David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Old Git
Posts: 895
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Old Git » Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:28 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:04 pm
Darlo_Rob wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:02 pm
Well say they’re getting tested due to their main employment, problem solved.
I really don’t think that’s something that will sit comfortably with a few!

The club have taken an applaudable stance regarding health & safety and testing at our level. Let’s not ruin it.
Really think you are splitting hairs here. If there are tests to be had and we can use them why not ?
Would be different if we were denying emergency workers much needed tests but I don’t think that is case.

m62exile
Posts: 2201
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:11 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by m62exile » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:20 pm

Without trying to be contrary there’s been a big push in Darlington to get asymptomatic residents using the the facility to spot unseen cases. The council recommend residents with no symptoms going to test themselves every seven days.

I’m pretty agnostic to whether this is a good solution for DFC but there’s certainly been a shift towards encouraging as many people as possible to get in to the habit of testing this way frequently.

If you’ve not been to one of the several community test centres in Darlington yet, (Dolphin Centre, Firthmoor, Heighington, Head of Steam museum, Middleton St George, Red Hall) then feel free to have a look at the information at the link:

https://www.darlington.gov.uk/health-an ... d-testing/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

al_quaker
Posts: 5734
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by al_quaker » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:21 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:16 pm
al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:12 pm

The government guidance on community testing also says that authorities should make testing available to those who leave their home for work and can't get asymptomatic testing another way.
Is football a critical service?

I don't think we should utilise them, more-so from a moral point of view rather than some loop-hole in the guidance.
No it isn't a critical service. But the government guidance doesn't specify, as far as I can see, that one has to be in a critical service to access the community testing. It just says that it is a focus. The Darlington Borough Council guidance simply states "There will be enough tests for anyone who wants one and books in" and that "The tests are for residents and people who work in Darlington."

So I disagree with your implication that it would be a loop-hole in the guidance if the players got tested via this route.

For what it's worth, I don't think they should go down this route, as it should be incumbent on the footballing authorities to protect it's players (as they do at PL and EFL level) if 'elite' football is to continue, but I don't agree it would be pushing the boundaries.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:26 pm

Old Git wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:28 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:04 pm
Darlo_Rob wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:02 pm
Well say they’re getting tested due to their main employment, problem solved.
I really don’t think that’s something that will sit comfortably with a few!

The club have taken an applaudable stance regarding health & safety and testing at our level. Let’s not ruin it.
Really think you are splitting hairs here. If there are tests to be had and we can use them why not ?
Would be different if we were denying emergency workers much needed tests but I don’t think that is case.
Because the tests are earmarked for critical services, and football is not critical?

Because if this is really a viable option, then EFL clubs should be using this service instead of the PFA funding this for them and wasting £10k per week?

Because this could set an unhealthy precedent for each of the other 66 National League clubs, and if they all use this service then it's utilising hundreds of thousands of pounds of public funds for National League testing until the end of the season?

Because the press and associated readers love a good anti-football/footballer bashing story?

Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy for the Government to give National League clubs permission to utilise this service every week, but until then I think we should steer clear of a potentially poor PR move. I think permission first is the caveat.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:34 pm

al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:21 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:16 pm
al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:12 pm

The government guidance on community testing also says that authorities should make testing available to those who leave their home for work and can't get asymptomatic testing another way.
Is football a critical service?

I don't think we should utilise them, more-so from a moral point of view rather than some loop-hole in the guidance.
No it isn't a critical service. But the government guidance doesn't specify, as far as I can see, that one has to be in a critical service to access the community testing. It just says that it is a focus. The Darlington Borough Council guidance simply states "There will be enough tests for anyone who wants one and books in" and that "The tests are for residents and people who work in Darlington."

So I disagree with your implication that it would be a loop-hole in the guidance if the players got tested via this route.

For what it's worth, I don't think they should go down this route, as it should be incumbent on the footballing authorities to protect it's players (as they do at PL and EFL level) if 'elite' football is to continue, but I don't agree it would be pushing the boundaries.
Or the onus could fall on the employer for a one-off game?

I'm all for testing, don't get me wrong, but the idea of sending 30+ players & management to a community testing site to play an FA Trophy tie, without prior support from DBC, might not sit comfortably with some people. Especially when we're making money out of the tie.

bga
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by bga » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:40 pm

al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:21 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:16 pm
al_quaker wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:12 pm

The government guidance on community testing also says that authorities should make testing available to those who leave their home for work and can't get asymptomatic testing another way.
Is football a critical service?

I don't think we should utilise them, more-so from a moral point of view rather than some loop-hole in the guidance.
No it isn't a critical service. But the government guidance doesn't specify, as far as I can see, that one has to be in a critical service to access the community testing. It just says that it is a focus. The Darlington Borough Council guidance simply states "There will be enough tests for anyone who wants one and books in" and that "The tests are for residents and people who work in Darlington."

So I disagree with your implication that it would be a loop-hole in the guidance if the players got tested via this route.

For what it's worth, I don't think they should go down this route, as it should be incumbent on the footballing authorities to protect it's players (as they do at PL and EFL level) if 'elite' football is to continue, but I don't agree it would be pushing the boundaries.
Good post. Ultimately if 30 odd individuals go for regular testing, irrespective of their main or part time employment, that has to be good for the Communities they live in hasn't it?

Old Git
Posts: 895
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Old Git » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:42 pm

Where does it say the tests are earmarked for critical services ? Think they are open to anyone who lives or works in Darlington. Would the press really be interested in running this as an anti football story like you suggest? You could equally argue that the footballers using the service could be a good way of publicising it and is encouraging others to do the same. After all we like to think we are a community based club so what’s wrong with using community testing services?

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by lo36789 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:45 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:26 pm
Because the tests are earmarked for critical services, and football is not critical?
Is this true? I thought there was encouragement for people to get asymptomatically tested? I've been going at least once a week - I go out and do shopping etc. so it seems like it's the right thing to do.
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:26 pm
Because if this is really a viable option, then EFL clubs should be using this service instead of the PFA funding this for them and wasting £10k per week?
The FA system collates results centrally. When I do FA tests I don't actually get told my results unless they are a fail. Its a competition integrity thing over anything else.
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:26 pm
Because this could set an unhealthy precedent for each of the other 66 National League clubs, and if they all use this service then it's utilising hundreds of thousands of pounds of public funds for National League testing until the end of the season?
It does seem ironic to be asking for public money to pay our wages but baulk at using public funded test sites.

I would feel completely different if testing took away capacity from the service - I was under the impression that the government wanted the public to be doing asymptomatic testing regularly.

darlo2001uk
Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:10 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by darlo2001uk » Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:51 pm

Not sure I'm quite believing what I'm reading on some posts here tonight......

bga
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by bga » Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:56 pm

darlo2001uk wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:51 pm
Not sure I'm quite believing what I'm reading on some posts here tonight......
So what is your point of view?

Alfie
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 8:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Eye, Suffolk

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Alfie » Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:58 pm

Suggests that a vote to end the season could come soon.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55818377

Darlofan97
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:00 pm

Department of Health & Social Care Quote:
by providing testing to critical local services and hard to reach communities based on local knowledge and prioritisation.
For me, football doesn't come under this category and we should fund testing ourselves for our FA Trophy tie a week on Saturday.

We need testing at our level, the more tests the better, but it won't sit right with some that 30+ players and management are utilising a community testing site. Especially when the cost of testing is achievable within the minimum prize money we will receive for losing the tie.

I don't really know how hard that is to understand? I'm not advocating for there to be no testing, or discouraging people from utilising the testing site. Just in these specific circumstances the onus - morally - may fall on the club to carry out the testing (especially given how hard we've pushed for it and called for a suspension on these grounds).

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:15 pm

Alfie wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:58 pm
Suggests that a vote to end the season could come soon.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55818377
I'm picking up a bad vibe directed towards the league, however this government has form when it comes to letting others take the flak - BBC license fee increases for pensioners springs to mind.
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

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by lo36789 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:27 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:00 pm
Just in these specific circumstances the onus - morally - may fall on the club to carry out the testing
The thing is the clubs money is coming from the public purse, at least it has predominantly done so far this season and is being asked for again.

If we received grants from the public purse, and then paid for testing the result would be the same using public funds to test. There are probably greater economies from just using the test sites.

Or is your view that DCMS shouldn't be looking to support the NL now?

Darlofan97
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:29 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:45 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:26 pm
Because the tests are earmarked for critical services, and football is not critical?
Is this true? I thought there was encouragement for people to get asymptomatically tested? I've been going at least once a week - I go out and do shopping etc. so it seems like it's the right thing to do.
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:26 pm
Because if this is really a viable option, then EFL clubs should be using this service instead of the PFA funding this for them and wasting £10k per week?
The FA system collates results centrally. When I do FA tests I don't actually get told my results unless they are a fail. Its a competition integrity thing over anything else.
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:26 pm
Because this could set an unhealthy precedent for each of the other 66 National League clubs, and if they all use this service then it's utilising hundreds of thousands of pounds of public funds for National League testing until the end of the season?
It does seem ironic to be asking for public money to pay our wages but baulk at using public funded test sites.

I would feel completely different if testing took away capacity from the service - I was under the impression that the government wanted the public to be doing asymptomatic testing regularly.
That’s exactly why the funding on the table is being offered as loans, it’s public money.

The money we received previously wasn’t public funding.

Therefore, you can see why the Government, or the general public, may take exception to football clubs utilising publicly funded tests costing hundreds of thousands of pounds.

I’m a bit staggered that hasn’t been acknowledged.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:31 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:27 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:00 pm
Just in these specific circumstances the onus - morally - may fall on the club to carry out the testing
The thing is the clubs money is coming from the public purse, at least it has predominantly done so far this season and is being asked for again.

If we received grants from the public purse, and then paid for testing the result would be the same using public funds to test. There are probably greater economies from just using the test sites.

Or is your view that DCMS shouldn't be looking to support the NL now?
Funding received from Camelot is not classed as public funds.

bga
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by bga » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:41 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:15 pm
Alfie wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:58 pm
Suggests that a vote to end the season could come soon.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55818377
I'm picking up a bad vibe directed towards the league, however this government has form when it comes to letting others take the flak - BBC license fee increases for pensioners springs to mind.
Do you mean the withdrawal of free licences for the over 75s? If so I thought it was the BEEB, not the Gov. that backtracted on that so quite right they should take te flack. Anyway it is late and we are going off topic!

darlo2001uk
Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:10 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by darlo2001uk » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:50 pm

bga wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:56 pm
darlo2001uk wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:51 pm
Not sure I'm quite believing what I'm reading on some posts here tonight......
So what is your point of view?
I think Darlofan97 has summed it up perfectly accurately.

Part-time football is not a 'critical local service'.

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by lo36789 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:53 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:31 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:27 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:00 pm
Just in these specific circumstances the onus - morally - may fall on the club to carry out the testing
The thing is the clubs money is coming from the public purse, at least it has predominantly done so far this season and is being asked for again.

If we received grants from the public purse, and then paid for testing the result would be the same using public funds to test. There are probably greater economies from just using the test sites.

Or is your view that DCMS shouldn't be looking to support the NL now?
Funding received from Camelot is not classed as public funds.
Was it received from Camelot? Or was it received from the Lottery Fund which is a public body that distributes National Lottery funds?

I genuinley don't know.

If it is the latter I'd have thought at the point it handed over to be distributed by a public body it has become "public funds".

FWIW I actually think we should stop, in hindsight shouldn't have started. It was always a weird position that we'd relied on grants orchestrated by a government department to play behind closed doors football.

I think our players should be using test sites periodically anyway given they work and live in a local community. I equally don't think football at our level deserves special treatment from DCMS when it comes to grants.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:01 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:53 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:31 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:27 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:00 pm
Just in these specific circumstances the onus - morally - may fall on the club to carry out the testing
The thing is the clubs money is coming from the public purse, at least it has predominantly done so far this season and is being asked for again.

If we received grants from the public purse, and then paid for testing the result would be the same using public funds to test. There are probably greater economies from just using the test sites.

Or is your view that DCMS shouldn't be looking to support the NL now?
Funding received from Camelot is not classed as public funds.
Was it received from Camelot? Or was it received from the Lottery Fund which is a public body that distributes National Lottery funds?

I genuinley don't know.

If it is the latter I'd have thought at the point it handed over to be distributed by a public body it has become "public funds".
No.

The funding came from the National Lottery who operate under a private company called the Camelot Group, therefore it’s not public funds.

The funding provided had something in it for them, in the form of free match-day tickets, VIP experiences at Wembley and overall a very good bit of marketing/PR.
Last edited by Darlofan97 on Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by lo36789 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:12 pm

Ah yes, that makes more sense on the difference now. It was the public lottery fund via Sport England who did the grassroots grants and other sports which was distinct.

I've been doing applications for grants as part of another club via Sport England. Our came direct from the National Lottery.

Still think it leaves us in a weird position. Every other private company is actively using the public sites to test their employees - but we morally won't. Yet simultaneously expect DCMS to provide / be responsible for grants being made available.

User avatar
divas
Posts: 13161
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:38 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by divas » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:20 pm

There are warehouses full of these lateral flow tests - the money has been sunk for them (£1bn) and they’re not actually as useful as they were mooted to be (shock horror). I’m sure we’ll read in months / years that there are still loads of them that never get used and end up being incinerated at some stage.

The whole point of them is to spot asymptomatic cases in the community that would otherwise go undetected. If people who are out in the community aren’t being tested then it defeats the purpose. Just because a person also happens to kick a ball about a field every week in addition to this I fail to see how it makes them any difference to anyone else who is also out in the community for work

Darlofan97
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Darlofan97 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:26 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:12 pm
Ah yes, that makes more sense on the difference now. It was the public lottery fund via Sport England who did the grassroots grants and other sports which was distinct.

I've been doing applications for grants as part of another club via Sport England. Our came direct from the National Lottery.

Still think it leaves us in a weird position. Every other private company is actively using the public sites to test their employees - but we morally won't. Yet simultaneously expect DCMS to provide / be responsible for grants being made available.
Nigel Huddleston described the agreement between Camelot & the National League as a “promotional deal”. The Government simply acted as a broker for this deal to be carried out.

I agree with the oddness of the situation, and the more you think about the public/private funding situation and do a bit of digging in to how the first lot of money was sourced, the more you start to think that the DCMS & Sport England won’t back down from offering low-interest loans.

User avatar
Quaker85
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:38 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Quaker85 » Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:41 am

Darlofan97 wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:53 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:31 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:27 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:00 pm
Just in these specific circumstances the onus - morally - may fall on the club to carry out the testing
The thing is the clubs money is coming from the public purse, at least it has predominantly done so far this season and is being asked for again.

If we received grants from the public purse, and then paid for testing the result would be the same using public funds to test. There are probably greater economies from just using the test sites.

Or is your view that DCMS shouldn't be looking to support the NL now?
Funding received from Camelot is not classed as public funds.
Was it received from Camelot? Or was it received from the Lottery Fund which is a public body that distributes National Lottery funds?

I genuinley don't know.

If it is the latter I'd have thought at the point it handed over to be distributed by a public body it has become "public funds".
No.

The funding came from the National Lottery who operate under a private company called the Camelot Group, therefore it’s not public funds.

The funding provided had something in it for them, in the form of free match-day tickets, VIP experiences at Wembley and overall a very good bit of marketing/PR.
Actually it’s the opposite. The National lottery is listed in the Whole of Government accounts and is therefore a public body.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa ... unity_Fund

Non departmental public bodies are arms length organizations that ultimately come under ministerial control, in this case DCMS. Camelot are a company appointed to run the lottery but do not distribute grant funding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by lo36789 » Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:17 am

I think Darlofan might be right.

I read a press release yesterday after his message and it certainly alluded to the funding being more of a commercial agreement with Camelot / The National Lottery than being just a specific distribution of lottery funds.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Darlofan97 » Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:22 am

Quaker85 wrote:
Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:41 am
Darlofan97 wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:53 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:31 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:27 pm


The thing is the clubs money is coming from the public purse, at least it has predominantly done so far this season and is being asked for again.

If we received grants from the public purse, and then paid for testing the result would be the same using public funds to test. There are probably greater economies from just using the test sites.

Or is your view that DCMS shouldn't be looking to support the NL now?
Funding received from Camelot is not classed as public funds.
Was it received from Camelot? Or was it received from the Lottery Fund which is a public body that distributes National Lottery funds?

I genuinley don't know.

If it is the latter I'd have thought at the point it handed over to be distributed by a public body it has become "public funds".
No.

The funding came from the National Lottery who operate under a private company called the Camelot Group, therefore it’s not public funds.

The funding provided had something in it for them, in the form of free match-day tickets, VIP experiences at Wembley and overall a very good bit of marketing/PR.
Actually it’s the opposite. The National lottery is listed in the Whole of Government accounts and is therefore a public body.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa ... unity_Fund

Non departmental public bodies are arms length organizations that ultimately come under ministerial control, in this case DCMS. Camelot are a company appointed to run the lottery but do not distribute grant funding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes - the National Lottery is a public body, however the funding came from Camelot, who operate the National Lottery. Initially, Camelot's involvement was dismissed from the DCMS, however it's since came to light that the funding provided was a "promotional & commercial" agreement between Camelot and the National League. The Government acted as a broker for the deal. This is why the Government didn't get involved with the Bernstein report as the funding did not come from them.

Nigel Huddleston - Sports Minister wrote on 19 January 2021:
The government brokered a promotional deal between the National League and Camelot in September 2020. This led to an invaluable injection of £10m support to help clubs in completing their 2020/21 season. Whilst the distribution of this funding is a matter for the National League, the Government was clear in supporting the deal that it expected the proceeds to be allocated sensibly to support clubs as long as possible. The Secretary of State has had no conversations with the National League Board on either the actual distribution of funds of findings of the Independent Review Panel.

User avatar
Quaker85
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:38 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Quaker85 » Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:58 am

Darlofan97 wrote:
Quaker85 wrote:
Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:41 am
Darlofan97 wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:53 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:31 pm
Funding received from Camelot is not classed as public funds.
Was it received from Camelot? Or was it received from the Lottery Fund which is a public body that distributes National Lottery funds?

I genuinley don't know.

If it is the latter I'd have thought at the point it handed over to be distributed by a public body it has become "public funds".
No.

The funding came from the National Lottery who operate under a private company called the Camelot Group, therefore it’s not public funds.

The funding provided had something in it for them, in the form of free match-day tickets, VIP experiences at Wembley and overall a very good bit of marketing/PR.
Actually it’s the opposite. The National lottery is listed in the Whole of Government accounts and is therefore a public body.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa ... unity_Fund

Non departmental public bodies are arms length organizations that ultimately come under ministerial control, in this case DCMS. Camelot are a company appointed to run the lottery but do not distribute grant funding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes - the National Lottery is a public body, however the funding came from Camelot, who operate the National Lottery. Initially, Camelot's involvement was dismissed from the DCMS, however it's since came to light that the funding provided was a "promotional & commercial" agreement between Camelot and the National League. The Government acted as a broker for the deal. This is why the Government didn't get involved with the Bernstein report as the funding did not come from them.

Nigel Huddleston - Sports Minister wrote on 19 January 2021:
The government brokered a promotional deal between the National League and Camelot in September 2020. This led to an invaluable injection of £10m support to help clubs in completing their 2020/21 season. Whilst the distribution of this funding is a matter for the National League, the Government was clear in supporting the deal that it expected the proceeds to be allocated sensibly to support clubs as long as possible. The Secretary of State has had no conversations with the National League Board on either the actual distribution of funds of findings of the Independent Review Panel.
I guess I was quoting what you would expect to be normal channels but this doesn’t appear to be the case in this instance so I stand corrected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jjljks
Posts: 2159
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by jjljks » Wed Jan 27, 2021 5:34 pm

Got a reply today to my email to Peter Gibson MP who seems to be getting involved hopefully in support of DJ's efforts, by bringing it to the attention of Ministers.

Darlopartisan
Posts: 999
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:49 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by Darlopartisan » Wed Jan 27, 2021 6:26 pm

jjljks wrote:
Wed Jan 27, 2021 5:34 pm
Got a reply today to my email to Peter Gibson MP who seems to be getting involved hopefully in support of DJ's efforts, by bringing it to the attention of Ministers.
:thumbup:

User avatar
divas
Posts: 13161
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:38 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: David Johnson : We are in a sad position

Post by divas » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:36 am

Good to see the players taking advantage of the community testing. A very responsible approach and hopefully encourages anyone else who is out there in the community regularly to do the same

https://darlingtonfc.co.uk/news/darling ... 3yUx1NJeK8

Post Reply