm

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:38 am

It’s very easy I guesss as a Spenny fan to think more games is great but you have no worries whether they are profitable or not as Brad can cover any losses.

I can’t see Brad increasing Spenny season tickets by 2 extra games and he has made them cheap already.

He even reduced match prices after initially putting them up this season, I presume to increase crowds. Sadly with only 669 there yesterday for a promotion play off big game and average down from last year then it’s not worked. Which is very strange as you are actually doing better this year and pretty much guaranteed play off place compared to last season.

Not sure what the relevance of your chip on your shoulder about Spennymoor has anything to do with the fact the NLN/S clubs voted to have a bigger division with 4 extra games. Spennymoor are only 1 of the 44 clubs in the 2 divisions.

Why would clubs vote for playing more games if they were going to lose money compared to the current 42 game system?

Clearly a majority of the NLN/S clubs voted for the expanded division size

No chip whatsoever, I think Brad is doing a great job and you just know he is not the type to drop them in it. Hence why 4 extra midweek games does not make you wonder if it’s positive or negative for your finances as it’s not your concern. As a member of the group that owns my club, I do give these things more thought rather than just thinking that more games = more cash without thinking about the costs.

The point stands that it’s not a definite 4 extra midweek games will bring in more cash and could actually be a negative to some clubs.

In regards to clubs voting for it then if the majority agreed then that’s the way it is. However just because they voted does not mean every club will make money from the decision. The point is to increase promotion places for Step 3 as the Step 2 teams would not allow 4 to go down with a 22 team league.

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:15 pm

..

No chip whatsoever, I think Brad is doing a great job and you just know he is not the type to drop them in it. Hence why 4 extra midweek games does not make you wonder if it’s positive or negative for your finances as it’s not your concern. As a member of the group that owns my club, I do give these things more thought rather than just thinking that more games = more cash without thinking about the costs.

The point stands that it’s not a definite 4 extra midweek games will bring in more cash and could actually be a negative to some clubs.

In regards to clubs voting for it then if the majority agreed then that’s the way it is. However just because they voted does not mean every club will make money from the decision. The point is to increase promotion places for Step 3 as the Step 2 teams would not allow 4 to go down with a 22 team league.
[/quote]

No football club owner is going to vote to unnecessarily increase their losses for 4 unnecessary games

spen666 wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:18 pm

No football club owner is going to vote to unnecessarily increase their losses for 4 unnecessary games

We don’t know who voted for and against though, unless you have the results of the vote?

It’s not just about cash either though, it gives more opportunity for promotion at Step 3 which some may think is better if they find themselves at that level.

Not all clubs have the same costs, a home game I believe would cost us around 2k to put on and away game cost around 1k each. So we need to make at least 3k from a home game to make these midweek matches profitable.

As I said I am not saying it’s impossible that these could be profitable but midweek games are at the high risk end in terms of any profit.

Your one line answers do not deal with any issues the change may cause.

spen666 wrote:

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:00 pm

spen666 wrote:

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:38 am

It’s very easy I guesss as a Spenny fan to think more games is great but you have no worries whether they are profitable or not as Brad can cover any losses.

I can’t see Brad increasing Spenny season tickets by 2 extra games and he has made them cheap already.

He even reduced match prices after initially putting them up this season, I presume to increase crowds. Sadly with only 669 there yesterday for a promotion play off big game and average down from last year then it’s not worked. Which is very strange as you are actually doing better this year and pretty much guaranteed play off place compared to last season.

Not sure what the relevance of your chip on your shoulder about Spennymoor has anything to do with the fact the NLN/S clubs voted to have a bigger division with 4 extra games. Spennymoor are only 1 of the 44 clubs in the 2 divisions.

Why would clubs vite for playing more games if they were going to lose money compared to the current 42 game system?

Clearly a majority of the NLN/S clubs voted for the expanded division size

Hi Spen, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that DJ is misleading Darlington fans? You've gone strangely quiet on your conspiracy theory.

As for clubs voting on 22/24 teams, being relegated to Step 3 would cost more money in the long run. And with 24 teams, you're more likely to stay up than if there are 22 teams (basic mathematics).

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Income may be reduced by relegation, but so are costs.

If increasing the number of games is going to result in clubs losing money, then the majority of NLN/S clubs would not vote to play the extra games.

Again with simplistic answers. Did you take such a reductionist approach your legal work too?

Costs increasing/decreasing depends on the club. We know they would lose money because, for example attendances would be lower at Step 3 than Step 2. But outgoings is very much a club-to-club matter. So your broad brush answers are too simplistic.

Also, you're avoiding my question on your so far baseless accusations towards David Johnston. Do you have anything to back up your conspiracy theory?

AndyPark wrote:

shildonlad wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:15 pm

Said it before but considering spennymoors population is under 20k and the fact they have never got beyond non leagues 2nd tier there crowds are good.

Piss off to the Spenny forum.

Charming, and for the record i dont think spennymoor have a forum

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:31 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:18 pm

No football club owner is going to vote to unnecessarily increase their losses for 4 unnecessary games

We don’t know who voted for and against though, unless you have the results of the vote?

It’s not just about cash either though, it gives more opportunity for promotion at Step 3 which some may think is better if they find themselves at that level.

Not all clubs have the same costs, a home game I believe would cost us around 2k to put on and away game cost around 1k each. So we need to make at least 3k from a home game to make these midweek matches profitable.

As I said I am not saying it’s impossible that these could be profitable but midweek games are at the high risk end in terms of any profit.

Your one line answers do not deal with any issues the change may cause.

3K works out at about aound 250 paying customers. Do you really think we couldn't get that many through the gate to watch us. All clubs want more games, gate receipts are a club's biggest source fof income. Also, why does it cost 1K for an away game?

Yarblockos wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:45 pm

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:31 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:18 pm

No football club owner is going to vote to unnecessarily increase their losses for 4 unnecessary games

We don’t know who voted for and against though, unless you have the results of the vote?

It’s not just about cash either though, it gives more opportunity for promotion at Step 3 which some may think is better if they find themselves at that level.

Not all clubs have the same costs, a home game I believe would cost us around 2k to put on and away game cost around 1k each. So we need to make at least 3k from a home game to make these midweek matches profitable.

As I said I am not saying it’s impossible that these could be profitable but midweek games are at the high risk end in terms of any profit.

Your one line answers do not deal with any issues the change may cause.

3K works out at about aound 250 paying customers. Do you really think we couldn't get that many through the gate to watch us. All clubs want more games, gate receipts are a club's biggest source fof income. Also, why does it cost 1K for an away game?

Look at the Brackley game, how many paid to get in that night as we have 900 ST holders - clearly a good number ST didn’t turn up so let’s say 250.

It costs us about £700 just for the coach travel so I assumed some further costs, some basic rough cost estimates.

250 paying customers averages about £2.5k then remove vat so about 2k we would make if that was the cost which would be taken up by costs and then the away game to pay for.

I think we would probably make a small profit but as the figures show it’s not guaranteed and could easily turn into a loss. Imagine the two games are around a busy fixture time and it’s freezing/raining with the team not doing well - not many pay on the day people would come and I don’t think we can push our ST price much higher even with 2 games extra.

Basically the two extra games are at the bottom end of revenue/profit as they are midweek.

The opportunity of charging 900 fans extra via ST is probably negligible as we have high price ST already.

So we are largely reliant on pay on the day, midweek people to pay for the matches. The risk is at the higher end of the scale in terms of turning over a profit.

Fuck off Spen.

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:55 pm

Yarblockos wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:45 pm

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:31 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:18 pm

No football club owner is going to vote to unnecessarily increase their losses for 4 unnecessary games

We don’t know who voted for and against though, unless you have the results of the vote?

It’s not just about cash either though, it gives more opportunity for promotion at Step 3 which some may think is better if they find themselves at that level.

Not all clubs have the same costs, a home game I believe would cost us around 2k to put on and away game cost around 1k each. So we need to make at least 3k from a home game to make these midweek matches profitable.

As I said I am not saying it’s impossible that these could be profitable but midweek games are at the high risk end in terms of any profit.

Your one line answers do not deal with any issues the change may cause.

3K works out at about aound 250 paying customers. Do you really think we couldn't get that many through the gate to watch us. All clubs want more games, gate receipts are a club's biggest source fof income. Also, why does it cost 1K for an away game?

Look at the Brackley game, how many paid to get in that night as we have 900 ST holders - clearly a good number ST didn’t turn up so let’s say 250.

It costs us about £700 just for the coach travel so I assumed some further costs, some basic rough cost estimates.

250 paying customers averages about £2.5k then remove vat so about 2k we would make if that was the cost which would be taken up by costs and then the away game to pay for.

I think we would probably make a small profit but as the figures show it’s not guaranteed and could easily turn into a loss. Imagine the two games are around a busy fixture time and it’s freezing/raining with the team not doing well - not many pay on the day people would come and I don’t think we can push our ST price much higher even with 2 games extra.

Where did you get the figure of 900 season ticket holders from?

AndyPark wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:02 pm

Fuck off Spen.

Love you too Andrew and thank you for your valuable contribution to the debate.

The coloured crayons and paper for you are over in the corner there

Fuck off Spen

Yarblockos wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:07 pm

Where did you get the figure of 900 season ticket holders from?

From a Netcafe back in December.

885 is the number but I rounded up to 900 for arguments sake. On average 650 turn up each game (not sure what a midweek average would be but could be less).

It all depends on who those midweek games are though, doesn't it?

If the extra two teams mean we get, i don't know, for argument sake, South Shields and Scarborough, then they're real money spinners.

I think this argument does demonstrate we are extremely unlikely to be worse off (because worst case scenario we should at least cover our costs), but the best case is an extra game which might attract a decent crowd - depending on who we are playing, but also what we are doing in the league. A midweek game when we're pushing for the playoffs will always be far, far better attended than a midweek game when our season is sizzling out lower mid-table, but relatively safe from relegation.

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:18 am

Yarblockos wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:07 pm

Where did you get the figure of 900 season ticket holders from?

From a Netcafe back in December.

885 is the number but I rounded up to 900 for arguments sake. On average 650 turn up each game (not sure what a midweek average would be but could be less).

So if an average of 650 season ticket holders turn up each game that means we've never had fewer than 300 paying customers for any game. We'll always make a profit from a league game. What sinks clubs is the cost of paying wages, not hosting games. The price of season tickets will reflect the increased number of games. If fewer season tickets are sold for a 23 game season then it just means more pay on the day supporters instead (unless they stop supporting the club completely). If a club is too stupid to charge enough to cover it's matchday costs then it deserves to go bust.

Yarblockos wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:31 am

super_les_mcjannet wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:18 am

Yarblockos wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:07 pm

Where did you get the figure of 900 season ticket holders from?

From a Netcafe back in December.

885 is the number but I rounded up to 900 for arguments sake. On average 650 turn up each game (not sure what a midweek average would be but could be less).

So if an average of 650 season ticket holders turn up each game that means we've never had fewer than 300 paying customers for any game. We'll always make a profit from a league game. What sinks clubs is the cost of paying wages, not hosting games. The price of season tickets will reflect the increased number of games. If fewer season tickets are sold for a 23 game season then it just means more pay on the day supporters instead (unless they stop supporting the club completely). If a club is too stupid to charge enough to cover it's matchday costs then it deserves to go bust.

Incorrect if we had an average of 650 ST holders v Brackley and we had an attendance of 916 then that would be 266 pay on the gate. So you can clearly see this midweek game was probably at the danger end of profit v loss.

Do you think we can increase ST price by more, mine costs £261 now, if we increase and drop off ST numbers then pay on the day are generally less for midweek games. Once people have to pay on the day then the expectation would be that they will miss more games as they now pick and choose if they want to pay.

It’s not about covering match day costs for every game, obviously in the bigger attendance games you make more profit and the lower ones you may lose, break even or make a profit.

Not every club has our costs per home game, some have backers who are happy to make a loss. Every club is different, however that doesn’t change that midweek games especially if played in winter/colder times have smaller attendances - that makes these games more risky in terms of turning a profit.

As I said a number of times we will most likely make a profit but your simplistic view of extra games = definitely more money isn’t quite the case.

This passed me by, and apologies if it's been mentioned already, but the Northern Prem Lge is going to run the new eighth division at step 4 from 2021/21. Further details to come, but it'll run alongside NPL East and West. http://www.evostikleague.co.uk/npl-to-e ... ep-4-56567

biccynana wrote:This passed me by, and apologies if it's been mentioned already, but the Northern Prem Lge is going to run the new eighth division at step 4 from 2021/21. Further details to come, but it'll run alongside NPL East and West. http://www.evostikleague.co.uk/npl-to-e ... ep-4-56567

Have you read the northern leagues statement and the drivel spouted by amos, talking as thougth this restructure will be the end of the northern league?

EBAC NORTHERN LEAGUE FAILS TO WIN NEW STEP 4 LEAGUE
The FA today informed the league that it has been unsuccessful in its application to run the new Step 4 league from the 2020/21 season.

Glenn Youngman, chairman of the Ebac Northern League, said:

“This is hugely disappointing news for the league and our clubs.

“We believe the decision will have far-reaching consequences for non-league football in the region.

“We will obviously need to discuss the implications of the decision.”

They say discuss the implications of the decision: not sure what they can do about it. Relations between the league and fa have been strained for years

shildonlad wrote:

biccynana wrote:This passed me by, and apologies if it's been mentioned already, but the Northern Prem Lge is going to run the new eighth division at step 4 from 2021/21. Further details to come, but it'll run alongside NPL East and West. http://www.evostikleague.co.uk/npl-to-e ... ep-4-56567

Have you read the northern leagues statement and the drivel spouted by amos, talking as thougth this restructure will be the end of the northern league?

Let’s face it they were never going to win that bid. Not sure what Amos is going on about really. The league will carry on as it always has done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quaker85 wrote:

shildonlad wrote:

biccynana wrote:This passed me by, and apologies if it's been mentioned already, but the Northern Prem Lge is going to run the new eighth division at step 4 from 2021/21. Further details to come, but it'll run alongside NPL East and West. http://www.evostikleague.co.uk/npl-to-e ... ep-4-56567

Have you read the northern leagues statement and the drivel spouted by amos, talking as thougth this restructure will be the end of the northern league?

Let’s face it they were never going to win that bid. Not sure what Amos is going on about really. The league will carry on as it always has done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The tweed to humber league he wanted is coming to fruition due to restructuring but hes still harping on. Whats he want a league cut adrift from the pyramid.

Amos is and always was a self-important buffoon who ran the Northern League as if it was his own little gang. He didn't want anyone to show ambition with foolish notions of promotion. All he and his merry band of brown-nosers cared about was their annual day-out at Wembley.

They spent years sticking two fingers up at the FA by discouraging and talking down promotion. Now he complains the FA don't want them running the new league.

Time for this deluded little man to fade into irrelevance. He hated it when we were storming the Northern League, as it stirred things up and showed his league to be nowhere near as strong as he thought it was.

Darlogramps wrote:Amos is and always was a self-important buffoon who ran the Northern League as if it was his own little gang. He didn't want anyone to show ambition with foolish notions of promotion. All he and his merry band of brown-nosers cared about was their annual day-out at Wembley.

They spent years sticking two fingers up at the FA by discouraging and talking down promotion. Now he complains the FA don't want them running the new league.

Time for this deluded little man to fade into irrelevance. He hated it when we were storming the Northern League, as it stirred things up and showed his league to be nowhere near as strong as he thought it was.

I cant disagree with any of that but believe me there some think the sunshines out his arce and he did alot of good for north east football, like what? I know hes retired from the league but im unsure of the latest lot in charge are just a amos mk2