Advertise Here
You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:32 pm View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Posts: 722
Team Supported: Darlington
Just published on club website. Interesting maybe we do have a
chance?
http://darlingtonfootballclub.co.uk/32541-2/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:17 pm
Posts: 1088
Team Supported: Darlington
We can only hope! If they are right and there has been some miscommunication from the FA then that is a straw to be clutched!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 2663
Team Supported: Darlington
I have to admit - I was hoping for better! There is no surprise ace up our sleeve.

The appeal in a nutshell seems to say 'it's stupid unfair rule, and was badly communicated'.

According to a piece on the BBC website, the FA say they won't comment until the League have seen the appeals. I wonder if the FA have any influence on any any appeal outcome?*

* straw clutching.

_________________
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


Last edited by theoriginalfatcat on Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Posts: 722
Team Supported: Darlington
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
I have to admit - I was hoping for better! There is no surprise ace up our sleeve.

The appeal in a nutshell seems to say 'it's stupid unfair rule, and was badly communicated'.

According to a piece on the BBC website, the FA say they won't comment until the League have seen the appeals. I wonder if they FA have any influence on any any appeal outcome?*

* straw clutching.

The basis of the appeal is that an Independent Committee would deem it unfair that a club has to spend to "improve" it's ground by 31st March with no guaranteed of promotion. This appears to be the only league this applies to if the information in the Appeal is correct?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:14 pm
Posts: 174
Team Supported: Darlington
It's a fair argument about having to invest significant sums in ground facilities without guarantee of promotion (and is out of step with other leagues). But as it is an FA rule, and the appeal is to the FA, it is doomed to fail.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:17 pm
Posts: 1088
Team Supported: Darlington
bga wrote:
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
I have to admit - I was hoping for better! There is no surprise ace up our sleeve.

The appeal in a nutshell seems to say 'it's stupid unfair rule, and was badly communicated'.

According to a piece on the BBC website, the FA say they won't comment until the League have seen the appeals. I wonder if they FA have any influence on any any appeal outcome?*

* straw clutching.

The basis of the appeal is that an Independent Committee would deem it unfair that a club has to spend to "improve" it's ground by 31st March with no guaranteed of promotion. This appears to be the only league this applies to if the information in the Appeal is correct?


They do indeed it is an FA judicial panel who make the decision


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:17 pm
Posts: 1088
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlo_Dan wrote:
It's a fair argument about having to invest significant sums in ground facilities without guarantee of promotion (and is out of step with other leagues). But as it is an FA rule, and the appeal is to the FA, it is doomed to fail.


Not according to the person I spoke to, it is a league rule. The Poole Vice-Chairman is a member of the judicial panel so would know the regulations.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Posts: 20174
Team Supported: Darlington
Interesting that it would cost 33k to just to move and re-assemble the HP seats...

Nothing to do with the appeal but I find it interesting anyway, considering the amount of banging on done by some people over this.

33k + digging and laying foundations + erecting steel frame and roof to make a permanent stand...how much in total?

How much of the 150k cost to extend the stand is to buy and fit new seats? I bet there is not much between buying new and moving the HP seats.

_________________
Image

James Randi on his future death - "I want to be cremated, and I want my ashes blown in Uri Geller's eyes."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:24 pm
Posts: 2185
Team Supported: Darlington
Quote:
ii) The focus at the time was on achieving Category B, and the requirement for 500 covered seats was not picked up.


Quote:
iv) Reference was made by the Board to the Inspection Team of the availability of a 312 seater stand available at Heritage Park. The Board believed that this would have enabled Blackwell Meadows to easily achieve 500 seats


Quite frankly, they may as well have not bothered.

They've basically admitted fault on two counts here and as expected have tried to plead poverty and ignorance, neither of which is a valid defence.

In summary;

Error #1 - They first openly admit they were unaware of the need for 500 seats and apparently did not pick up on it all, entirely their fault.

Error #2 - They admit they mistakenly believed the temporary seats at Heritage Park would suffice as well being unaware that they had to be covered, again entirely their fault.

There's only one place for this, the bin.

Utter waste of time.

_________________
love it! wrote:
Considering we are Darlington 1883 I'm happy that we are named correctly


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:31 am
Posts: 253
Team Supported: Darlington
I would think "uplifting and installation "would include any groundwork required to get them in place.The roof is another matter.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:20 pm 
Online

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 770
Team Supported: Darlington
Good statement in my opinion. Very simple and honest in what its saying. The rule is an anomily. Dont know whether it will be successful but the fact 3 promotion challenging teams have come a crop of it must help thw cause a little.

As for the temo stand interesting that it would be 33k just to move them, perhaps the best policy is to just try to sell them now try and recoup some money towards improving BM. The build and rake of the BM seats is different to that of the ones at HP so they would have to go elsewhere at BM sounds almost more trouble than they are worth.

Just out of curiosity (and I would guess the reason is finance) is there any reason we did not move the final floodlight, and put the ground work (foundations) in for the full 600 seat stand when we built the 294 that are currently at BM? Could possibly have been a more cost effective way of doing things rather than having to do a second phase of ground works.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4324
Team Supported: Darlington
Quakerz wrote:
Interesting that it would cost 33k to just to move and re-assemble the HP seats...

Nothing to do with the appeal but I find it interesting anyway, considering the amount of banging on done by some people over this.

33k + digging and laying foundations + erecting steel frame and roof to make a permanent stand...how much in total?

How much of the 150k cost to extend the stand is to buy and fit new seats? I bet there is not much between buying new and moving the HP seats.


I did say that we were quoted at over 30k but obviously many still think a few lads can just do it for fun one day.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:08 pm
Posts: 115
Team Supported: Darlington
A reasonably professional statement from the club in my opinion.

We now have a timeline of events and what the basis of the appeal will be.

Will the FA accept they communicated the term "500 seats" to the club and not "500 covered seats" ? I doubt it...

A quote of £33,000 to move the temp seats from HP to BM is excessive and gives another indicator the dilemma the board faced

Whilst the statement appeases me to large extent with regards to what the Board have done, i'm sure it won't for others...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4324
Team Supported: Darlington
Basically it says we didn't read the rules or understand them, can we play please because it was a struggle and you didn't tell us the guidelines 100% even though we should have been building the ground to the guidelines.

Happy to move on but I don't see a lot of hope in the appeal.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:45 pm
Posts: 87
Team Supported: Darlington
It's only a summary I suspect there are many documents to support the appeal.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4324
Team Supported: Darlington
DarloDave40 wrote:
It's only a summary I suspect there are many documents to support the appeal.


Documents saying what though?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:45 pm
Posts: 87
Team Supported: Darlington
Imagine if we hadn't bothered to appeal and the other two won theirs!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4324
Team Supported: Darlington
DarloDave40 wrote:
Imagine if we hadn't bothered to appeal and the other two won theirs!


Happy to appeal, I don't mind that part but what will the documents say to advance the appeal?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:17 pm
Posts: 1088
Team Supported: Darlington
It will be heard on Wednesday at Wembley Stadium

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/ ... ref=twtrec


Last edited by Darlobaz79 on Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Posts: 10172
Team Supported: Darlington
From briefly scanning this it seems the basis of our appeal is that at one point the wording from the ground grading people was that it was 500 seats, not 500 covered seats, and that on this basis we thought we could bring the existing seats across from Heritage Park. By the time we realised the seats must be covered, it was too late to do anything.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

_________________
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:
Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4324
Team Supported: Darlington
Spyman wrote:
From briefly scanning this it seems the basis of our appeal is that at one point the wording from the ground grading people was that it was 500 seats, not 500 covered seats, and that on this basis we thought we could bring the existing seats across from Heritage Park. By the time we realised the seats must be covered, it was too late to do anything.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


So it seems our appeal is based on when we were building we didn't refer to the ground grading document we waited until it was inspected and then the FA mentioned 500 seats and we assumed they could be covered, uncovered, temporary it just didn't matter as no one said.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:17 pm
Posts: 1088
Team Supported: Darlington
It sounds like we are arguing that we spoke to the inspection team about bringing over the seats from Bishop for the play-offs and they either said that was fine or at the very least didn't point out that it wouldn't be ok.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4324
Team Supported: Darlington
So it sounds like we are admitting we built a ground without reading or understanding the rules then.

Happy to appeal and also happy to move on but let's not sit here and think we have been hard done by, as the rules if read are very clear.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Posts: 7008
Location: Liverpool
Team Supported: Darlington
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
Happy to appeal and also happy to move on


Are you sure you are happy to move on?

The terminology used in our appeal is identical to that used by Poole and Hungerfors in statements which is probably not coincidence.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4324
Team Supported: Darlington
lo36789 wrote:
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
Happy to appeal and also happy to move on


Are you sure you are happy to move on?

The terminology used in our appeal is identical to that used by Poole and Hungerfors in statements which is probably not coincidence.


Yep I have accepted we will be very, very lucky if the appeal goes our way so if it doesn't I am fine and still willing to invest in getting us ready for next time.

If it did go our way then fantastic a free hit as far as I am concerned.

Identical statements and identical issues, none of the clubs have managed to get 500 covered seats as per rules. Is this something that is changed by the FA or the clubs at the AGM, what was the reason it was put in?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 437
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
Ok so why didn't they say anything about getting the Bishop seats over in January? Two months go by before they find out that it needs to be covered seats. So at the start of February they had left themselves one month to find 33k, find someone to do the work, then actually do it. They never mentioned this before then.

Then... They continued selling early bird seasons and didn't say a word to the fans... And from the moment they found out in February, to the moment they made the previous statement in April, they STILL hadn't properly read the ground grading document? Because had they done so they wouldn't have stated that the rule change came in May 2016, because at the top of the May 16 document, the first words are that all amends from the May 15 doc are in RED ITALICS, which the bit about 500 seats to be promoted wasn't.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Posts: 694
Team Supported: Darlington
It's still a stupid rule and at the very least it will hopefully lead to a change to help other clubs in the future. Looks like I'll be taking in Southport away next season!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:46 pm
Posts: 437
Team Supported: Swansea (and Darlo of course)
don'tbuythesun wrote:
It's still a stupid rule and at the very least it will hopefully lead to a change to help other clubs in the future. Looks like I'll be taking in Southport away next season!


It's an absolutely ridiculous rule


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Posts: 1430
Team Supported: Darlington
I can't see the jury being out for very long to consider their verdicts on any of the appeals.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Posts: 314
Team Supported: Darlington
SwansQuaker83 wrote:
Ok so why didn't they say anything about getting the Bishop seats over in January? Two months go by before they find out that it needs to be covered seats. So at the start of February they had left themselves one month to find 33k, find someone to do the work, then actually do it. They never mentioned this before then.

Then... They continued selling early bird seasons and didn't say a word to the fans... And from the moment they found out in February, to the moment they made the previous statement in April, they STILL hadn't properly read the ground grading document? Because had they done so they wouldn't have stated that the rule change came in May 2016, because at the top of the May 16 document, the first words are that all amends from the May 15 doc are in RED ITALICS, which the bit about 500 seats to be promoted wasn't.


Correct. They knew on the 21st December 2016 that they were required to have “500 seats” in order to participate in the play offs. Why no mention of this in the 6 weeks before the "covered seating" criteria was discovered? Why no fund raising to address something that they knew would exclude us from the play-offs back in 2016? They said we didn't then have enough time to raise funds for the covered seats, but what were they doing in the previous 6 weeks to raise funds for shifting the temporary seats?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CrazyDarlo, Google Adsense [Bot], JE93, Makka Pakka and 51 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group