Our accounts
-
- Posts: 14122
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
A phoenix club would still be Darlo and it's supporters would still regard themselves as Darlo fans.
Re: Our accounts
Would we? A seem to recall people saying they wouldn't follow a reformed club?Darlo_Pete wrote:A phoenix club would still be Darlo and it's supporters would still regard themselves as Darlo fans.
Also, while yes a lot would still see us as Darlo still, it couldn't be looked on as a success if we had to fold and reform in the Northern League again.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 2084
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:23 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
it would be a new club. some fans of the previous club would no doubt support the new one. but it would still be a new club.shawry wrote:Would we? A seem to recall people saying they wouldn't follow a reformed club?Darlo_Pete wrote:A phoenix club would still be Darlo and it's supporters would still regard themselves as Darlo fans.
Also, while yes a lot would still see us as Darlo still, it couldn't be looked on as a success if we had to fold and reform in the Northern League again.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
very similar to deluded (The) Rangers fans in Glasgow. They are usually referred to as Sevco / Newco up here.
-
- Posts: 6025
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
Doesn't matter. In a legal, business sense the old club would not exist. It would have been liquidated, wound up, consigned to the history books.Darlo_Pete wrote:A phoenix club would still be Darlo and it's supporters would still regard themselves as Darlo fans.
Hereford FC is not the same club as the old Hereford United. And the same would apply here.
If you're trying to argue otherwise you are wrong.
- theoriginalfatcat
- Posts: 6800
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
Pete - I'm not sure we have another going bust situation left in us! It would be farcical.
That's why I was dead set against Singh getting involved. A football club is just a business to him, and people like him. Businesses can be bought and sold and asset stripped and abused and used ........
If we have to stay in this league for a little while and live within our means, what's the problem?
That's why I was dead set against Singh getting involved. A football club is just a business to him, and people like him. Businesses can be bought and sold and asset stripped and abused and used ........
If we have to stay in this league for a little while and live within our means, what's the problem?
Profile pic
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Re: Our accounts
Funny thing is, if we HAD gone bust - like many people think we did - we would not have received the Dan Burn money to bail us out.
Having said that, we also wouldn't have started with a 6 figure debt, we'd have started with a clean slate - possibly meaning we wouldn't have needed the Dan Burn money anyway.
Having said that, we also wouldn't have started with a 6 figure debt, we'd have started with a clean slate - possibly meaning we wouldn't have needed the Dan Burn money anyway.
Re: Our accounts
I worked out that we ended up about an even net position in the end.
Re: Our accounts
But with a slightly more clear conscience that we paid off a lot of the debt left by Singhdivas wrote:I worked out that we ended up about an even net position in the end.
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:24 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
We only paid off the football debt in an attempt to retain our FA membership, something the FA neglected to take into consideration when treating us as a new club. An expensive folly in hindsight. We got our continuity through the purchase of the assets of the previous company and in particular the rights to the badge, brand, name etc
-
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:14 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
Not an expensive folly at all - net even as confirmed by Wayne.Darlo-and-Back wrote:We only paid off the football debt in an attempt to retain our FA membership, something the FA neglected to take into consideration when treating us as a new club. An expensive folly in hindsight. We got our continuity through the purchase of the assets of the previous company and in particular the rights to the badge, brand, name etc
And what's more our actions to ensure that we completed our final season in the Conference, and have never missed an official fixture (unlike some of the phoenix clubs who folded mid-season) ensured that we are the same Football Club with our 134 year history.
Even if we were forced to use a different name briefly.
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:24 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
The payment of the football debt and completing the season were entirely unrelated. The football debt payment was to protect the FA membership under their rules. Ultimately when RS refused to consent to the transfer of the membership he made the repayment of the football debt pointless. A gesture to the players and management for sure but in straight financial terms one that wasn’t necessary.
-
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:14 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
They are not unrelated in terms of preserving our continuity, and therefore history and identity.Darlo-and-Back wrote:The payment of the football debt and completing the season were entirely unrelated. The football debt payment was to protect the FA membership under their rules. Ultimately when RS refused to consent to the transfer of the membership he made the repayment of the football debt pointless. A gesture to the players and management for sure but in straight financial terms one that wasn’t necessary.
Both had to be done.
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:24 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
Not correct. There were two aspects in play. Continuity in terms of Company Law and continuity of FA Membership. We retained continuity in the sense of a business by buying the assets from the administrator ie rights to the badge, shirt colours, brand, player sell-on rights, pitch covers etc. We could have bought these without having to accept the football only debt, as we did not accept paying the non-football debt.
In FA terms we were deemed a new club because the membership transfer was refused. Hence start at NL and new name.
So there is a valid arguement that we are the same club or a new club depending which stance you argue: FA membership or company continuity.
To me it’s irrelevant, when I walk through the turnstiles it feels to me like the same Darlington FC. My point is we did the previous players and management a favour we didn’t have to, I can live with that and it’s something every player that comes to our club should perhaps be told that in the clubs darkest hour the fans stood by their players... even though we didn’t have to.
In FA terms we were deemed a new club because the membership transfer was refused. Hence start at NL and new name.
So there is a valid arguement that we are the same club or a new club depending which stance you argue: FA membership or company continuity.
To me it’s irrelevant, when I walk through the turnstiles it feels to me like the same Darlington FC. My point is we did the previous players and management a favour we didn’t have to, I can live with that and it’s something every player that comes to our club should perhaps be told that in the clubs darkest hour the fans stood by their players... even though we didn’t have to.
-
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:14 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
How do you know that we could have bought the assets without paying the football debt? Were you involved in the negotiations with Harvey Madden?Darlo-and-Back wrote:Not correct. There were two aspects in play. Continuity in terms of Company Law and continuity of FA Membership. We retained continuity in the sense of a business by buying the assets from the administrator ie rights to the badge, shirt colours, brand, player sell-on rights, pitch covers etc. We could have bought these without having to accept the football only debt, as we did not accept paying the non-football debt.
In FA terms we were deemed a new club because the membership transfer was refused. Hence start at NL and new name.
So there is a valid arguement that we are the same club or a new club depending which stance you argue: FA membership or company continuity.
To me it’s irrelevant, when I walk through the turnstiles it feels to me like the same Darlington FC. My point is we did the previous players and management a favour we didn’t have to, I can live with that and it’s something every player that comes to our club should perhaps be told that in the clubs darkest hour the fans stood by their players... even though we didn’t have to.
I was - and I can assure you that although the script changed daily, the objective of everyone involved was to save Darlington Football Club. Not to let it die and start again. Players outstanding wages being paid was a happy consequence of that but not the overriding objective.
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:24 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
The fan offer was the last bid standing so had all the cards. HM knew how to play a hand of cards. Such a shame he’s not with us, a fine man.
The logic behind paying the football debt was fine during a negotiation, just a shame RS wouldn’t assign us the FA membership. The FA just played it by the rule book. We can hold our heads high as fans as to how we treat players which was the real point.
The logic behind paying the football debt was fine during a negotiation, just a shame RS wouldn’t assign us the FA membership. The FA just played it by the rule book. We can hold our heads high as fans as to how we treat players which was the real point.
-
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:14 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Our accounts
Generally agree.Darlo-and-Back wrote:The fan offer was the last bid standing so had all the cards. HM knew how to play a hand of cards. Such a shame he’s not with us, a fine man.
The logic behind paying the football debt was fine during a negotiation, just a shame RS wouldn’t assign us the FA membership. The FA just played it by the rule book. We can hold our heads high as fans as to how we treat players which was the real point.
Harvey took a big chance when he reversed the decision to close us down on that fateful day. There was a huge risk of racking up extra debt. For him to have then sold the assets without any consideration for creditors would have been harmful to his reputation as an Administrator.
Indeed a good man.