Darlo Uncovered

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:20 am**

Spyman wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:40 am

tdk1 wrote:Also, i once again find myself grateful that David Johnson is in charge of darlo.
He'd be equally as grateful if you got his name right

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I reckon he's got bigger things to think about.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:47 am**

theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:20 am

Spyman wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:40 am

tdk1 wrote:Also, i once again find myself grateful that David Johnson is in charge of darlo.
He'd be equally as grateful if you got his name right

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I reckon he's got bigger things to think about.

Simple courtesy tho', init?

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:48 am**

Whilst the response from Chester clearly indicates a concern over placing their club in future financial difficulties, they do then go on to express a hope that the season might continue under option 2. They may well view the situation this way as they might well hope that they can gain a promotion, and therefore be willing to gamble on the downsides of option 2. This is the kind of hopeful thinking that has got many ambitious clubs into financial difficulties in the past, so may still lure enough clubs to vote for the carry on regardless option. Whilst I would like to continue to follow our team, especially given our progress in the FA Trophy, I am glad to see that we won't do this at any risk to the existence of the club. Ideally we could still hope that a majority vote against carrying on might see a change of heart by the Government.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:48 am**

Perhaps one of the things we can do as individual fans is lobby our MP to support DJ and raise with HMG the question of funding towards the rest of the season without fans, in order to comply with HMG's Covid restrictions?

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:49 am**

A majority of clubs need to come to the same decision ,to put this season to bed and end the crass stupidity started by the national league management, who appear to be clutching at straws in order to wriggle out of their responsibilities to all clubs in their jurisdiction,
These people have not even come up with the criteria of how they managed to totally cockup the distribution of the grants in October, November, December,, so what do people expect from the clowns in charge, I personally fear for the pyramid being able to continue in its present guise under this league management's transparency or honesty. They don't seem able to grasp the fundamentals of the loan situation foisted upon clubs in their leagues, you cannot borrow money to
Become insolvent. Which is exactly what they want clubs to do. The season must end to stop the stupidity continually sent out by the league management.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:56 am**

jjljks wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:48 am
Perhaps one of the things we can do as individual fans is lobby our MP to support DJ and raise with HMG the question of funding towards the rest of the season without fans, in order to comply with HMG's Covid restrictions?

Certainly worth a try as our local MP should have the ear of the government, although my experience of asking him to do things for his constituents rather than personal profile has not been a positive one.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:57 am**

onewayup wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:49 am
A majority of clubs need to come to the same decision ,to put this season to bed and end the crass stupidity started by the national league management, who appear to be clutching at straws in order to wriggle out of their responsibilities to all clubs in their jurisdiction,
These people have not even come up with the criteria of how they managed to totally cockup the distribution of the grants in October, November, December,, so what do people expect from the clowns in charge, I personally fear for the pyramid being able to continue in its present guise under this league management's transparency or honesty. They don't seem able to grasp the fundamentals of the loan situation foisted upon clubs in their leagues, you cannot borrow money to
Become insolvent. Which is exactly what they want clubs to do. The season must end to stop the stupidity continually sent out by the league management.

you blame the league management, but the clubs voted to start the season.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:01 am**

onewayup wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:49 am
A majority of clubs need to come to the same decision ,to put this season to bed and end the crass stupidity started by the national league management, who appear to be clutching at straws in order to wriggle out of their responsibilities to all clubs in their jurisdiction,
These people have not even come up with the criteria of how they managed to totally cockup the distribution of the grants in October, November, December,, so what do people expect from the clowns in charge, I personally fear for the pyramid being able to continue in its present guise under this league management's transparency or honesty. They don't seem able to grasp the fundamentals of the loan situation foisted upon clubs in their leagues, you cannot borrow money to
Become insolvent. Which is exactly what they want clubs to do. The season must end to stop the stupidity continually sent out by the league management.

Good post. I agree 100%.

It's not what I want obviously, I miss football but this season is rapidly turning into a farce.

Could the season be paused, players furloughed and then restarted at a safe date? That's another question for later perhaps..

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:18 pm**

spen666 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:05 am

lo36789 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:49 am

spen666 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:29 am

lo36789 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:22 am
There are three times in the past where we have effectively said we can not afford to continue playing.

You don't just get a free pass of "that's fine, come back when you are ready".

If the decision is not 3, as is our preference we can by all means furlough and shut down but we will be a) fined for failing to fulfil fixtures and b) will finish the season on 13 points.
if that happened at this stage in a normal season, the record would be expunged. Its only after 70 or 75% of games have been played by a club their record is not expunged and points for unfulfilled games go to opposition, but no change to goal difference made
There is a difference though.

Formally withdraw from the league versus simply on every matchday say we don't have a squad they are all furloughed...well until the point that they are not.

I mean they would probs vote and vote to expunge and we'd finish on 0 points so would be relegated.

There is no way that they are going to let some clubs play on and others say "we will wait until next season".
The vote would not be to expunge or not in those circumstances. The vote would be to expel from league or not and would inevitably be to expel and therefore as so few games played the records would be expunged ( but fines imposed for booking/ sendings off etc still stand!)

Whatever the point is that refusing to play games / being unable to fufill games whilst the season progresses won't just be a case of "ah it's exceptional circumstances, of course you can just start again with everyone else in August"

The outcome is we won't be in NLN next season if we unilaterally stopped playing.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:24 pm**

"Then what?

That club were not given a loan, but the others in the division met whatever criteria and got loans? The club could argue they have been discriminated against

Again, a bit of an unknown as what the strict criteria have not been published"

I was thinking that too Spen. Also, the points that have been raised re: forcing clubs to act illegally by trading insolvently. Am not sure the League could make options 1 and 2 stick. Would not be surprised if this whole thing was a jumping through hoops exercise which will ultimately lead to option 3 being carried out.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:29 pm**

Just because you vote against option 2, doesn't mean you would then be ineligible for a loan from the National League. That isn't how it works.

Also, option 2 doesn't require a business to trade insolvent, as it isn't a loan or debt in terms of the accounts.

However, it still isn't a good enough option to sacrifice league distribution payments for the next 10 years, to play out one season.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:52 pm**

Yeh from a legal standpoint you could continue.

It would mean every club shaving the money off their budget basically for the foreseeable.

I suppose there is an argument that if all do it then the market (players particularly) will react.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:02 pm**

Options 1 and 2 are a grubby way to get clubs to pay for the duplicitous of the government and the incompetence of the National League.

It was all a gamble that hasn't worked because the virus has remained.

I wonder what the players think of it all? They obviously aren't happy about the testing regime and who can blame them.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:00 pm**

Concord Rangers are not going to be playing this weekend

https://twitter.com/ConcordRangers/stat ... 90849?s=20

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:21 pm**

lo36789 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:49 am

spen666 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:29 am

lo36789 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:22 am
There are three times in the past where we have effectively said we can not afford to continue playing.

You don't just get a free pass of "that's fine, come back when you are ready".

If the decision is not 3, as is our preference we can by all means furlough and shut down but we will be a) fined for failing to fulfil fixtures and b) will finish the season on 13 points.
if that happened at this stage in a normal season, the record would be expunged. Its only after 70 or 75% of games have been played by a club their record is not expunged and points for unfulfilled games go to opposition, but no change to goal difference made
There is a difference though.

Formally withdraw from the league versus simply on every matchday say we don't have a squad they are all furloughed...well until the point that they are not.

I mean they would probs vote and vote to expunge and we'd finish on 0 points so would be relegated.

There is no way that they are going to let some clubs play on and others say "we will wait until next season".

I know it is a different sport but Toronto did exactly what is being suggested here and were expecting to just re-join SL for the coming season.
The RFL backed them at first but there was such a revolt by both the 11 remaining clubs and also fans throughout the game that they have been replaced by Leigh and left in limbo with no league to play in at this moment. The best offer is a 1 league drop, but more likely a 2 league drop.
As I say, different sport, but do people really want to take the risk of this happening to us after all the club have been through already.
We must NOT act alone, but work to get the majority of clubs with us in refusing loans.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:29 pm**

It's been mentioned here a few times but what happens if Option 2 happens and then a team leaves the NL structure (promotion or relegation)? How is the NL "grant" then repaid or is it repaid by the teams in the NL structure each year.

You can see, if the "grant" is only repaid by withholding of the NL moneys, why those teams at the top of the NL at the moment will be voting for a continuation as they will see only promotion being the priority as the "debt" vanishes if you got up.

With relegation from the NLS/NLN pretty much guaranteed not to happen, as there is very little chance of a season getting to a point of conclusion below level 2, the teams in NLN/NLS are guaranteed to be repaying the "debt" for at least 1 season.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:23 pm**

If the season is ended, what happens to ST holders & 500 club members. It will put the club in a very difficult position.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:25 pm**

Vodka_Vic wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:24 pm
"Then what?

That club were not given a loan, but the others in the division met whatever criteria and got loans? The club could argue they have been discriminated against

Again, a bit of an unknown as what the strict criteria have not been published"

I was thinking that too Spen. Also, the points that have been raised re: forcing clubs to act illegally by trading insolvently. Am not sure the League could make options 1 and 2 stick. Would not be surprised if this whole thing was a jumping through hoops exercise which will ultimately lead to option 3 being carried out.

In none of the scenarios would a club be forced to trade insolvent.

If a club trades whilst insolvent, that is the choice of the Directors of that club. The club if insolvent should cease activity immediately, even if this is in the middle of a season.

The League or the FA cannot force a club to continue. They can merely expel the club from its competitions as the ultimate sanction.

The league would potentially be forcing a club into insolvency rather than forcing them to trade whilst insolvent. The only people who can decide if a business still trades are the directors or owners as the case maybe

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:26 pm**

al_quaker wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:00 pm
Concord Rangers are not going to be playing this weekend

https://twitter.com/ConcordRangers/stat ... 90849?s=20

Ollie Bayliss has shared the extract from NL rules £2,500-£10,000 fine for failing to fulfil a fixture.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:27 pm**

Darlo_Pete wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:23 pm
If the season is ended, what happens to ST holders & 500 club members. It will put the club in a very difficult position.

Would any/ many fans want their money back. Think at this level and below the vast majority if not all fans regard the need of their club as being bigger than theirs.

A more concerning issue may be club sponsors who haven't got what they paid for. Again at this level, I think most club sponsors would be likely to let the matter go.

Not sure about headline sponsors like Vanaram

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:31 pm**

lo36789 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:26 pm

al_quaker wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:00 pm
Concord Rangers are not going to be playing this weekend

https://twitter.com/ConcordRangers/stat ... 90849?s=20
Ollie Bayliss has shared the extract from NL rules £2,500-£10,000 fine for failing to fulfil a fixture.

You missed the most important bit.

“Without just cause”.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:36 pm**

liamsears wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:29 pm
It's been mentioned here a few times but what happens if Option 2 happens and then a team leaves the NL structure (promotion or relegation)? How is the NL "grant" then repaid or is it repaid by the teams in the NL structure each year.

You can see, if the "grant" is only repaid by withholding of the NL moneys, why those teams at the top of the NL at the moment will be voting for a continuation as they will see only promotion being the priority as the "debt" vanishes if you got up.

With relegation from the NLS/NLN pretty much guaranteed not to happen, as there is very little chance of a season getting to a point of conclusion below level 2, the teams in NLN/NLS are guaranteed to be repaying the "debt" for at least 1 season.

My reading of it is the NL would take on the loan and then provide funding to the clubs in the form of grants which would be repaid over time. It does not necessarily mean that all clubs have to take the grants. For example a club such as Spennymoor may decide that because of the financial backing of their Chairman they will simply take the hit themselves. Surely any grants taken on would be the responsibility of each individual club to repay regardless of which league they end up in.
Whether I am right or not I have no idea.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:36 pm**

Oh sorry yeh here's the link

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/statu ... 94977?s=19

The point is Ollie asked the NL about it. They responded with we expect all clubs to fulfil their fixtures and pointed him to the relevant rule.

What they see as a just cause is subjective.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:37 pm**

Old Git wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:36 pm

liamsears wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:29 pm
It's been mentioned here a few times but what happens if Option 2 happens and then a team leaves the NL structure (promotion or relegation)? How is the NL "grant" then repaid or is it repaid by the teams in the NL structure each year.

You can see, if the "grant" is only repaid by withholding of the NL moneys, why those teams at the top of the NL at the moment will be voting for a continuation as they will see only promotion being the priority as the "debt" vanishes if you got up.

With relegation from the NLS/NLN pretty much guaranteed not to happen, as there is very little chance of a season getting to a point of conclusion below level 2, the teams in NLN/NLS are guaranteed to be repaying the "debt" for at least 1 season.
My reading of it is the NL would take on the loan and then provide funding to the clubs in the form of grants which would be repaid over time. It does not necessarily mean that all clubs have to take the grants. For example a club such as Spennymoor may decide that because of the financial backing of their Chairman they will simply take the hit themselves. Surely any grants taken on would be the responsibility of each individual club to repay regardless of which league they end up in.
Whether I am right or not I have no idea.

A grant repayed over time you say...I think that would by definition be a loan.

The way they are doing it is to remove revenue rather than receive repayment, as a result relegation / promotion from the NL would remove any liability equally new members of the division would lose out without having received the "benefit".

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:18 pm**

Wouldn't it be a great look for the NL if they expelled several clubs who said it was too risky for players and staff to go on without a proper testing regime and too risky to the financial wellbeing of the clubs to withdraw the grants that were seen as vital to their survival. And it is clearly a whole lot riskier now than it was a few months ago as the stats prove.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:32 pm**

LoidLucan wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:18 pm
Wouldn't it be a great look for the NL if they expelled several clubs who said it was too risky for players and staff to go on without a proper testing regime and too risky to the financial wellbeing of the clubs to withdraw the grants that were seen as vital to their survival. And it is clearly a whole lot riskier now than it was a few months ago as the stats prove.

It would look dreadful for them. Similarly if majority of clubs are willing to continue, what do the league do.

They have got themselves into a right mess.

I think the thing that may cause the league to be suspended is the demand of clubs for testing. The cost of that is probably too high for the league to afford

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:37 pm**

spen666 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:27 pm

Darlo_Pete wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:23 pm
If the season is ended, what happens to ST holders & 500 club members. It will put the club in a very difficult position.
Would any/ many fans want their money back. Think at this level and below the vast majority if not all fans regard the need of their club as being bigger than theirs.

A more concerning issue may be club sponsors who haven't got what they paid for. Again at this level, I think most club sponsors would be likely to let the matter go.

Not sure about headline sponsors like Vanaram

I think your right, I think the majority of fans wouldn't want their money back, but there would be a sizeable minority who wouldn't be very happy & sadly I think it would have an adverse effect on the BTB.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:44 pm**

[/quote]

A grant repayed over time you say...I think that would by definition be a loan.

The way they are doing it is to remove revenue rather than receive repayment, as a result relegation / promotion from the NL would remove any liability equally new members of the division would lose out without having received the "benefit".
[/quote]

Yes of course a grant that is repaid is a loan. Just seems ridiculous to me that a team could be promoted to our league and then face a financial penalty against a loan they never received.

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:54 pm**

A Grant is given without a repayment.
A loan has to be repayable .
national league want the clubs take a loan repayable over a number of years .it's not difficult, it is a loan .not a grant as people are trying to make out..

Posted: **Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:59 pm**

spen666 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:32 pm

LoidLucan wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:18 pm
Wouldn't it be a great look for the NL if they expelled several clubs who said it was too risky for players and staff to go on without a proper testing regime and too risky to the financial wellbeing of the clubs to withdraw the grants that were seen as vital to their survival. And it is clearly a whole lot riskier now than it was a few months ago as the stats prove.

I think the thing that may cause the league to be suspended is the demand of clubs for testing. The cost of that is probably too high for the league to afford

I'm sure Chris Whitty, Patrick Valance and Matt Hancock would deem such a testing demand as being perfectly proper and reasonable in the appalling circumstances prevailing at the moment.

Darlo Uncovered

Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early

Re: Season at risk of finishing early