Ground share
Re: Ground share
Can't see any good reason not to allow the temporary relocation.
The allowed Darlington to move to BM mid season, so some teams went to Bishop & some to BM.
Only thing I could see being an issue was if ( hypothetical situation). Darlington tried to switch back to BM for games against clubs expected to attract small gates, then moving back to Arena again for big games..
Other than that hypothetical point, which is easily dealt with in terms of permission, I can see no reason to refuse the request.
The allowed Darlington to move to BM mid season, so some teams went to Bishop & some to BM.
Only thing I could see being an issue was if ( hypothetical situation). Darlington tried to switch back to BM for games against clubs expected to attract small gates, then moving back to Arena again for big games..
Other than that hypothetical point, which is easily dealt with in terms of permission, I can see no reason to refuse the request.
Re: Ground share
Thanks, Quakerman2.QUAKERMAN2 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:37 amNo, still waiting to hear.jjljks wrote:Did DJ say if he had heard back from the NL on our request to temporarily relocate to the Arena?
Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
DJ is doing a great job for the club & soccer in lower & non-leagues who rely on gate receipts to keep going. I bet there are lots of other teams' fans looking at their chairman & wondering why they aren't being so proactive.
Hope National League officials understand how urgent the issue is and to give us a prompt & positive answer.
Re: Ground share
Think you’ll find all our games are treated equally Spen.We’ll leave match seeding and price rises to uncle Brad.spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:57 amCan't see any good reason not to allow the temporary relocation.
The allowed Darlington to move to BM mid season, so some teams went to Bishop & some to BM.
Only thing I could see being an issue was if ( hypothetical situation). Darlington tried to switch back to BM for games against clubs expected to attract small gates, then moving back to Arena again for big games..
Other than that hypothetical point, which is easily dealt with in terms of permission, I can see no reason to refuse the request.
-
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
As with BM, some people just hated the "matchday experience". Rattling round a 90% empty stadium, that seemed to be freezing cold even in the height of summer, with little atmosphere wasn't fun to some. Happy to go back as a temporary solution to a problem not of our making, but am I looking forward to watching football in a rusting stadium with one stand open? No.cbh89f wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:48 pmIs there any logical reason that some people hate the Arena .
Obviously there were bad times there due to unscrupulous characters who had no interest in the Football Club .
The Arena in itself was not and is not the problem .
The place is not jinxed or haunted .
To state that you would never go there again is completely illogical .
It’s like saying my ex wife used to live in Richmond so I’m never going there again...
Re: Ground share
Common sense is a flower that doesn't grow in everyone's garden unfortunately.
-
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:53 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
I actually think the stadium had found a cure for global warming as is was permanently freezing!HarryCharltonsCat wrote:As with BM, some people just hated the "matchday experience". Rattling round a 90% empty stadium, that seemed to be freezing cold even in the height of summer, with little atmosphere wasn't fun to some. Happy to go back as a temporary solution to a problem not of our making, but am I looking forward to watching football in a rusting stadium with one stand open? No.cbh89f wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:48 pmIs there any logical reason that some people hate the Arena .
Obviously there were bad times there due to unscrupulous characters who had no interest in the Football Club .
The Arena in itself was not and is not the problem .
The place is not jinxed or haunted .
To state that you would never go there again is completely illogical .
It’s like saying my ex wife used to live in Richmond so I’m never going there again...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“If you can't hit a driver, don't.”
Greg Norman
Greg Norman
-
- Posts: 1572
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
If only one stand is open then there is barely any point going there, at 17% of one stand (if it turns out to be 17%) we#d be lucky to achieve a capacity above 1,000.HarryCharltonsCat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 2:24 pmAs with BM, some people just hated the "matchday experience". Rattling round a 90% empty stadium, that seemed to be freezing cold even in the height of summer, with little atmosphere wasn't fun to some. Happy to go back as a temporary solution to a problem not of our making, but am I looking forward to watching football in a rusting stadium with one stand open? No.cbh89f wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:48 pmIs there any logical reason that some people hate the Arena .
Obviously there were bad times there due to unscrupulous characters who had no interest in the Football Club .
The Arena in itself was not and is not the problem .
The place is not jinxed or haunted .
To state that you would never go there again is completely illogical .
It’s like saying my ex wife used to live in Richmond so I’m never going there again...
We'd surely want a capacity of around 3,000, we'd have to have nearly 2/3rds of the stadium open for that.
-
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:26 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
Can’t see why stands can’t be open they have done for Friendlies we have had there in the past. Hopefully the NL will see sense and DJ gets a decision this week.
-
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:17 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
Just working on the bald figure of 25,000 max capacity, half that (two sides open) would be 12,500. 17% of that would be 2,125, which would be more than enough for our our normal crowds. But would it now be possible to have one of the ends open if they have not been used by the rugby club and may not be fit for use?Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:12 amIf only one stand is open then there is barely any point going there, at 17% of one stand (if it turns out to be 17%) we#d be lucky to achieve a capacity above 1,000.HarryCharltonsCat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 2:24 pmAs with BM, some people just hated the "matchday experience". Rattling round a 90% empty stadium, that seemed to be freezing cold even in the height of summer, with little atmosphere wasn't fun to some. Happy to go back as a temporary solution to a problem not of our making, but am I looking forward to watching football in a rusting stadium with one stand open? No.cbh89f wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:48 pmIs there any logical reason that some people hate the Arena .
Obviously there were bad times there due to unscrupulous characters who had no interest in the Football Club .
The Arena in itself was not and is not the problem .
The place is not jinxed or haunted .
To state that you would never go there again is completely illogical .
It’s like saying my ex wife used to live in Richmond so I’m never going there again...
We'd surely want a capacity of around 3,000, we'd have to have nearly 2/3rds of the stadium open for that.
But is 17% based on conditions at an all seater stadium, or on the assumption that there is free standing and movement? If the postion occupied by each person can be regulated by remaining in their alloted seat, maybe it would be possible to increase the crowd density and only need the one stand.
Re: Ground share
There’s no denying that the stadium is far too large for purpose .HarryCharltonsCat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 2:24 pmAs with BM, some people just hated the "matchday experience". Rattling round a 90% empty stadium, that seemed to be freezing cold even in the height of summer, with little atmosphere wasn't fun to some. Happy to go back as a temporary solution to a problem not of our making, but am I looking forward to watching football in a rusting stadium with one stand open? No.cbh89f wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:48 pmIs there any logical reason that some people hate the Arena .
Obviously there were bad times there due to unscrupulous characters who had no interest in the Football Club .
The Arena in itself was not and is not the problem .
The place is not jinxed or haunted .
To state that you would never go there again is completely illogical .
It’s like saying my ex wife used to live in Richmond so I’m never going there again...
Always has been , but it depends on what stands would be open .
There’s seats for everyone, everyone can see the game , ample car parking, bars within 1/2 mile and bars and food in the stadium .
- theoriginalfatcat
- Posts: 6718
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
Amusingly, if the purpose is to watch sport in a "safe and socially distanced manner" - then it is "fit for purpose"
If the league perversely turn this request down, I for one will be annoyed that I will not be able to support my team
Profile pic
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Re: Ground share
Surely the stands on their own would be fine? It's just a seat. The concourses are a different matter. Could there be a situation where the stands are open, but access is only granted to under the main stand?en passant wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:14 amJust working on the bald figure of 25,000 max capacity, half that (two sides open) would be 12,500. 17% of that would be 2,125, which would be more than enough for our our normal crowds. But would it now be possible to have one of the ends open if they have not been used by the rugby club and may not be fit for use?Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:12 amIf only one stand is open then there is barely any point going there, at 17% of one stand (if it turns out to be 17%) we#d be lucky to achieve a capacity above 1,000.HarryCharltonsCat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 2:24 pmAs with BM, some people just hated the "matchday experience". Rattling round a 90% empty stadium, that seemed to be freezing cold even in the height of summer, with little atmosphere wasn't fun to some. Happy to go back as a temporary solution to a problem not of our making, but am I looking forward to watching football in a rusting stadium with one stand open? No.cbh89f wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:48 pmIs there any logical reason that some people hate the Arena .
Obviously there were bad times there due to unscrupulous characters who had no interest in the Football Club .
The Arena in itself was not and is not the problem .
The place is not jinxed or haunted .
To state that you would never go there again is completely illogical .
It’s like saying my ex wife used to live in Richmond so I’m never going there again...
We'd surely want a capacity of around 3,000, we'd have to have nearly 2/3rds of the stadium open for that.
But is 17% based on conditions at an all seater stadium, or on the assumption that there is free standing and movement? If the postion occupied by each person can be regulated by remaining in their alloted seat, maybe it would be possible to increase the crowd density and only need the one stand.
And yes at a guess I'd say the 17% may increase in an all seated stand with plenty of turnstiles and facilities, compared to what BM can offer. DJ talked about entrances/exits/car parking in his 5Live interview the other day.
Re: Ground share
theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:38 am
Amusingly, if the purpose is to watch sport in a "safe and socially distanced manner" - then it is "fit for purpose"
That’s not the point I was making .
The stadium was far too large for purpose when it was built and still is too large for the fan base of DFC and MPRFC .
If the league perversely turn this request down, I for one will be annoyed that I will not be able to support my team
-
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:21 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
Hopefully this time round we’ll be given the opportunity to sit at the warm side of the arena (the side where the seats were fading). I always wondered what it would be like to sit in that stadium and experience a temperature above 5 degrees. Fingers crossed this gets the green light, as personally I much preferred the arena to BM.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Ground share
quakermass wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:01 pmHopefully this time round we’ll be given the opportunity to sit at the warm side of the arena (the side where the seats were fading). I always wondered what it would be like to sit in that stadium and experience a temperature above 5 degrees. Fingers crossed this gets the green light, as personally I much preferred the arena to BM.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:52 am
Re: Ground share
anybody know when a decision will be made?
-
- Posts: 1738
- Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:49 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
BBC to mention potential move to the Arena on look north tonight
-
- Posts: 14080
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
Good report & interview with DJ on this evening's Look North.
-
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:51 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
Doing a great job of getting the message out there. Such an asset to the club.Darlo_Pete wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:18 pmGood report & interview with DJ on this evening's Look North.
-
- Posts: 14080
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
Indeed he came over as very professional.JasonDeVos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:32 pmDoing a great job of getting the message out there. Such an asset to the club.Darlo_Pete wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:18 pmGood report & interview with DJ on this evening's Look North.
Re: Ground share
Agree DJ was even nice to DRC he says "We have a good Landlord down at BM!" The League are going to look really stupid if they tun this request down.Darlo_Pete wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:04 pmIndeed he came over as very professional.JasonDeVos wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:32 pmDoing a great job of getting the message out there. Such an asset to the club.Darlo_Pete wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:18 pmGood report & interview with DJ on this evening's Look North.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:42 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
The article states that we have requested (to the league) that we temporarily move back to the Arena.
-
- Posts: 2786
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:24 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Contact:
Re: Ground share
https://www.thenonleaguefootballpaper.c ... -football/
If this is correct then a move to the Arena would be pointless.
If this is correct then a move to the Arena would be pointless.
Capacity restrictions will be based on the minimum required for ground grading and not the capacity of the stadium E.G the minimum capacity at NLN level is 3,000 so initially we'll be allowed to have a maximum of 450 spectators and then a maximum of 900 thereafter.Stage one:
From 22 August 2020 to 30 August 2020, spectators are permitted to attend fixtures at Steps 3-6of the NLS and tiers three to four of the WFP, providing that their number does not exceed 15 per cent of the minimum ground grading capacity at these levels or respective figures set out within the updated guidelines
If a club at these levels does not play any fixtures during this period, it must have played at least one pre-season or competitive fixture in accordance with its respective level of spectators before moving on to stage two
Stage two:
From 31 August 2020, clubs at steps three to six of the NLS and tiers three to four of the WFP will be permitted to allow spectators to attend fixtures provided that their number does not exceed 30 per cent of the minimum ground grading capacity at their level or the respective figures set out within our updated guidelines. However, they must be satisfied that they have been able to comply with the Government’s guidance on the return to recreational team sport and our updated guidelines
love it! wrote:Considering we are Darlington 1883 I'm happy that we are named correctly
Re: Ground share
quaker4life wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:07 pmhttps://www.thenonleaguefootballpaper.c ... -football/
If this is correct then a move to the Arena would be pointless.
Capacity restrictions will be based on the minimum required for ground grading and not the capacity of the stadium E.G the minimum capacity at NLN level is 3,000 so initially we'll be allowed to have a maximum of 450 spectators and then a maximum of 900 thereafter.Stage one:
From 22 August 2020 to 30 August 2020, spectators are permitted to attend fixtures at Steps 3-6of the NLS and tiers three to four of the WFP, providing that their number does not exceed 15 per cent of the minimum ground grading capacity at these levels or respective figures set out within the updated guidelines
If a club at these levels does not play any fixtures during this period, it must have played at least one pre-season or competitive fixture in accordance with its respective level of spectators before moving on to stage two
Stage two:
From 31 August 2020, clubs at steps three to six of the NLS and tiers three to four of the WFP will be permitted to allow spectators to attend fixtures provided that their number does not exceed 30 per cent of the minimum ground grading capacity at their level or the respective figures set out within our updated guidelines. However, they must be satisfied that they have been able to comply with the Government’s guidance on the return to recreational team sport and our updated guidelines
If I read your post correctly, even if a club in NLN/NLS were to play home games at say Wembley Stadium they are still limited to 450 spectators
That seems bizarre and illogical.
It also means there is unlikely to be a financial case to play at the Arena until those restrictions are limited
-
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:26 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Ground share
I can't see DJ doing the headache of a move just for 1350 people it just doesn’t make sense.quaker4life wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:07 pmhttps://www.thenonleaguefootballpaper.c ... -football/
If this is correct then a move to the Arena would be pointless.
Capacity restrictions will be based on the minimum required for ground grading and not the capacity of the stadium E.G the minimum capacity at NLN level is 3,000 so initially we'll be allowed to have a maximum of 450 spectators and then a maximum of 900 thereafter.Stage one:
From 22 August 2020 to 30 August 2020, spectators are permitted to attend fixtures at Steps 3-6of the NLS and tiers three to four of the WFP, providing that their number does not exceed 15 per cent of the minimum ground grading capacity at these levels or respective figures set out within the updated guidelines
If a club at these levels does not play any fixtures during this period, it must have played at least one pre-season or competitive fixture in accordance with its respective level of spectators before moving on to stage two
Stage two:
From 31 August 2020, clubs at steps three to six of the NLS and tiers three to four of the WFP will be permitted to allow spectators to attend fixtures provided that their number does not exceed 30 per cent of the minimum ground grading capacity at their level or the respective figures set out within our updated guidelines. However, they must be satisfied that they have been able to comply with the Government’s guidance on the return to recreational team sport and our updated guidelines
-
- Posts: 2786
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:24 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Contact:
Re: Ground share
Indeed, regardless of the overall capacity of the stadium the restrictions would be based on the minimum capacity for ground grading at the respective level.spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:26 pm
If I read your post correctly, even if a club in NLN/NLS were to play home games at say Wembley Stadium they are still limited to 450 spectators
That seems bizarre and illogical.
It also means there is unlikely to be a financial case to play at the Arena until those restrictions are limited
As Unfortunate as it is that many supporters across the country will lose out, I think it is fair as it levels the playing field for all clubs - this is what I meant when I said there couldn't be one standard for Darlington and another for everyone else.
love it! wrote:Considering we are Darlington 1883 I'm happy that we are named correctly
Re: Ground share
So by your logic all grounds should exactly equal in size post lock down? Just so not to be seen as unfair? This is total stupidity by the league and may be the end of some clubs.quaker4life wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:34 pmIndeed, regardless of the overall capacity of the stadium the restrictions would be based on the minimum capacity for ground grading at the respective level.spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:26 pm
If I read your post correctly, even if a club in NLN/NLS were to play home games at say Wembley Stadium they are still limited to 450 spectators
That seems bizarre and illogical.
It also means there is unlikely to be a financial case to play at the Arena until those restrictions are limited
As Unfortunate as it is that many supporters across the country will lose out, I think it is fair as it levels the playing field for all clubs - this is what I meant when I said there couldn't be one standard for Darlington and another for everyone else.
-
- Posts: 2786
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:24 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Contact:
Re: Ground share
No.
Personally I'd have curtailed the league until such a time it was safe for grounds to reopen at 100% capacity, however allowing teams to play at bigger venues to bypass capacity restrictions to me is nonsensical and contradictory they may as well not be there to begin with and to reiterate once again there can't be one rule for one club and another for the rest.
You have two options essentially
1. Resume the league with restricted capacities
2. Suspend the league indefinitely until such a time spectators are allowed to return unrestricted
In both scenarios clubs will suffer financially it's really a case of choosing your poison.
love it! wrote:Considering we are Darlington 1883 I'm happy that we are named correctly
-
- Posts: 2786
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:24 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Contact:
Re: Ground share
Double post.
love it! wrote:Considering we are Darlington 1883 I'm happy that we are named correctly
-
- Posts: 978
- Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
- Team Supported: Newcastle united and gateshead
- Location: Chesterfield
Re: Ground share
From what i gather the rules out today on crowd restrictions are just for step 3 and below which would be ok for the bulk of clubs at that level but not for step 2 and above, lets hope common sense prevails for above step 3
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams