Gateshead

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1556
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by don'tbuythesun » Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:19 pm

Well said H. Needs to be a fan rep on the FA board! It does seem strange the way punishment seems arbitrary at times and the fa never appears to support fan's efforts or the impact decisions have on them.
Last edited by don'tbuythesun on Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5414
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:25 pm

H1987 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:24 pm
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:04 pm
H1987 wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:55 pm
AndyPark wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:57 am
You need to be made an example of, they did it with us.

Why shouldn’t it happen with Gateshead? Lived beyond their means for years and years, now Heed fans think the world is against them.

Not waving ya £20 notes about now.
I'd like to see the FA draw a line under 'making an example' of clubs for having lousy owners. It's crap. I don't want to see it happen to anyone. Even Pools.
Depends what you mean by lousy though, letting clubs offer just gives more reason for "take the risk and worry about it later type ownership".
I mean handing down arbitrary punishments down to the successors of lunatics. While our demotion was within the letter of the law, it was unnecessary to drop us so far. They didn't kick Chester as far down.

I'd like the FA to be empowered to show reason and common sense, on a case by case basis. If fans take over a club, phoenix or otherwise, because a spiteful former owner wouldn't release shares or the like, back the damned fans as a successor.
Whilst I agree that the FA should be looking into this as a whole but they also has to be a punishment for bad management or people will do what they wnat and then sell the club on to someone else who does whatever they want.

I would rather have rules around debt allowed, loans from owners etc. anything to stop clubs getting into that position in the first place. So if someone gives up on a club it's certainly not in debt by the millions like we were.

spen666
Posts: 1571
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by spen666 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:11 pm

super_les_mcjannet wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:25 pm

Whilst I agree that the FA should be looking into this as a whole but they also has to be a punishment for bad management or people will do what they wnat and then sell the club on to someone else who does whatever they want.

I would rather have rules around debt allowed, loans from owners etc. anything to stop clubs getting into that position in the first place. So if someone gives up on a club it's certainly not in debt by the millions like we were.

The issue is a complicated one because a football club is usually a limited company and this exists in law as a "legal person". It is Gateshead FC Ltd (or whatever the Ltd co is called) who committed legally all the acts that it was found guilty of.

A change of ownership does not mean the Ltd are exempt from all the offences it committed under the previous ownership.

I fully agree with all Les has said and to that end I would propose something along the lines/principles under s7 of the Bribery Act. S7 of the Bribery Act makes it an offence not to have proper processes in place to prevent bribery at a company. The reason for this is because it was often difficult to prove those controlling a company knew or authorized the bribery, so couldn't be prosecuted for Bribery.

In football, I would propose an offence for all directors and "substantial" shareholders that they had failed to run company with all due diligence. Club going into administration, would be an automatic trigger for such a charge

It would then be up to the directors etc to prove that despite these trigger events they had used all due diligence - and there would be collective responsibility ie all directors responsible.

Guilty directors/ substantial shareholders would be banned for x years from any involvement at any level with football and have to complete the football equivalent of an extended ODT before being allowed back into football.

Hopefully, these penalties would help reduce the crooked ownership that happens in so many football clubs...

A question I often raise is why would someone like the chaps at Gateshead want to become involved in football? The club has no assets, it has no realistic prospect of ever making money. I can understand local people getting involved or fan ownership, but what is in it for those at Gateshead? Unless it is to use it a vehicle/ front for money laundering as it is a large cash business

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6066
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by loan_star » Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:29 pm

spen666 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:11 pm
A question I often raise is why would someone like the chaps at Spennymoor want to become involved in football? The club has no assets, it has no realistic prospect of ever making money. I can understand local people getting involved or fan ownership, but what is in it for those at Spennymoor? Unless it is to use it a vehicle/ front for money laundering as it is a large cash business
You tell me the difference.

AndyPark
Posts: 11464
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by AndyPark » Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:39 pm

Loan_star :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
18/19 Season:
LDWDLDLWDLLWWWDDDDLLLLWDWWLWDLLDWDLDLLWLLWWWLD

*includes all cup games*

spen666
Posts: 1571
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by spen666 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:48 pm

loan_star wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:29 pm
spen666 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:11 pm
A question I often raise is why would someone like the chaps at Spennymoor want to become involved in football? The club has no assets, it has no realistic prospect of ever making money. I can understand local people getting involved or fan ownership, but what is in it for those at Spennymoor? Unless it is to use it a vehicle/ front for money laundering as it is a large cash business
You tell me the difference.



Can you not read?

LOCAL

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6066
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by loan_star » Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:00 pm

spen666 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:48 pm
loan_star wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:29 pm
spen666 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:11 pm
A question I often raise is why would someone like the chaps at Spennymoor want to become involved in football? The club has no assets, it has no realistic prospect of ever making money. I can understand local people getting involved or fan ownership, but what is in it for those at Spennymoor? Unless it is to use it a vehicle/ front for money laundering as it is a large cash business
You tell me the difference.



Can you not read?

LOCAL
So if you are local then it means you aren't using it as a "vehicle/front for money laundering"???

spen666
Posts: 1571
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by spen666 » Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:27 am

loan_star wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:00 pm
spen666 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:48 pm
loan_star wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:29 pm
spen666 wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:11 pm
A question I often raise is why would someone like the chaps at Spennymoor want to become involved in football? The club has no assets, it has no realistic prospect of ever making money. I can understand local people getting involved or fan ownership, but what is in it for those at Spennymoor? Unless it is to use it a vehicle/ front for money laundering as it is a large cash business
You tell me the difference.

Are you money laundering then?


You really should get some help to read because none of what you are posting I have said.


Still nice of you to admit to money laundering



Can you not read?

LOCAL
So if you are local then it means you aren't using it as a "vehicle/front for money laundering"???

shildonlad
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:30 am

Brad groves at spennymoor is a local business man and a football man just like Graeme wood who was at gateshead so hes probably (i think) involved for the right reasons. Gods knows why the last lot took on gateshead, im confident the bee lot (fans and local business men) will be better, cant be any worse for sure.
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

shildonlad
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:32 am

H1987 wrote:
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:04 pm
H1987 wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:55 pm
AndyPark wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:57 am
You need to be made an example of, they did it with us.

Why shouldn’t it happen with Gateshead? Lived beyond their means for years and years, now Heed fans think the world is against them.

Not waving ya £20 notes about now.
I'd like to see the FA draw a line under 'making an example' of clubs for having lousy owners. It's crap. I don't want to see it happen to anyone. Even Pools.
Depends what you mean by lousy though, letting clubs offer just gives more reason for "take the risk and worry about it later type ownership".
I mean handing down arbitrary punishments down to the successors of lunatics. While our demotion was within the letter of the law, it was unnecessary to drop us so far. They didn't kick Chester as far down.

I'd like the FA to be empowered to show reason and common sense, on a case by case basis. If fans take over a club, phoenix or otherwise, because a spiteful former owner wouldn't release shares or the like, back the damned fans as a successor.
Exactly, one rule for one club, one rule for another. Halifax, telford, nuneaton, ilkeston and no doubt others were not demoted as far either
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5414
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:51 am

Those teams you mention were not relegated as far as Darlington is that what you are saying?

The reason being is that the rule had changed by then, from a Darlo point of view we are the example. This is what happens to you, we are the precedent and Hereford followed it. Whilst it may seem harsh it has thankfully given us 7 years of not being Darlington Administration Football Club as we had become.

Whilst under fan ownership it’s not been plain sailing and debt wise we have been close to the wire, although that immediate debt has been a lot less than £1.8m and for me if we had wanted to we could have paid it off but this would have knocked our ownership model.

Gateshead are moving on to the next business people who are interested but how much money do the Gateshead fans want them to put in, are you happy if they stabilise the club but either drops or stays at EvoStik level?

What happens when they want to stop putting money in, not a dig at Gateshead but something every football fan should understand, if someone is putting money in then what happens when they get sick of doing it?

H1987
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by H1987 » Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:16 am

I'm simply saying lets have a more reasoned approach to how these punishments are meted out from the FA's perspective.

Yes, we have to have certain rules in place, but also we should, by now, have some new rules for a situation that has become all too common, where by if a fan consortium has to save the club from a reckless owner, we aren't already sticking the boot in further by making the fans rebuild completely from scratch. I can't say i'm too unhappy with where we are right now, but it's undeniable that what happened to us in 2012 has set us back immeasurably. Would we have been in the same situation, with the same drop off in crowds, if we had been allowed to compete in the conference north the following season? We don't know. But on a purely footballing basis, and frankly there's a decent moral argument, that is where we should have been the following year. Booting teams down five divisions just makes the already challenging job for fan owners even more difficult.

We should be recognising things like Phoenix sides straight away, in my humble opinion.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6066
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by loan_star » Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:15 am

We wouldnt have been allowed in the Conference North anyway as we didn't agree a CVA.
Ironically Kettering did but still went bust.

H1987
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by H1987 » Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:26 am

Yes i know, i'm just very badly trying to argue that the FA should have some kind of mechanism to protect against these situations. Essentially, i'm saying 'Darlington 1883' should have been allowed to play in the Conference North, and should have been recognised as a continuation of Darlington FC immediately. IE those recovering the mess shouldn't be kicked down the ladder as well.

We might well have been kicked down to the Evostik because of the ground. Or perhaps we would have shared elsewhere. Who knows, but it presents different circumstances, less harsh. I'd allow Gateshead the chance to get themselves sorted out. They didn't go down last year, they shouldn't be arbitrarily relegated because a lunatic owner decided to flout the rules. It punishes the fans, and the whole way we deal with this stuff is backwards.

Remember when West Ham cheated and it was unfair to deduct points or relegate them because of their fans? But little clubs are fair game.

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5414
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:45 pm

H1987 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:26 am
Yes i know, i'm just very badly trying to argue that the FA should have some kind of mechanism to protect against these situations. Essentially, i'm saying 'Darlington 1883' should have been allowed to play in the Conference North, and should have been recognised as a continuation of Darlington FC immediately. IE those recovering the mess shouldn't be kicked down the ladder as well.

We might well have been kicked down to the Evostik because of the ground. Or perhaps we would have shared elsewhere. Who knows, but it presents different circumstances, less harsh. I'd allow Gateshead the chance to get themselves sorted out. They didn't go down last year, they shouldn't be arbitrarily relegated because a lunatic owner decided to flout the rules. It punishes the fans, and the whole way we deal with this stuff is backwards.

Remember when West Ham cheated and it was unfair to deduct points or relegate them because of their fans? But little clubs are fair game.
I disagree but this maybe only comes after everything we went through. I believe that punishments have to be in place to stop risk taking, how far you relegate may be up for discussion but we can't have clubs owing money and not paying it back but largely getting away with it.

The FA however do need to look at putting in rules to support the clubs, however would those clubs vote to accept those rules. Imagine other than gifts you couldn't loan money into a club, do we think current owners/clubs would vote this in. Not sure what the answer is but whilst I did think our punishment seemed harsh it certainly stopped the ongoing owner, admin saga of DFC. Football as a whole needs to move away from this debt cycle with no way of paying it off, it's not good for anyone.

H1987
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by H1987 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:14 am

Letting any of the public vote on your run out song on twitter and facebook is an interesting choice.

Currently, 90's cha.v favourite 'Children of the Night' looks set to win. Be a shame if it won, and definitely wouldn't make them look ridiculous.... :mrgreen:

Edit - As an aside, who implemented a filter so that cha.v. (without a full stop) changes to 'young chap' on here? :lol: I've never seen it before, but i suppose it's a little used word these days. I just couldn't think of a better way to describe that song :lol:

murtonquaker
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 11:08 am
Team Supported: Mighty Darlo

Re: Gateshead

Post by murtonquaker » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:28 pm

H1987 wrote:Letting any of the public vote on your run out song on twitter and facebook is an interesting choice.

Currently, 90's cha.v favourite 'Children of the Night' looks set to win. Be a shame if it won, and definitely wouldn't make them look ridiculous.... :mrgreen:

Edit - As an aside, who implemented a filter so that cha.v. (without a full stop) changes to 'young chap' on here? Image I've never seen it before, but i suppose it's a little used word these days. I just couldn't think of a better way to describe that song Image
The vote has gone for Children of the Night

[IMG]//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201906 ... 7eb404.jpg[/IMG]

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


H1987
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by H1987 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:07 pm

Christ. You'd be embarrassed wouldn't you... aside from it being an awful song, i don't really get which bit makes for a good run out.

Fatty eats roadkill
Posts: 3606
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 7:31 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: On top of a 29 year old big chested woman

Re: Gateshead

Post by Fatty eats roadkill » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:42 pm

It’ll be for all the tracky wearing plastic Byker Grovians swigging kestrel superstrength that go. You must have seen the darlo branch of them in the town centre when they’re not nicking push bikes!
Waiting for Raj to shaft them!

shildonlad
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:45 pm

Awful tune, i never even recall it been played in mardis when i used to go there and they played alot of 90s dance tunes. The tune should never have been out to a vote, the powers that be should have picked a appropriate tune. I reckon alive and kicking would have been good along with fanfare for the common man or the grandstand theme
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

dfclincolnshire
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by dfclincolnshire » Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:20 pm

A more suitable tune would be Tiffany “I think we’re alone now”

Mister e
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Mister e » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:08 pm

In fairness it's one hundred times better than that dirge from Kasabian that we run out to.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4144
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Darlofan97 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:33 pm

Mister e wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:08 pm
In fairness it's one hundred times better than that dirge from Kasabian that we run out to.
And a thousand times better than the Greatest Showman song that we've been running out to over the past 6/7 months.

JE93
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by JE93 » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:54 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:33 pm
Mister e wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:08 pm
In fairness it's one hundred times better than that dirge from Kasabian that we run out to.
And a thousand times better than the Greatest Showman song that we've been running out to over the past 6/7 months.
Agreed that does need to be ditched.

Think the intro to 'Can't stop by the red hot chilli peppers' would be a decent walk out song.

Mister e
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Mister e » Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:43 am

I wonder if any of our older fans remember the mid 1970s at feethams when we actually used to run out to the match of the day them hilarious in itself because you very rarely got a good game in those days. We also used to play a novelty little ditty at the end of the game in those days - let's sing Darlington forever I wonder whatever happened to that and who the actual singer was ?

H1987
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by H1987 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:10 am

It’s most certainly not better than Kasabian...

Agree that the Can’t stop intro by the chilis would be better though.

biccynana
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:38 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by biccynana » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:29 pm

JE93 wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:54 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:33 pm
Mister e wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:08 pm
In fairness it's one hundred times better than that dirge from Kasabian that we run out to.
And a thousand times better than the Greatest Showman song that we've been running out to over the past 6/7 months.
Agreed that does need to be ditched.

Think the intro to 'Can't stop by the red hot chilli peppers' would be a decent walk out song.
Hehehe, I can never read RHCP's name without thinking of Nick Cave's deathless quote about them:
I’m forever near a stereo saying, ‘What the f*ck is this garbage?’ And the answer is always the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:51 pm

shildonlad wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:30 am
Brad groves at spennymoor is a local business man and a football man just like Graeme wood who was at gateshead so hes probably (i think) involved for the right reasons. Gods knows why the last lot took on gateshead, im confident the bee lot (fans and local business men) will be better, cant be any worse for sure.
But what is in it for them really? They aren't going to make money out of Gateshead so it's not a sound "business" proposition for these "business men". Owning Gateshead is only going to cost them money, as the club needs significantly propping up to run a 375k F/T budget.

I still can't get my head around where you keep on getting these owners from! OK the last ones were bad, but the 2 before poured money in and these ones might do as well.

Everybody is just lining up to take over Gateshead and throw money at it. Strange.

PS is Wood back involved?
TAFKAQ

@1883Of

shildonlad
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:59 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
shildonlad wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:30 am
Brad groves at spennymoor is a local business man and a football man just like Graeme wood who was at gateshead so hes probably (i think) involved for the right reasons. Gods knows why the last lot took on gateshead, im confident the bee lot (fans and local business men) will be better, cant be any worse for sure.
But what is in it for them really? They aren't going to make money out of Gateshead so it's not a sound "business" proposition for these "business men". Owning Gateshead is only going to cost them money, as the club needs significantly propping up to run a 375k F/T budget.

I still can't get my head around where you keep on getting these owners from! OK the last ones were bad, but the 2 before poured money in and these ones might do as well.

Everybody is just lining up to take over Gateshead and throw money at it. Strange.

PS is Wood back involved?
grames back but more in a advisory capacity as opposed to an investor. They are not a fully fan owned club but at last fans are putting money in as well as other investors so one guy ain’t carrying the can, its a step in the right direction.
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:01 pm

Who are the investors and how much are they putting in?
TAFKAQ

@1883Of

Post Reply