Gateshead

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1489
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: 5360
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: 1538
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
Twitter: @spen_666

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6016
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: 11428
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: 1538
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
Twitter: @spen_666

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6016
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: 1538
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"???
Twitter: @spen_666

shildonlad
Posts: 358
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: 358
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: 5360
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: 1055
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: 6016
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: 1055
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: 5360
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.

Post Reply