Update Required?

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

Mister e
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Mister e » Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:22 pm

As sad as it is I think the common sense option is to scrap this season all together. It's going to be no fun at our level playing fixtures without supporters present plus a new wave of the virus could see the league or indeed the government pull the plug at any given time. I would much prefer us all to make a fresh start next season or even play half a season in the new year when hopefully this nightmare is behind us.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4584
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:25 pm

I don't think it's funding clubs though Old Git.

It's just temporarily reimbursing lost ticket money due to the fact that present laws state you can't sell tickets.

If a club is badly run or subsidised to start with - then I suppose they still will be.
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

Darlofan97
Posts: 4478
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:55 pm

H1987 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:47 am
divas wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:09 pm
H1987 wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:50 pm
divas wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:40 pm
H1987 wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:32 pm
if we could do it in a safe way to let a few home fans in, hopefully we can make it happen :thumbup: Letting a few hundred watch Shields or the Northern League, in much smaller venues, but forbidding it at our level is a nonsense. We can't survive on that alone (as DJ also noted) but I think it'd be something. I'm sure there would be 300 of our local, low-risk group fans who would certainly like it.
It’s absolutely pointless having 300 fans in at this sort of level and above. It would cost the club more to put a game on with those numbers than we’d make which is why it isn’t a solution that has been implemented any higher than league where that sort of number is the norm.
How? Our stewards and turnstile operators are volunteers. You can’t run hospitality anyway.

300 is better than 0. For the 300 who can go, for the players, and for the fans watching a stream.
Very few stewards these days are volunteers. Probably even less so during Covid when you factor in those that are, are mainly elderly and won’t want to put themselves at risk when they don’t have to. I certainly wouldn’t be doing the role that I did and I’m much younger than many. Additional paid resource would need to be brought in.

Match day costs are considerable, trust me.

The 300 would be season ticket holders who have already paid therefore there will be negligible revenue and plenty of cost.
Which match day costs do you think we are avoiding when playing behind closed doors exactly? I am aware that there are considerable costs, but apart from any stewarding and the bill to clean the toilets, we're going to be paying them anyway. Hospitality all has to be shut. Security and running costs will need to be paid even behind closed doors.

I'm not saying it's a money spinner, I'm saying it's the right thing to do for fans, for players and for the club, and I disagree it's going to lose more money than operating behind closed doors would anyway.
Clueless.

Divas is absolutely correct.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6266
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by loan_star » Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:05 pm

Quaker85 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:10 pm

We were a loss making club a couple of seasons ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And we had a plan to become sustainable. Face it there are clubs out there that dont stand a cat in hells chance of surviving at the level they are at without funding from a benefactor.

Example, a multimillion pound company own a loss making football club. Why should the taxpayer bail out the club when the multimillion pound company should be footing that bill?

Darlofan97
Posts: 4478
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:13 pm

loan_star wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:05 pm
Quaker85 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:10 pm

We were a loss making club a couple of seasons ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And we had a plan to become sustainable. Face it there are clubs out there that dont stand a cat in hells chance of surviving at the level they are at without funding from a benefactor.

Example, a multimillion pound company own a loss making football club. Why should the taxpayer bail out the club when the multimillion pound company should be footing that bill?
Did we have a plan to become sustainable? I certainly haven’t seen anything published and besides, all clubs/owners could say exactly the same thing.

lo36789
Posts: 8853
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Update Required?

Post by lo36789 » Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:56 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:13 pm
Did we have a plan to become sustainable? I certainly haven’t seen anything published and besides, all clubs/owners could say exactly the same thing.
I thought we knocked c.£100k off the playing budget and that was where BTB basically came from. To run "sustainably" we would need to cut costs by that amount.

BTB is a cash injection by the owners - but also is income from the customers so what is and isn't included in sustainability?

Vodka_Vic
Posts: 2073
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Vodka_Vic » Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:14 pm

Why are there no spectators at Step 3 games tonight?

Darlofan97
Posts: 4478
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:23 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:56 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:13 pm
Did we have a plan to become sustainable? I certainly haven’t seen anything published and besides, all clubs/owners could say exactly the same thing.
I thought we knocked c.£100k off the playing budget and that was where BTB basically came from. To run "sustainably" we would need to cut costs by that amount.

BTB is a cash injection by the owners - but also is income from the customers so what is and isn't included in sustainability?
We made a substantial loss in 18/19.

As far as I am aware, we do not have to submit long-term budget plans to the league. So this idea that we can just turn around and say, “well we have a plan to be sustainable” doesn’t wash. Many other clubs/owners could say the same. It’s a non-starter.

lo36789
Posts: 8853
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Update Required?

Post by lo36789 » Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:36 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:23 pm
As far as I am aware, we do not have to submit long-term budget plans to the league. So this idea that we can just turn around and say, “well we have a plan to be sustainable” doesn’t wash. Many other clubs/owners could say the same. It’s a non-starter.
Oh right sorry missed context of what you were saying. Yeh I agree if there was a suggestion that the package received should be dependent on promises to operate clubs in a certain way moving forward.

As a football fan it does actually make me a little uneasy that this is where tax payer money is being directed, equally we have to ask for it because it is clear as day the FA think the show has to go on.

You wonder whether low interest loans would have been an alternative way to go on it. I mean CBILs is what most other organisations had to apply for.

quakersfan
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:26 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by quakersfan » Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:41 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:36 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:23 pm
As far as I am aware, we do not have to submit long-term budget plans to the league. So this idea that we can just turn around and say, “well we have a plan to be sustainable” doesn’t wash. Many other clubs/owners could say the same. It’s a non-starter.
Oh right sorry missed context of what you were saying. Yeh I agree if there was a suggestion that the package received should be dependent on promises to operate clubs in a certain way moving forward.

As a football fan it does actually make me a little uneasy that this is where tax payer money is being directed, equally we have to ask for it because it is clear as day the FA think the show has to go on.

You wonder whether low interest loans would have been an alternative way to go on it. I mean CBILs is what most other organisations had to apply for.
Have to agree a CBILS/BBL loan over a 10-15 year period would help most clubs and avoid the bailout for football clubs and return to treasury.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5200
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:14 am

eek wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:46 pm
eek wrote:
Quaker85 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:07 am
Perhaps fans who live in Darlington would do well to write to Peter Gibson MP and remind him of his party’s election manifesto pledge to set up a £150M community assets fund to help set up community assets and fan led review of football governance which they have quietly forgotten about.

The government is quite wrong to be passing the buck to the Premier League imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would say the government is quite wrong in passing 100% of the buck to the Premier League but the Premier League can afford to pay some of the costs and should.

As for whether the Government should be paying towards keeping football going when no-one can actually see it, it seems completely pointless.
Trouble is, if the Premier League see themselves as being used as a cash cow to prop up everyone else, they’ll refuse.

The Premier League don’t need the pyramid as much as they used to. So we need to be careful about viewing them purely in financial terms. Just saying: “You’ve got money, fund everyone else” will be counterproductive.

I fully understand why the Premier League clubs would question why it’s their responsibility to keep everyone else in business.
I believe the options are either the Premier League clubs find the money or there isn't any...
And viewing the Premier League solely as a cash cow makes it less likely they’ll do anything.

The Premier League doesn’t need the lower reaches/non-League, so why will they be bothered about people who are only after its money?

Anyway, as we’ve seen, the Premier League isn’t the only option, so you’re wrong on that.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

eek
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by eek » Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:04 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:14 am
eek wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:46 pm
eek wrote:
Quaker85 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 8:07 am
Perhaps fans who live in Darlington would do well to write to Peter Gibson MP and remind him of his party’s election manifesto pledge to set up a £150M community assets fund to help set up community assets and fan led review of football governance which they have quietly forgotten about.

The government is quite wrong to be passing the buck to the Premier League imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would say the government is quite wrong in passing 100% of the buck to the Premier League but the Premier League can afford to pay some of the costs and should.

As for whether the Government should be paying towards keeping football going when no-one can actually see it, it seems completely pointless.
Trouble is, if the Premier League see themselves as being used as a cash cow to prop up everyone else, they’ll refuse.

The Premier League don’t need the pyramid as much as they used to. So we need to be careful about viewing them purely in financial terms. Just saying: “You’ve got money, fund everyone else” will be counterproductive.

I fully understand why the Premier League clubs would question why it’s their responsibility to keep everyone else in business.
I believe the options are either the Premier League clubs find the money or there isn't any...
And viewing the Premier League solely as a cash cow makes it less likely they’ll do anything.

The Premier League doesn’t need the lower reaches/non-League, so why will they be bothered about people who are only after its money?

Anyway, as we’ve seen, the Premier League isn’t the only option, so you’re wrong on that.
Well the announcement is on the BBC now at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54352735

And I don't think it actually changes the argument regarding the Premiership at all. Because the Government seems to be telling the Premiership that it's up to them to protect the Championship and Leagues 1 & 2.

H1987
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by H1987 » Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:12 am

Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:55 pm
H1987 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:47 am
divas wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:09 pm
H1987 wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:50 pm
divas wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:40 pm


It’s absolutely pointless having 300 fans in at this sort of level and above. It would cost the club more to put a game on with those numbers than we’d make which is why it isn’t a solution that has been implemented any higher than league where that sort of number is the norm.
How? Our stewards and turnstile operators are volunteers. You can’t run hospitality anyway.

300 is better than 0. For the 300 who can go, for the players, and for the fans watching a stream.
Very few stewards these days are volunteers. Probably even less so during Covid when you factor in those that are, are mainly elderly and won’t want to put themselves at risk when they don’t have to. I certainly wouldn’t be doing the role that I did and I’m much younger than many. Additional paid resource would need to be brought in.

Match day costs are considerable, trust me.

The 300 would be season ticket holders who have already paid therefore there will be negligible revenue and plenty of cost.
Which match day costs do you think we are avoiding when playing behind closed doors exactly? I am aware that there are considerable costs, but apart from any stewarding and the bill to clean the toilets, we're going to be paying them anyway. Hospitality all has to be shut. Security and running costs will need to be paid even behind closed doors.

I'm not saying it's a money spinner, I'm saying it's the right thing to do for fans, for players and for the club, and I disagree it's going to lose more money than operating behind closed doors would anyway.
Clueless.

Divas is absolutely correct.
Sad you think doing something for fans is clueless.

Do you think we’ll be playing behind closed doors for free? Clown.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5200
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:57 am

eek wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:14 am
eek wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:46 pm
eek wrote: I would say the government is quite wrong in passing 100% of the buck to the Premier League but the Premier League can afford to pay some of the costs and should.

As for whether the Government should be paying towards keeping football going when no-one can actually see it, it seems completely pointless.
Trouble is, if the Premier League see themselves as being used as a cash cow to prop up everyone else, they’ll refuse.

The Premier League don’t need the pyramid as much as they used to. So we need to be careful about viewing them purely in financial terms. Just saying: “You’ve got money, fund everyone else” will be counterproductive.

I fully understand why the Premier League clubs would question why it’s their responsibility to keep everyone else in business.
I believe the options are either the Premier League clubs find the money or there isn't any...
And viewing the Premier League solely as a cash cow makes it less likely they’ll do anything.

The Premier League doesn’t need the lower reaches/non-League, so why will they be bothered about people who are only after its money?

Anyway, as we’ve seen, the Premier League isn’t the only option, so you’re wrong on that.
Well the announcement is on the BBC now at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54352735

And I don't think it actually changes the argument regarding the Premiership at all. Because the Government seems to be telling the Premiership that it's up to them to protect the Championship and Leagues 1 & 2.
All I’m saying is if you hope for altruism from the Premier League, saying to them: “You’re rich, you should prop up dozens of loss-making clubs” isn’t viable long-term. Yet sadly, that attitude is something a lot of lower league fans seem to have.

If six to twelve months down the line, clubs/the Government go cap in hand again to the Premier League (not Premiership), if they’ve viewed them as a cash cow first time around, the Premier League may not be so forthcoming next time.

Too many fans look greedily at the Premier League’s money, when one of the upshots of this crisis should be that ALL league clubs get their house in order financially to be better prepared in future.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

lo36789
Posts: 8853
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Update Required?

Post by lo36789 » Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:02 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:57 am
Too many fans look greedily at the Premier League’s money, when one of the upshots of this crisis should be that ALL league clubs get their house in order financially to be better prepared in future.
Don't know if that will happen just expect this to forever be viewed as an exceptional event.

I am not sure there is a way to financially prepare any (legitimate) business for effectively your entire revenue stream being banned by government.

There is business continuity planning and there is this!

It would be nice if the outcome was a more realistic / sustainable approach to finance in football. I am just not convinced.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5200
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:12 am

H1987 wrote:
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:55 pm
H1987 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:47 am
divas wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:09 pm
H1987 wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:50 pm
How? Our stewards and turnstile operators are volunteers. You can’t run hospitality anyway.

300 is better than 0. For the 300 who can go, for the players, and for the fans watching a stream.
Very few stewards these days are volunteers. Probably even less so during Covid when you factor in those that are, are mainly elderly and won’t want to put themselves at risk when they don’t have to. I certainly wouldn’t be doing the role that I did and I’m much younger than many. Additional paid resource would need to be brought in.

Match day costs are considerable, trust me.

The 300 would be season ticket holders who have already paid therefore there will be negligible revenue and plenty of cost.
Which match day costs do you think we are avoiding when playing behind closed doors exactly? I am aware that there are considerable costs, but apart from any stewarding and the bill to clean the toilets, we're going to be paying them anyway. Hospitality all has to be shut. Security and running costs will need to be paid even behind closed doors.

I'm not saying it's a money spinner, I'm saying it's the right thing to do for fans, for players and for the club, and I disagree it's going to lose more money than operating behind closed doors would anyway.
Clueless.

Divas is absolutely correct.
Sad you think doing something for fans is clueless.

Do you think we’ll be playing behind closed doors for free? Clown.
I’m sorry, but to make out there are minimal additional costs is just plain ignorant and untrue. It’s Trump-style thinking.

There are greater costs associated with having fans in attendance. That’s just obvious. Stewarding/policing costs for one go right up (obviously). Then there are the costs associated with Covid-proofing the ground for 300 people. You pay greater security costs for 300 spectators than zero spectators.

There’s a lot more on top of that.

If it costs money to put on, you need to make it back. With only season-ticket holders, there’s no pay-on-the-door fans. So where do you make they money?

And as you’d be only admitting season ticket holders, who gets in? Why would the remaining season ticket holders accept watching a stream, when others, who paid for the same product, are getting into the ground? They might well want a refund, costing more money.

It’s all well and good playing them morality card (“it’s the right thing to do for fans”) but given it’ll be a money loser, on top of the financial pressures already facing the club, it’d do more harm than good.

Those 300 fans wouldn’t have a club to watch come 2021, as we’d be insolvent.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 5200
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:22 am

lo36789 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:57 am
Too many fans look greedily at the Premier League’s money, when one of the upshots of this crisis should be that ALL league clubs get their house in order financially to be better prepared in future.
Don't know if that will happen just expect this to forever be viewed as an exceptional event.

I am not sure there is a way to financially prepare any (legitimate) business for effectively your entire revenue stream being banned by government.

There is business continuity planning and there is this!

It would be nice if the outcome was a more realistic / sustainable approach to finance in football. I am just not convinced.
Badly run clubs are more exposed by this than well run clubs.

It should be a big lesson out of this, but I agree it probably won’t happen.

Instead it just seems to be the easy option to blame the Premier League, and expect them to bail everyone else out. Even when Bury were going under, some expecting the PL to bail them out. The actual answer is to run your club properly.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

H1987
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by H1987 » Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:02 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:12 am
H1987 wrote:
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:55 pm
H1987 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:47 am
divas wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:09 pm


Very few stewards these days are volunteers. Probably even less so during Covid when you factor in those that are, are mainly elderly and won’t want to put themselves at risk when they don’t have to. I certainly wouldn’t be doing the role that I did and I’m much younger than many. Additional paid resource would need to be brought in.

Match day costs are considerable, trust me.

The 300 would be season ticket holders who have already paid therefore there will be negligible revenue and plenty of cost.
Which match day costs do you think we are avoiding when playing behind closed doors exactly? I am aware that there are considerable costs, but apart from any stewarding and the bill to clean the toilets, we're going to be paying them anyway. Hospitality all has to be shut. Security and running costs will need to be paid even behind closed doors.

I'm not saying it's a money spinner, I'm saying it's the right thing to do for fans, for players and for the club, and I disagree it's going to lose more money than operating behind closed doors would anyway.
Clueless.

Divas is absolutely correct.
Sad you think doing something for fans is clueless.

Do you think we’ll be playing behind closed doors for free? Clown.
I’m sorry, but to make out there are minimal additional costs is just plain ignorant and untrue. It’s Trump-style thinking.

There are greater costs associated with having fans in attendance. That’s just obvious. Stewarding/policing costs for one go right up (obviously). Then there are the costs associated with Covid-proofing the ground for 300 people. You pay greater security costs for 300 spectators than zero spectators.

There’s a lot more on top of that.

If it costs money to put on, you need to make it back. With only season-ticket holders, there’s no pay-on-the-door fans. So where do you make they money?

And as you’d be only admitting season ticket holders, who gets in? Why would the remaining season ticket holders accept watching a stream, when others, who paid for the same product, are getting into the ground? They might well want a refund, costing more money.

It’s all well and good playing them morality card (“it’s the right thing to do for fans”) but given it’ll be a money loser, on top of the financial pressures already facing the club, it’d do more harm than good.

Those 300 fans wouldn’t have a club to watch come 2021, as we’d be insolvent.
What police costs? We rarely have them in full grounds *with* away fans. So that's 0 for starters.

Stewarding - how many stewards do you need for 300? Not many at all. How many are volunteers anyway?

Security - will need to be present anyway for behind closed doors. How much do we operate with in normal times?

How do you covid proof a terrace, open standing for 300? You might need to put some covers on some seats. That'd be it.

If the costs of this are so great, how are they doing it at the levels below? Think about it. I see absolutely no convincing argument this would be losing money - it it were, the clubs at the levels below would cease to exist almost across the board. 300 in Blackwell is pretty social distant anyway, nearly everything is outdoors. I'll concede you would need to pay for toilets to be cleaned but nearly everything else would operate basically exactly the same, just for a small crowd. Maybe you'd put some hand sanitisers dotted about the place. Hardly bank breaking stuff.

Amateur cricket clubs have been doing it all summer long. No access to the clubhouse but you're sat outside and trusted not to ignore distancing.

lo36789
Posts: 8853
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Update Required?

Post by lo36789 » Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:48 am

I'm not sure who you are arguing with anymore?

If we were allowed 300 fans then I suspect that we would - assuming that the local health authority were approving. Its not really our decision. We are not deciding not to for cost reasons.

Fact is that the government are not allowing any more trials of higher amounts so the focus is on financing the season with this in mind. An allowance for 300 spectators is just another variable - especially when in many council areas this has been reduced already.

It isn't our decision and the primary concern right now is a financial package given current situation. 300 fans makes no material difference to anyone so what is the value in that being part of the debate right now.

onewayup
Posts: 1953
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by onewayup » Wed Sep 30, 2020 11:32 am

These are exceptional circumstances the government are stopping the national league clubs from operating effectively by not allowing fans even though the clubs have gone over and above what they were required to, ie getting an agreement to use larger stadium in our case ,so yes they the government have to help alleviate the monetary shortfall as it's their rules that are causing the black holes in most cases. Just the way I see it anyway.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5200
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Update Required?

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Sep 30, 2020 12:06 pm

H1987 wrote: What police costs? We rarely have them in full grounds *with* away fans. So that's 0 for starters.

Stewarding - how many stewards do you need for 300? Not many at all. How many are volunteers anyway?

Security - will need to be present anyway for behind closed doors. How much do we operate with in normal times?
It’s clear it’s pointless arguing with you on these points. People involved with the club and people with better info than you have told you the costs of these are considerable.

And if you think stewarding/policing costs are minimal, you’d be in for a shock.

Yet you won’t have it, so it’s pointless trying to discuss this in good faith.
H1987 wrote: How do you covid proof a terrace, open standing for 300? You might need to put some covers on some seats. That'd be it.
Come off it. It’s a lot more than a few covers on seats. You know this.
H1987 wrote: If the costs of this are so great, how are they doing it at the levels below?
Easy answer. It’s more expensive to run a club at NLN than the NPL or Northern League because of the other costs (wages, travel etc). And how many Northern League clubs have 300 season ticket holders? They can get pay-on-the-door fans who make holding matches financially viable.

We wouldn’t, all 300 fans would be season-ticket holders, so you’re not getting any On The Day income. And that’s before we end up having to refund the 250/300 season ticket holders who can’t attend.

We cannot afford to lose money. That’s why clubs at our level need this Government bailout.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

LoidLucan
Posts: 3343
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by LoidLucan » Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:59 pm

Just look at what's happened to South Shields in the league below. Their capacity has now been slashed from the 600 they started the season with to 300. And in early July they announced they had sold more than 600 season tickets.

Today they tweeted this: "The club wishes to make supporters aware that, with next Tuesday's game against Radcliffe set to be played in front of a reduced capacity of 300, a ballot of season ticket holders will need to be made to decide who is able to attend. It's a deeply regrettable situation."

That's an appalling situation they now face.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4478
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlofan97 » Wed Sep 30, 2020 4:07 pm

Having 300, or even 600, fans in at this level would also preclude us from receiving any funding from the Government/PL. Be careful what you wish for, you can’t have the best of both worlds.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6266
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by loan_star » Wed Sep 30, 2020 5:21 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:13 pm
loan_star wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:05 pm
Quaker85 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:10 pm

We were a loss making club a couple of seasons ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And we had a plan to become sustainable. Face it there are clubs out there that dont stand a cat in hells chance of surviving at the level they are at without funding from a benefactor.

Example, a multimillion pound company own a loss making football club. Why should the taxpayer bail out the club when the multimillion pound company should be footing that bill?
Did we have a plan to become sustainable? I certainly haven’t seen anything published and besides, all clubs/owners could say exactly the same thing.
That first team budget cut and the other efficiencies DJ has brought in must be a figment of my imagination then? ;)

Darlofan97
Posts: 4478
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlofan97 » Wed Sep 30, 2020 6:18 pm

loan_star wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 5:21 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:13 pm
loan_star wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:05 pm
Quaker85 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:10 pm

We were a loss making club a couple of seasons ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And we had a plan to become sustainable. Face it there are clubs out there that dont stand a cat in hells chance of surviving at the level they are at without funding from a benefactor.

Example, a multimillion pound company own a loss making football club. Why should the taxpayer bail out the club when the multimillion pound company should be footing that bill?
Did we have a plan to become sustainable? I certainly haven’t seen anything published and besides, all clubs/owners could say exactly the same thing.
That first team budget cut and the other efficiencies DJ has brought in must be a figment of my imagination then? ;)
I think we should reserve judgement until we see the 19/20 accounts!

In all seriousness, it sounds like funding on the way which is a positive. I’m confident that with this funding, plus streaming, season ticket & boost the budget revenue, then we will see through the season with the current squad.

biccynana
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:38 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by biccynana » Wed Sep 30, 2020 6:35 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:57 am
eek wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:14 am
eek wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:46 pm

Trouble is, if the Premier League see themselves as being used as a cash cow to prop up everyone else, they’ll refuse.

The Premier League don’t need the pyramid as much as they used to. So we need to be careful about viewing them purely in financial terms. Just saying: “You’ve got money, fund everyone else” will be counterproductive.

I fully understand why the Premier League clubs would question why it’s their responsibility to keep everyone else in business.
I believe the options are either the Premier League clubs find the money or there isn't any...
And viewing the Premier League solely as a cash cow makes it less likely they’ll do anything.

The Premier League doesn’t need the lower reaches/non-League, so why will they be bothered about people who are only after its money?

Anyway, as we’ve seen, the Premier League isn’t the only option, so you’re wrong on that.
Well the announcement is on the BBC now at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54352735

And I don't think it actually changes the argument regarding the Premiership at all. Because the Government seems to be telling the Premiership that it's up to them to protect the Championship and Leagues 1 & 2.
All I’m saying is if you hope for altruism from the Premier League, saying to them: “You’re rich, you should prop up dozens of loss-making clubs” isn’t viable long-term. Yet sadly, that attitude is something a lot of lower league fans seem to have.

If six to twelve months down the line, clubs/the Government go cap in hand again to the Premier League (not Premiership), if they’ve viewed them as a cash cow first time around, the Premier League may not be so forthcoming next time.

Too many fans look greedily at the Premier League’s money, when one of the upshots of this crisis should be that ALL league clubs get their house in order financially to be better prepared in future.
Good piece on this in today's paper https://www.theguardian.com/football/bl ... s-go-under, the gist being
At its heart, Dychonomics is underpinned by a heartbreaking, devastatingly cynical and yet largely accurate idea of the modern football club, which is essentially an animal of the market: one that sees not a pyramid but a jungle of predators and prey. Big clubs may not necessarily need smaller clubs to go under – far better, surely, to maintain them in vassalage as an easy talent pipeline and loan destination for young players – but they’re probably not too fussed either way... Or, to put it another way: there may be individuals at Manchester United or Manchester City who personally mourn the plight of Macclesfield Town or Bury, or those we may yet lose. But the organism as a whole will feel nothing at all. It’s the same reason Amazon wants to shut your local bookshop, why Pret a Manger is indifferent to the fate of the sandwich shop round the corner, why the Athletic wants traditional newspapers to bleed to death. Nothing personal, you understand.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4478
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlofan97 » Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:04 pm

H1987 wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:12 am
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:55 pm
H1987 wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:47 am
divas wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:09 pm
H1987 wrote:
Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:50 pm


How? Our stewards and turnstile operators are volunteers. You can’t run hospitality anyway.

300 is better than 0. For the 300 who can go, for the players, and for the fans watching a stream.
Very few stewards these days are volunteers. Probably even less so during Covid when you factor in those that are, are mainly elderly and won’t want to put themselves at risk when they don’t have to. I certainly wouldn’t be doing the role that I did and I’m much younger than many. Additional paid resource would need to be brought in.

Match day costs are considerable, trust me.

The 300 would be season ticket holders who have already paid therefore there will be negligible revenue and plenty of cost.
Which match day costs do you think we are avoiding when playing behind closed doors exactly? I am aware that there are considerable costs, but apart from any stewarding and the bill to clean the toilets, we're going to be paying them anyway. Hospitality all has to be shut. Security and running costs will need to be paid even behind closed doors.

I'm not saying it's a money spinner, I'm saying it's the right thing to do for fans, for players and for the club, and I disagree it's going to lose more money than operating behind closed doors would anyway.
Clueless.

Divas is absolutely correct.
Sad you think doing something for fans is clueless.

Do you think we’ll be playing behind closed doors for free? Clown.
This isn’t about “doing something for the fans”. It’s a non-starter.

It’s blatantly obvious that opening up to 300-600 fans will bring in very little revenue (as they are season ticket holders) with increased additional costs (stewarding, security, hospitality, cleaning, policing etc).

Not to mention any push and acceptance for fans to attend will see us relinquish any funding from the Government, which will be worth far more than a few hundred attending every home game.

Of course we won’t be playing behind closed doors for free, but what that brings is reduced costs that you don’t need to incur due to no fans being in attendance. It’s naive to think otherwise.

Darlopartisan
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:49 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Update Required?

Post by Darlopartisan » Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:03 am

poppyfield wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:08 pm
Non League news paper saying we need £3 million per month to compensate playing without fans, which would equal ''roughly'' ;
44k to each club, unlikely.
62.5 K to each NL Club. 1.5 million
34k to each North/South club. 1.5 million
So 8 months = 24 million .
3 million is the figure that’s been trending, so you might not be far off😀

Post Reply