Spennymoor going up?

Quakerz · Post by **Quakerz** » Wed May 15, 2013 7:36 am

the striped tiger wrote:I haven't a clue.. Any idea how many more 50K you will need to put in or are you reducing your budget now you have been promoted so that you don't run over budget? A novel approach.... The higher you go the less you need to spend. Bet the idiots in NL who have declined promotion over the last 15 years are kicking themselves.. They could be in the Premier league right now with a 3 quid a week wage bill..

What an absolute cock you are.

MattClarkesLeftPeg · Post by **MattClarkesLeftPeg** » Wed May 15, 2013 7:52 am

the striped tiger wrote:Is that a NO then Andy? Or a NO qualified by 'I don't know' or just a guess? A house built without foundation will fall down whoever the builder is....

Seems as though the house building isnt going exactly as planned....

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05002706#accounts-tab

Look specifically at liabilities going up, cash and net worth going down.

poppyfield · Post by **poppyfield** » Wed May 15, 2013 7:55 am

I suspect travel issues will effect some Spenny players (if they did go up) lets face it most of there players have been sitting in this league for years knowing Spenny would be sitting tight in the NL.

Spyman · Post by **Spyman** » Wed May 15, 2013 9:14 am

Orvil wrote:It isn't a waste of time because it is the right way to do things. Plain and simple. As for your 'owners' pumping money into the club, maybe they should concentrate on paying Durham the rest of the fee for thommo that was due at the end of march...

No, the right way to do things is to compete to win and to use that success to compete at a higher level.

Spennymoor took the best players in the league from clubs that wanted to compete but couldn't financially, won the league and rejected the prize.

Maybe Man City should've turned down Champions League football as they clearly weren't ready for it.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

StevieMardenboro · Post by **StevieMardenboro** » Wed May 15, 2013 9:44 am

People being too harsh on Spenny for not taking promotion. This isn't professional footie. Teams have come unstuck financially getting promoted at this level and I can understand a small club like Spennymoor wanting to get themselves on sound financial footing before moving up the leagues.

That being said I do not accept that they are a sustainable club. Any Spennymoor fan saying this would presumably not mind if the chairman went elsewhere.

Christophano · Post by **Christophano** » Wed May 15, 2013 9:53 am

StevieMardenboro wrote:People being too harsh on Spenny for not taking promotion. This isn't professional footie. Teams have come unstuck financially getting promoted at this level and I can understand a small club like Spennymoor wanting to get themselves on sound financial footing before moving up the leagues.

That being said I do not accept that they are a sustainable club. Any Spennymoor fan saying this would presumably not mind if the chairman went elsewhere.

I agree.

the striped tiger · Post by **the striped tiger** » Wed May 15, 2013 10:31 am

I agree too. If that happens the club and fans will have to deal with it. Look no further than yourselves to see what can be achieved.

al_quaker · Post by **al_quaker** » Wed May 15, 2013 10:56 am

I wouldn't particularly have an issue with one of the smaller clubs who "accidentally" wins the league refusing promotion. By accidentally I mean one of the smaller clubs having a freakish season, and going up would obviously cause them a lot of problems. However, Spennymoor Town are one of the best supported teams in the league, they have a very big wage budget, and they are bankrolled. They could have afforded it prior to this season, and I find it odd that they haven't taken promotion previously. Perhaps it was the Vase obsession rearing it's head again?

On a somewhat related note, it does make me laugh when some Spennymoor fans (I'm talking in general now, not particularly those who have posted in this thread) pretend they are self sufficient. Kind of reminds me of the Grimsby fans who criticised us for relying on rich benefactors to compete in the Conference.

And back to the OP, I hope Spennymoor don't get promoted. We have the better team, but they would be added competition next season. I don't really care about playing Spennymoor - we get big crowds (for this level) most weeks. I believe we would finish above them anyway, but it would be an easier league without Spennymoor in it. Plus I'd find it quite funny that the first year they want promotion they get beaten to it by a club which "definitely wouldn't be able to compete with Spennymoor".

Darlo_Manc · Post by **Darlo_Manc** » Wed May 15, 2013 11:23 am

al_quaker wrote:I wouldn't particularly have an issue with one of the smaller clubs who "accidentally" wins the league refusing promotion. By accidentally I mean one of the smaller clubs having a freakish season, and going up would obviously cause them a lot of problems. However, Spennymoor Town are one of the best supported teams in the league, they have a very big wage budget, and they are bankrolled.

This is it in essence, this isn't someone like Penrith winning the league out of nowhere on a small budget refusing promotion. This is a team bankrolled with a large squad of the top talent at this level who clearly have the money to move up but refuse to.

Post by **loan_star** » Wed May 15, 2013 11:29 am

al_quaker wrote:On a somewhat related note, it does make me laugh when some Spennymoor fans (I'm talking in general now, not particularly those who have posted in this thread) pretend they are self sufficient. Kind of reminds me of the Grimsby fans who criticised us for relying on rich benefactors to compete in the Conference.

Same could be said of "sustainable" Hartlepool and their £1m per year deficit. Yet we keep getting told how well run they are.

Spyman · Post by **Spyman** » Wed May 15, 2013 5:39 pm

the striped tiger wrote:I agree too. If that happens the club and fans will have to deal with it. Look no further than yourselves to see what can be achieved.

Yes, but we're a relatively big club with a huge following at this level. Spenny are not, and so would not be able to achieve what we have (or would find it incredibly difficult) without subsidy.

Our £50k subsidy slightly offset what we have spent on paying off Raj Singh's debt. If you took away that debt, we'd have absolutely no need for a subsidy.

What expenditure could Spenny drop to offset the subsidy?

the striped tiger · Post by **the striped tiger** » Thu May 16, 2013 8:16 am

Your chairman said the 50K was to avoid administration, your fans said was because of no home games for a long period, why would you borrow 50K to pay off debt and why would any sensible business pay of debt early when they've already budgeted for the cost and repayment of that debt?

MattClarkesLeftPeg · Post by **MattClarkesLeftPeg** » Thu May 16, 2013 8:53 am

Stripey, we had payed more towards the debt earlier in the season than we initially budgetted for when we had a few home games and the money was coming in. Once the home games dried up the income dried up. Dont think anyone on the board at the time could have forseen that we would go so long without a home game. It was done with good intentions. Not really that hard to understand

PJPoolie · Post by **PJPoolie** » Thu May 16, 2013 9:34 am

loan_star wrote:
al_quaker wrote:On a somewhat related note, it does make me laugh when some Spennymoor fans (I'm talking in general now, not particularly those who have posted in this thread) pretend they are self sufficient. Kind of reminds me of the Grimsby fans who criticised us for relying on rich benefactors to compete in the Conference.
Same could be said of "sustainable" Hartlepool and their £1m per year deficit. Yet we keep getting told how well run they are.

We are far from self sustainable and nobody has ever said that. So anyone saying the same would be taliking bollocks.

Our owners are prepared to offset that amount of money every year, so that is sustainable loss because they are prepared to take the hit. As Hodcroft always says a lot of companies spend £1 million a year plus on advertising.

So if you include IOR and Pools in the 'We' we are self sustainable and in a better position than some, if you don't clearly the club aren't self sustainable at the current rate of spending. At Northern League level I'm sure it is easier to be self sustainable when you don't need a £2 million a year wage bill to be competitive, that is what Pools had last year to finish second bottom of League One! You'll struggle to find many league clubs throughout the four professional divisions that are self sustainable and could continue at their current rate of spending without outside or owner investment.

I understand you wanting to continue and not be classed as a new club but it's a bit of a gamble taking on debt to rely on transfer clauses which may never materialise. Running out of money after ten months on regular 1,000+ gates in the Northern League is unbelievable and hard to fathom. It's is understandable to have real pride about your identity but at the end of the day you could have been Darlington 1883 going up a division without any debt had you went down the 'new co' route. This way might pay off, it might end up back at square one. I'm sure most outsiders identify you as Darlo but a new version anyway.

al_quaker · Post by **al_quaker** » Thu May 16, 2013 9:37 am

PJPoolie wrote:
loan_star wrote:
al_quaker wrote:On a somewhat related note, it does make me laugh when some Spennymoor fans (I'm talking in general now, not particularly those who have posted in this thread) pretend they are self sufficient. Kind of reminds me of the Grimsby fans who criticised us for relying on rich benefactors to compete in the Conference.
Same could be said of "sustainable" Hartlepool and their £1m per year deficit. Yet we keep getting told how well run they are.
We are far from self sustainable and nobody has ever said that. So anyone saying the same would be taliking bollocks.

Our owners are prepared to offset that amount of money every year, so that is sustainable loss because they are prepared to take the hit. As Hodcroft always says a lot of companies spend £1 million a year plus on advertising.

So if you include IOR and Pools in the 'We' we are self sustainable and in a better position than some, if you don't clearly the club aren't self sustainable at the current rate of spending. At Northern League level I'm sure it is easier to be self sustainable when you don't need a £2 million a year wage bill to be competitive, that is what Pools had last year to finish second bottom of League One! You'll struggle to find many league clubs throughout the four professional divisions that are self sustainable and could continue at their current rate of spending without outside or owner investment.

I understand you wanting to continue and not be classed as a new club but it's a bit of a gamble taking on debt to rely on transfer clauses which may never materialise. Running out of money after ten months on regular 1,000+ gates in the Northern League is unbelievable and hard to fathom. It's is understandable to have real pride about your identity but at the end of the day you could have been Darlington 1883 going up a division without any debt had you went down the 'new co' route without any debt ganging over you. This way might pay off, it might end up back at square one. I'm sure most outsiders identify you as Darlo but a new version anyway.

Indeed we could have done, and that is one of the things that hurt so much - the FA effectively told us there was no point in trying to pay off any of the debt, and there was no point in trying to finish the season. A brilliant example by the FA there

PJPoolie · Post by **PJPoolie** » Thu May 16, 2013 9:47 am

But ideally you wouldn't want to pay off the debt, you couldn't possibly pay off all the debt even if it is the right thing to do. Clubs in that position only ever pay back a fraction token gesture proportion anyway. The real reason you wanted to continue apart from obvious ones of pride and identity were surely these transfer clauses?

Maybe the FA were trying to to nudge you towards the actual best way forward?

Just a talking point, you might hit the jackpot!

micra3 · Post by **micra3** » Thu May 16, 2013 9:53 am

We thought that we started the season with a £200,000 debt and with plenty of cash we naively started to repay 'our' debt.Only after Christmas when accounts were looked at more closely we had a cash shortfall,what was realised then is that the 'real' debt had been £365,000 of which £265,000 had been paid off.So yes we had a cash shortfall but in the big picture our £365k debt is now £100k

al_quaker · Post by **al_quaker** » Thu May 16, 2013 9:57 am

Ideally Raj Singh would have stuck to his words (as quoted in the press) that he would walk away without a penny, and we would have exited admin the conventional way!

I personally think the FA were just making an example out of us. We did the best we possibly could with an ex-chairman like Raj Singh. Of course I'd rather the club wasn't saddled with debt, but I think it's good that we took on some of the debt - it's not a good feeling to be constantly ripping people off as a club. The way things happened of course aren't perfect for everyone, but we tried. And the FA said it was all pointless.

And yes, I hope Stockdale moves for lots of money and Dan Burn becomes a star!

PJPoolie · Post by **PJPoolie** » Thu May 16, 2013 9:59 am

£100,000 is a hell of a lot of money at that level.

What percentage of the overall debt was £365,000?

I don't deny it's a good thing to do when you didn't have to but was it sensible?

al_quaker · Post by **al_quaker** » Thu May 16, 2013 10:02 am

Time will tell whether it was ultimately the right thing to do for the finances of the club - that depends on the transfer clauses. I do believe it was the right thing to do at the time though - I didn't expect the FA to punish us as severely as they did.

Post by **mikkyx** » Thu May 16, 2013 10:14 am

It was something we had to do if we expected to be allowed to continue without a break, I think.

Ditch everything we paid that money for, don't take on any debts, and start again and we'd now be preparing to start our first season as a brand new club having had to take a year out because it was too late to do anything else. Just another example of FA inconsistency - label us a "new club" when it comes to their cup competitions, but allow us to play by "existing club" rules when it comes to entering a league.

Andrew Wilkinson · Post by **Andrew Wilkinson** » Thu May 16, 2013 10:20 am

Expect the unexpected from the FA. Less than a month ago Mike Appleby told me that there was 'definitely' only one club being promoted from the Northern League this season. I asked whether he really meant 'definitely' ie there are absolutely no circumstances under which more than one side would go up. He assured me that was the case.

Now we have talk of two going up!

micra3 · Post by **micra3** » Thu May 16, 2013 10:25 am

PJPoolie wrote:£100,000 is a hell of a lot of money at that level.

What percentage of the overall debt was £365,000?

I don't deny it's a good thing to do when you didn't have to but was it sensible?

All of it

PJPoolie · Post by **PJPoolie** » Thu May 16, 2013 10:27 am

So you effectively went out of business over £365,000 of debt?

Quakerz · Post by **Quakerz** » Thu May 16, 2013 10:47 am

No, there was around £1m owed to Radged Strings as well as others.

The debt we took on was what was owed to players in back wages, the remainder of their contracts, plus fees and the amount needed to buy the assets of the club.

In hindsight we should have let the club go. We'd have ended up in no worse a situation than we did, and with no debt.

Quakerz · Post by **Quakerz** » Thu May 16, 2013 10:51 am

PJPoolie wrote: Running out of money after ten months on regular 1,000+ gates in the Northern League is unbelievable and hard to fathom.

I agree. It was absolutely embarrassing as fuck, and no amount of sugar coating by Darlo fans will make it go away.

I just hope that the new guys have a better handle on finances going forward.

MattClarkesLeftPeg · Post by **MattClarkesLeftPeg** » Thu May 16, 2013 11:11 am

Quakerz wrote:
PJPoolie wrote: Running out of money after ten months on regular 1,000+ gates in the Northern League is unbelievable and hard to fathom.
I agree. It was absolutely embarrassing as fuck, and no amount of sugar coating by Darlo fans will make it go away.

I just hope that the new guys have a better handle on finances going forward.

Wasnt really 10 months though was it.

StevieMardenboro · Post by **StevieMardenboro** » Thu May 16, 2013 11:19 am

Most clubs go to the wall. Start again with zero debt and often with a ready made ground to play in.

We raise six figure sums ourselves to stay in business, meaning we are saddled with some of the debt of a professional football club only to be relegated to the ninth tier and told we are a new club and have to change a name. Oh and we don't have a ground anymore. It was the worst of both worlds. But as Darlo fans we did the right thing and we still feel that our club is DFC. I suppose that is why Northern League fans calling us 1883 is so galling.

PJPoolie · Post by **PJPoolie** » Thu May 16, 2013 11:45 am

But surely if you'd have been placed at a higher level where players want a few more quid and you have travel costs, and potentially lower gates with less local interest the money would have run out even quicker? Also had you stayed at the Arena you would have ran out of money even quicker?

The name change seems harsh but playing at a Northern League level for a season has probably done you a favour.

The only valid reason I see for the continuation of the club after Singh pulled the plug are these transfer clauses which are in no way a guarntee.

love it! · Post by **love it!** » Thu May 16, 2013 11:54 am

Why would there be lower gates? Arena costs were minimal remember as agreed by scott & sizler (think that was his name) at only 10K per season.

Transfer clauses and the club history were bought and I for one am happy that decision was made.

Darlo Uncovered

Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?

Re: Spennymoor going up?