Darlo Uncovered

biccynana wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:25 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:40 pm

Democracy means accepting the result, even if it's not your preferred option.

You heard the man. If a majority of posters vote for spen666 to do one then he will.

Brilliant idea

Go now spen 666 .your drivel is not required on this site. I vote go.

onewayup wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:15 pm

These people are robbing the grants system for their own ends.

More work for the lawyers!!

darlo2001uk, can you explain some other reason why,how, some national league sides benefit enormously , whilst others better supported teams are given a much smaller proportion of the
Grant ,which was said to replace lost gate revenues ,corruption within the corridors of power it says to me although the clubs are thankful for the MONIES they just haven't been fair in the distribution simple as that. Example: 700 fans x10 =7000 x4 28000 --- 2000 fans x10 =20,000x4 80,000 it's not rocket science. National league have taken 60%of the grant.between 22 clubs leaving 40% for north/south 44 clubs. How is that fair.

onewayup wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:35 am

darlo2001uk, can you explain some other reason why,how, some national league sides benefit enormously , whilst others better supported teams are given a much smaller proportion of the
Grant ,which was said to replace lost gate revenues ,corruption within the corridors of power it says to me although the clubs are thankful for the MONIES they just haven't been fair in the distribution simple as that. Example: 700 fans x10 =7000 x4 28000 --- 2000 fans x10 =20,000x4 80,000 it's not rocket science. National league have taken 60%of the grant.

No, because I'm not privy to the workings of the system.

https://theathletic.co.uk/2156815/2020/ ... t-funding/

Interesting article from the athletic (for those who subscribe at least) about this. Main takeaway is the lack of transparancy and responses from the National League.

al_quaker wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:54 am

https://theathletic.co.uk/2156815/2020/ ... t-funding/

Interesting article from the athletic (for those who subscribe at least) about this. Main takeaway is the lack of transparancy and responses from the National League.

What does it say?

dfcdfcdfc wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:25 am

al_quaker wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:54 am

https://theathletic.co.uk/2156815/2020/ ... t-funding/

Interesting article from the athletic (for those who subscribe at least) about this. Main takeaway is the lack of transparancy and responses from the National League.

What does it say?

" It's a shitstorm"

dfcdfcdfc wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:25 am

al_quaker wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:54 am

https://theathletic.co.uk/2156815/2020/ ... t-funding/

Interesting article from the athletic (for those who subscribe at least) about this. Main takeaway is the lack of transparancy and responses from the National League.

What does it say?

Basically there's no transparancy and responses from the National League. Plenty of clubs (generally those with bigger attendances relative to their level) are unhappy. DCMS not invovled with determining the distribution. Dulwich Hamlet sound particularly unhappy - removing league and vanarama sponsorship boards.

Such is Clasper’s anger, he intends to remove the National League’s sponsors from Dulwich’s Champion Hill home.

“I’ve written to Vanarama. Their signs are coming down, everything is coming down,” he adds.

“We’ve put them on notice — this is a public funding scandal. Signs are coming down. We’re going to go for them as heavily as we are going to go for the National League. Anyone that backs this board, and backs what the league have just done, needs to be called out.

“I’m talking as a tax payer. I’m not having my money thrown around like this.”

al_quaker wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:09 pm

“I’m talking as a tax payer. I’m not having my money thrown around like this.”
[/i]

He’d be better off talking as a National Lottery player tbh

Still not sure what I make of all of this. I do think some sides (especially Boreham Wood) seem to have come out of this very handily considering their low crowds and some of their other funding streams (Arsenal U23's and Arsenal Ladies) which are continuing to pay. Especially as the grant had been described as a payment made to soften the effect of fans not being allowed into grounds, but those who have higher fan numbers appear to be getting the lowest amounts per fan.

But the other side of me keeps thinking put it into perspective, we are receiving any kind of support. Looking at other sports, clubs and levels that aren't receiving centralised support, it could be much worse. I see DRFC have started a crowdfunder to try and support them and some of their lost revenue. https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/darlingt ... 80319.html . It could be far far worse. DJ seems fairly contented with the amount we've received which seems to indicate we can continue as planned at this time which is something to be grateful for in itself.

Plus we seem to have made signings since this announcement, in fact the squad looks bigger than last season's at the moment, which suggests to me that we're pretty comfortable with the financial position.

Think the point is here that no one is complaining about the 10m grant from the government
What has got clubs backs up is the way it has been distributed by the National League which is a mixture of pure incompetence and complete self-interest which I think that in their arrogance they thought nobody would notice!

Interestingly we havn't put our names to this latest letter;

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/statu ... 58209?s=19

But clubs with attendances lower than ours (Fylde, Kidderminster and Telford) have

Maybe Fylde would like to stop signing players for fees then.

lo36789 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:00 pm

Interestingly we havn't put our names to this latest letter;

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/statu ... 58209?s=19

But clubs with attendances lower than ours (Fylde, Kidderminster and Telford) have

I’m not shocked Fylde and Kidderminster are on that list whinging about money being distributed, especially when they spend above their means..

Maybe they should be taking a long look at themselves before looking to blame the GOV for being “skint”.

""The National League Board will discuss the situation at a meeting".

That means nothing is going to change.

Seriously, how they can whinge about funding then signs Hulme for 50k is a disgrace. At least if they went bust then no fans would be upset. After all, they're all Blackpool fans anyway with no tradition of an original club.

Not really bothered about other clubs or negative remarks about them. There are plenty of genuine people who are involved and support all clubs. Tradition is irrelevant it's what clubs seek to do now and in the future that matters.

Was more intrigued that we hadn't put our name to it which is perhaps further indicative of DJ comfort with situation.

I wonder how much BtB has protected us compared with others.

lo36789 wrote:Interestingly we havn't put our names to this latest letter;

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/statu ... 58209?s=19

But clubs with attendances lower than ours (Fylde, Kidderminster and Telford) have

A few clubs have tweeted that they weren’t consulted therefore didn’t have a chance to add their names to it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

D_F_C wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:47 pm

lo36789 wrote:Interestingly we havn't put our names to this latest letter;

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/statu ... 58209?s=19

But clubs with attendances lower than ours (Fylde, Kidderminster and Telford) have

A few clubs have tweeted that they weren’t consulted therefore didn’t have a chance to add their names to it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Strange that all clubs stuck together in national leagues to get the funding, once the national league management got there hands on it all hell breaks loose ,league management want dismissing for greedy misappropriation of the funds, part of the funds came from the national lottery, all who pay into that should be aggrieved at the league managers who copiously took 60% for their own 22 clubs leaving 40% for the northern /southern sections 44 clubs.
SACK THE NATIONAL LEAGUE MANAGERS ASSOCIATION. PARITY FOR ALL PARTIES.
SHOWS HOW GREEDY THEY ARE.

onewayup wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:06 pm

D_F_C wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:47 pm

lo36789 wrote:Interestingly we havn't put our names to this latest letter;

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/statu ... 58209?s=19

But clubs with attendances lower than ours (Fylde, Kidderminster and Telford) have

A few clubs have tweeted that they weren’t consulted therefore didn’t have a chance to add their names to it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Strange that all clubs stuck together in national leagues to get the funding, once the national league management got there hands on it all hell breaks loose ,league management want dismissing for greedy misappropriation of the funds, part of the funds came from the national lottery, all who pay into that should be aggrieved at the league managers who copiously took 60% for their own 22 clubs leaving 40% for the northern /southern sections 44 clubs.
SACK THE NATIONAL LEAGUE MANAGERS ASSOCIATION. PARITY FOR ALL PARTIES.
SHOWS HOW GREEDY THEY ARE.

Kinda feel this is what a statement from Steve Dale would look like on the subject.

NL were always going to get a proportionally bigger cut that NLN / NLS.

lo36789 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:37 pm

onewayup wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:06 pm

D_F_C wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:47 pm

lo36789 wrote:Interestingly we havn't put our names to this latest letter;

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/statu ... 58209?s=19

But clubs with attendances lower than ours (Fylde, Kidderminster and Telford) have

A few clubs have tweeted that they weren’t consulted therefore didn’t have a chance to add their names to it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Strange that all clubs stuck together in national leagues to get the funding, once the national league management got there hands on it all hell breaks loose ,league management want dismissing for greedy misappropriation of the funds, part of the funds came from the national lottery, all who pay into that should be aggrieved at the league managers who copiously took 60% for their own 22 clubs leaving 40% for the northern /southern sections 44 clubs.
SACK THE NATIONAL LEAGUE MANAGERS ASSOCIATION. PARITY FOR ALL PARTIES.
SHOWS HOW GREEDY THEY ARE.

Kinda feel this is what a statement from Steve Dale would look like on the subject.

NL were always going to get a proportionally bigger cut that NLN / NLS.

So lo36789. Do you think it was a right and fair way of distributing the money ?

My opinion wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:04 pm

So lo36789. Do you think it was a right and fair way of distributing the money ?

I think that clubs like York should be aggrieved by it. An arbitrary attendance of 1500 and drawing a line there for higher / lower amount whilst strictly speaking "being based on lost attendances". It does seem a £ per spectators may have been on the surface a better approach.

It would actually appear on the face of it that step 5 and step 6 received the same amount from the National Lottery. It just happens there are twice as many clubs at step 6.

I always expected the top level to get more. Their entrance fees are greater, their grounds are bigger (more hospitality offering) fundamentally their matchday income is greater than the level below. In terms of absolute value they are losing more from not having spectators than we are.

So if the purpose is to soften the blow of not having spectators then yes they should get more.

We were the club next in line to get a higher amount and actually on the face of it the amount received would appear to see us through then it actually doesn't seem that bad a deal.

Yes, it's still not the same as fans revenues but look around the country there is a lot of unfairness out there with what is going on. I think we should consider ourselves very fortunate to be able to have a fighting chance of surviving this. Many other companies in other sectors havn't got that chance and they employ an awful lot more people.

lo36789 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:26 pm

My opinion wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:04 pm

So lo36789. Do you think it was a right and fair way of distributing the money ?

I think that clubs like York should be aggrieved by it. An arbitrary attendance of 1500 and drawing a line there for higher / lower amount whilst strictly speaking "being based on lost attendances". It does seem a £ per spectators may have been on the surface a better approach.

It would actually appear on the face of it that step 5 and step 6 received the same amount from the National Lottery. It just happens there are twice as many clubs at step 6.

I always expected the top level to get more. Their entrance fees are greater, their grounds are bigger (more hospitality offering) fundamentally their matchday income is greater than the level below. In terms of absolute value they are losing more from not having spectators than we are.

So if the purpose is to soften the blow of not having spectators then yes they should get more.

We were the club next in line to get a higher amount and actually on the face of it the amount received would appear to see us through then it actually doesn't seem that bad a deal.

Yes, it's still not the same as fans revenues but look around the country there is a lot of unfairness out there with what is going on. I think we should consider ourselves very fortunate to be able to have a fighting chance of surviving this. Many other companies in other sectors havn't got that chance and they employ an awful lot more people.

It was supposed to be all about replacing lost fans revenue.The fact that their is a lot of unfairness out there does not make it right..
The reason for the unfairness out there is because of poor or unfair management ..
As for steps 5 and step 6 receiving the same amount, I think you view that differently to most people. My view is we were supposed to be all part of the same Elite group. I thought that meant that we would all be treated equally
I'm with onewayup on this issue and it appears we agree with several club chairmen.. Even Notts County say the way the money was distributed was wrong.

BBC has interesting article about massive demand for tickets in clubs below NLN/NLS
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sou ... e-54704567
Fans need a fix of live football, viewed from the terraces no matter what the standard.

My opinion wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 31, 2020 12:01 am

Even Notts County say the way the money was distributed was wrong.

Well I agree with them for their circumstance. What they have received won't come closer to making up for their lost fan revenue.

For Notts County see York. The clubs above the arbitrary line are the ones who are most aggrieved.

They received the most money but relative to their lost revenues it was nowhere close. The fact we got what was about right suggests there was enough money allocated to Step 6. It was just distributed within the steps with too basic an approach.

lo36789 wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:26 pm

[quote=" It would actually appear on the face of it that step 5 and step 6 received the same amount from the National Lottery. It just happens there are twice as many clubs at step 6.

Your comment on step 6 getting the same amount as step 5 is incorrect.. Step 5 took 60% of the money, that is £6m. Step 6 only got 40% which was £4m.. their is a difference of £2m which I think is a hell of a lot of money and would have been a 50% increase for step 6 clubs.

lo36789 wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:05 am

My opinion wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 31, 2020 12:01 am

Even Notts County say the way the money was distributed was wrong.

Well I agree with them for their circumstance. What they have received won't come closer to making up for their lost fan revenue.

For Notts County see York. The clubs above the arbitrary line are the ones who are most aggrieved.

They received the most money but relative to their lost revenues it was nowhere close. The fact we got what was about right suggests there was enough money allocated to Step 6. It was just distributed within the steps with too basic an approach.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. My view is that the money should have been a fair remuneration for all clubs for missing fans not just the top league.
It appears that even at our level that some elite teams are more elite than others.

Lo36789,the point is the funding as stated in very early communicate was That the funding is to replace lost GATE REVENUES as you can see from the distribution of the funding that's not happening, certain clubs are getting way above what they have lost gate revenue, others are by far worse off because the haven't been given enough to cover what they have lost gate revenue,
How can that be a fair equal measure for all, based on lost revenues.