Gateshead

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

Darlogramps
Posts: 4559
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:36 am

spen666 wrote:
H1987 wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 2:15 pm
I can't really follow this story, to be honest. I hope it works out for them, but it's ridiculous the FA can't step in at some point.
The ownership of a company is determined by the Companies Act and is not something the FA can ignore. Effectively the FA don't have any power re ownership of a company other than to expel a club from its competitions.

Fans expect the FA to act in ways they legally are not able to do
Surely the point is the current FA rules, fit and proper person’s test etc, and actually the Companies Act you cite, have allowed the situation where Joe Cala and Ranjan Varghese can go in, trash up the club, fail to pay wages, sack all the club’s staff by email, allegedly hand someone a three-year managerial contract for loaning them £5k etc. If rules and laws allow this situation, then they’re not up to scratch.

I don’t disagree with you regarding FA intervention. It’s not really the FA’s responsibility to tell a club how to run itself.

I suspect some fans would like to see the FA be able to remove directors or owners, but actually it would be handing a worrying level of power to the FA if they could do that.

But clearly, when something like the Gateshead situation has happened, either FA rules or the Companies Act need amending to prevent it happening again. Something to make clear who is actually running the club. Perhaps make all directors subject to some form of a fit and proper person’s test.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

H1987
Posts: 1118
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by H1987 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:40 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:36 am
spen666 wrote:
H1987 wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 2:15 pm
I can't really follow this story, to be honest. I hope it works out for them, but it's ridiculous the FA can't step in at some point.
The ownership of a company is determined by the Companies Act and is not something the FA can ignore. Effectively the FA don't have any power re ownership of a company other than to expel a club from its competitions.

Fans expect the FA to act in ways they legally are not able to do
Surely the point is the current FA rules, fit and proper person’s test etc, and actually the Companies Act you cite, have allowed the situation where Joe Cala and Ranjan Varghese can go in, trash up the club, fail to pay wages, sack all the club’s staff by email, allegedly hand someone a three-year managerial contract for loaning them £5k etc. If rules and laws allow this situation, then they’re not up to scratch.

I don’t disagree with you regarding FA intervention. It’s not really the FA’s responsibility to tell a club how to run itself.

I suspect some fans would like to see the FA be able to remove directors or owners, but actually it would be handing a worrying level of power to the FA if they could do that.

But clearly, when something like the Gateshead situation has happened, either FA rules or the Companies Act need amending to prevent it happening again. Something to make clear who is actually running the club. Perhaps make all directors subject to some form of a fit and proper person’s test.
Nails my thoughts exactly, to be honest. Of course most of the time it's not the FA's responsibility, but there should be a mechanism in the rules where they can intervene in the interests of supporters. Whether that mechanism ends up being disposing of a licence and granting a replacement to a phoenix club (in the same division), which would effectively force a bad owners hand to sell up as not doing so would only lose them money...

As it stands, in such a scenario, the fans are left to pick up the pieces from their devastated club
Last edited by H1987 on Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 3863
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:42 am

This is a good thread to read for anyone who feels jaded that our “fan owned” model holds us back.

I take no pleasure at all by seeing clubs screwed over by dodgy people but it’s a reminder to us all that it can and does happen.

I think it was our learned friend darlopete (amongst others) who was keen to jump back into bed with Singh - but this would have only left us open to the kind of shenanigans we’ve recently seen at Gateshead.
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

Vodka_Vic
Posts: 1604
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Vodka_Vic » Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:08 am

For me, it was Divas who made the most telling point about all this. His point was that if you allow a 'benign benefactor', such as a Brad Groves, run your club, then the first owner you get you can 'vet' to a certain extent and vote on etc. However once you relinquish fan ownership then you lose control of who the club may be sold to eventually, as has happened to Gateshead. So you may have a succession of saintly benefactors, but then 5 years down the line they sell on to a rogue.

lo36789
Posts: 8028
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Gateshead

Post by lo36789 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:17 am

H1987 wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:40 am
As it stands, in such a scenario, the fans are left to pick up the pieces from their devastated club
Unfortunately I think this would be ripe for abuse. Rack up debts, blame it on unscrupulous owner start again where you were.

The only thing the FA could really do to stop these scenarios is rules around participation in competition based on debt levels against revenue (but is that if parent company or the club itself - how do you determine what the “club” is when stadiums and teams can be split from each other).

Current situation isn’t perfect but the German 50+1 fan ownership model is maybe the best protection which exists for fans?

spen666
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by spen666 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:51 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:36 am
spen666 wrote:
H1987 wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 2:15 pm
I can't really follow this story, to be honest. I hope it works out for them, but it's ridiculous the FA can't step in at some point.
The ownership of a company is determined by the Companies Act and is not something the FA can ignore. Effectively the FA don't have any power re ownership of a company other than to expel a club from its competitions.

Fans expect the FA to act in ways they legally are not able to do
Surely the point is the current FA rules, fit and proper person’s test etc, and actually the Companies Act you cite, have allowed the situation where Joe Cala and Ranjan Varghese can go in, trash up the club, fail to pay wages, sack all the club’s staff by email, allegedly hand someone a three-year managerial contract for loaning them £5k etc. If rules and laws allow this situation, then they’re not up to scratch.

I don’t disagree with you regarding FA intervention. It’s not really the FA’s responsibility to tell a club how to run itself.

I suspect some fans would like to see the FA be able to remove directors or owners, but actually it would be handing a worrying level of power to the FA if they could do that.

But clearly, when something like the Gateshead situation has happened, either FA rules or the Companies Act need amending to prevent it happening again. Something to make clear who is actually running the club. Perhaps make all directors subject to some form of a fit and proper person’s test.

Don't misunderstand me, the situation at Gateshead & others now & in past in not acceptable.

The FA and EFL etc get villified for things that they really can't control. The ODT is a bit of nonsense really. It is totally ineffectual against someone who refuses to play by the FA Rules.

I do not know what the solution is, but by law the FA can't appoint or remove directors or prevent the sale of clubs to anyone.

The Companies Act and English law in general prevent the FA doing much in reality.

The only effective solution against dodgy owners is a fan owned club....with sufficient fans owning it to prevent power vesting in a small group.

Many on here mistakenly think I am having a go at the fans of the club. I am not. The sums raised and dedication shown by the fans is amazing. My comments are at some of the decisions made by those running the club, especially in its early years. Despite it being a fan owned club, that dies not excuse those running the club from critical scrutiny of their actions. (critical scrutiny being very different to the abuse given by some)




I would also love to see loans from owners/ shareholders or connected parties to clubs being outlawed. IE If you put money into club it is not a loan, but a gift or sponsorship. This stops owners demanding large sums when clubs go tits up
Last edited by spen666 on Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Twitter: @spen_666

shildonlad
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:35 am

The fa will punish the folk taking over at gateshead who will be trying to rebuild after the mess left behind. Mind the club are suspended not expelled from the league and on that note i hold out faint hope the appeal will be successful. Had the current lot still been there I’m sure no one would argue about the club been suspended from the league. Sadly the fa cant remove owners directors even when new folk want to come in and pay off debts and rebuild club. Mind the authorities have removed owners from businesses in other industries like british steel so why not football?
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

spen666
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by spen666 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:58 pm

shildonlad wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:35 am
The fa will punish the folk taking over at gateshead who will be trying to rebuild after the mess left behind.
Gateshead are a legal entity and is they who are punished.

The ownership of Gateshead may change, but in law it's still the same legal entity.

This has the effect as you say of punishing fans and new owner, not the people who caused the problem. This is to stop owners running clubs into ground, "selling" to a mate and club avoiding consequences as cynically Leicester did years ago

Mind the club are suspended not expelled from the league and on that note i hold out faint hope the appeal will be successful. ....
Think timings may be the problem for Gateshead if appeal not heard until after AGM . My understanding is that after AGM no change can be made to league constitutions for that season , hence if club folds after AGM, league runs 1 club short rather than a reprieve.


Hopefully an appeal can be heard before the AGM & Gateshead get sorted
Twitter: @spen_666

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 3863
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:08 pm

spen666 wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:51 am
Despite it being a Dan owned club, that dies not excuse those running the club from critical scrutiny

Typo alert ;)
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

spen666
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by spen666 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:16 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:08 pm
spen666 wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:51 am
Despite it being a Dan owned club, that dies not excuse those running the club from critical scrutiny

Typo alert ;)
:oops: :oops:


Sorry, didn't you realise that Dan (Maguire?) had done a secret deal and bought the club

Not sure if I should blame, auto correct, fat fingers, or just plain incompetence. Probably the latter
Twitter: @spen_666

shildonlad
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:51 am

spen666 wrote:
shildonlad wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:35 am
The fa will punish the folk taking over at gateshead who will be trying to rebuild after the mess left behind.
Gateshead are a legal entity and is they who are punished.

The ownership of Gateshead may change, but in law it's still the same legal entity.

This has the effect as you say of punishing fans and new owner, not the people who caused the problem. This is to stop owners running clubs into ground, "selling" to a mate and club avoiding consequences as cynically Leicester did years ago

Mind the club are suspended not expelled from the league and on that note i hold out faint hope the appeal will be successful. ....
Think timings may be the problem for Gateshead if appeal not heard until after AGM . My understanding is that after AGM no change can be made to league constitutions for that season , hence if club folds after AGM, league runs 1 club short rather than a reprieve.


Hopefully an appeal can be heard before the AGM & Gateshead get sorted
Im confident the appeal will be heard before the agm otherwise why would they appeal? As for the fa and the league it was down to them how gateshead got lumbered with such bad owners and alot of folk suffered. They should try and righten some wrongs even though they will never admit there fit and proper test is a shambles mind how often do the fa do any good
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5382
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:08 am

Unfortunately this is the risk of being owned and sold on over and over again to the next one who will put in lots of cash. It’s a harsh world but the FA & League hold no responsibility for that risk taken, they haven’t stood on the side of the fans in any decisions I can remember (no doubt someone will show an example though :lol: )

Is the appeal with the league only, the FA or both, your only hope is that other teams haven’t been told they are moving back up, to plan etc. and a space made for you in the NPL.

Do the new owners have to put a £200k bond in and did the old owners ever get theirs back, so many questions on this one. I feel like Darlo and probably others you will be relieved to have been taken over by some fans but the League/FA will punish you as a club for getting to this point anyhow.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4559
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:18 am

shildonlad wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:51 am
spen666 wrote:
shildonlad wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:35 am
The fa will punish the folk taking over at gateshead who will be trying to rebuild after the mess left behind.
Gateshead are a legal entity and is they who are punished.

The ownership of Gateshead may change, but in law it's still the same legal entity.

This has the effect as you say of punishing fans and new owner, not the people who caused the problem. This is to stop owners running clubs into ground, "selling" to a mate and club avoiding consequences as cynically Leicester did years ago

Mind the club are suspended not expelled from the league and on that note i hold out faint hope the appeal will be successful. ....
Think timings may be the problem for Gateshead if appeal not heard until after AGM . My understanding is that after AGM no change can be made to league constitutions for that season , hence if club folds after AGM, league runs 1 club short rather than a reprieve.


Hopefully an appeal can be heard before the AGM & Gateshead get sorted
Im confident the appeal will be heard before the agm otherwise why would they appeal? As for the fa and the league it was down to them how gateshead got lumbered with such bad owners and alot of folk suffered. They should try and righten some wrongs even though they will never admit there fit and proper test is a shambles mind how often do the fa do any good
It's not the FA's fault at all. You've got this weird habit of blaming everyone else, other than anyone to do with Gateshead for your troubles.

Yes, the Fit and Proper Person's test isn't good enough, but the Bennett's sold the club, clearly with little regard for the welfare of the club. And the fans were perfectly happen to welcome Varghese when he rocked up.

If the Bennetts wanted to sell the club to Varghese, there's nothing the FA can do to stop that. As we saw through the failed attempt at fundraising a breakaway club, there's a lack of interest from the town of Gateshead too.

Basically Gateshead have three choices - spend beyond their means in the hope their owner will keep covering the losses, spend beyond means and hope you keep being passed on to a good-willed owner (which is what you've been doing), or decide to spend within their means which may mean less on-the-field success, but ensures the club's survival.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

shildonlad
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:57 am

The fact is if likes of cala are allowed to come into clubs as a shadow director and hardly hide the fact then the fa should do more starting with that fit and proper test and im not just on about gateshead numerous clubs have been in the same boat and no doubt will continue to be. And the problems at gateshead aint all about spending beyond there means. They had one of the lowest budgets of the season and the club could have been sold way before now and creditors paid. Cala just choose to string it out purely out of badness
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5382
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:16 am

shildonlad wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:57 am
The fact is if likes of cala are allowed to come into clubs as a shadow director and hardly hide the fact then the fa should do more starting with that fit and proper test and im not just on about gateshead numerous clubs have been in the same boat and no doubt will continue to be. And the problems at gateshead aint all about spending beyond there means. They had one of the lowest budgets of the season and the club could have been sold way before now and creditors paid. Cala just choose to string it out purely out of badness
How did Gateshead budget for everything and revenue match up for last season? You can have one of the lowest budgets but if it's still more than revenue then sadly you are still spending beyond your means.

Darlo's turnover is probably between around £500k/£600k (including BTB) but that provides a footballing budget (inc management) of say £300k/£340k - Disclaimer these are rough estimates/guesses.

If no one put any money into Gateshead, what do you think the actual budget would be?
Again, rough guesses but expected revenue for Gateshead would be around £350k/£400k so I would imagine at least a 1/3 would go on costs, so budget would at best be £230k/£260k for players and staff. If you underperform attendances will drop and budget will reduce further, if you get relegated then it will reduce further again.

Sadly, for Gateshead it's continue the hope that your owner will subsidise you (take the chance of being in the same boat again) or drop down the leagues naturally. This is the reality of football that a lot of football fans won't accept, it took the catastrophe of our situation for us to understand (even then some still don't fully grasp the risk of private owners).

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:18 pm

super_les_mcjannet wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:16 am

Darlo's turnover is probably between around £500k/£600k (including BTB) but that provides a footballing budget (inc management) of say £300k/£340k - Disclaimer these are rough estimates/guesses.
Guessing also, but in agreement that your guess is not a million miles away from the actual figures. We know Tommy's total budget last year was 330k and that Alun has less than that but still more than he had at Blyth, so 300k total sounds very plausible to me + hopefully an additional 20k added to that since we overachieved on the BTB.
If no one put any money into Gateshead, what do you think the actual budget would be?
Again, rough guesses but expected revenue for Gateshead would be around £350k/£400k so I would imagine at least a 1/3 would go on costs, so budget would at best be £230k/£260k for players and staff. If you underperform attendances will drop and budget will reduce further, if you get relegated then it will reduce further again.

Sadly, for Gateshead it's continue the hope that your owner will subsidise you (take the chance of being in the same boat again) or drop down the leagues naturally. This is the reality of football that a lot of football fans won't accept, it took the catastrophe of our situation for us to understand (even then some still don't fully grasp the risk of private owners).
Totally agree, for Gateshead to even have a "low" FT budget of say 600k, that would require owners who are willing and able to put hundreds of thousands of pounds into the club year in and year out for no reward. This is exactly what the previous owners Wood and the Bennetts had to do.

Shildonlad keeps babbling on about how low their budget was last season but has never brought an actual figure to the table. Let's say it really was as low as 250k (and I doubt that they could even afford that without at least a few quid going in from the owners), then how was it possible to pay a full time squad out of that? There simply isn't enough money to go around.

Given that they stayed full time, I suspect that their budget - despite being "the lowest in the league" according to shildonlad, may have been more than 250k, which of course is unsustainable.

So regarding Gateshead's new owners, what's the plan there? Are they making noises about cutting their cloth accordingly (in which case Gateshead will do well to avoid relegation and/or have to go part time), or are they the next ones to attempt to chuck money at it and see if they can get somewhere?
TAFKAQ

@1883Of

LoidLucan
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by LoidLucan » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:35 pm

One report i read said the Bennetts ploughed in almost £3m during their three years at the club and they left it debt free, albeit in the hands of people who turned out to be twats. Wood also spent millions on his failed dream of taking them back to the FL.
Last edited by LoidLucan on Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4559
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:39 pm

shildonlad wrote:The fact is if likes of cala are allowed to come into clubs as a shadow director and hardly hide the fact then the fa should do more starting with that fit and proper test and im not just on about gateshead numerous clubs have been in the same boat and no doubt will continue to be.
Yes, I’ve said as much on another thread.

But the problems at Gateshead aren’t the FA’s fault, as much as you continually point the finger their way.

The FA couldn’t intervene even if they wanted to, so the problem is the lack of due diligence done by Gateshead‘s previous owners. And the structural issues at Gateshead, particularly the lack of support from the town, means you’re stuck in a cycle of spending beyond your means and hoping everything comes up roses.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6041
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by loan_star » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:07 pm

More than happy with our model, at least if it goes pear shaped we only have ourselves to blame and not someone with no real interest in the club other than an ego trip, tax dodge or asset strip.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:28 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:39 pm
shildonlad wrote:The fact is if likes of cala are allowed to come into clubs as a shadow director and hardly hide the fact then the fa should do more starting with that fit and proper test and im not just on about gateshead numerous clubs have been in the same boat and no doubt will continue to be.
Yes, I’ve said as much on another thread.

But the problems at Gateshead aren’t the FA’s fault, as much as you continually point the finger their way.

The FA couldn’t intervene even if they wanted to, so the problem is the lack of due diligence done by Gateshead‘s previous owners. And the structural issues at Gateshead, particularly the lack of support from the town, means you’re stuck in a cycle of spending beyond your means and hoping everything comes up roses.
Wrong on 2 counts.
1
The FA have a criteria laid out for anyone who is allowed to run a club under their jurisdiction. Should that criteria not be reached then yes they should act. If the criteria does not go far enough to protect the integrity of clubs then the criteria needs to be looked at and altered.
As the ruling authority of the game in England the FA are responsible for making sure that clubs under their jurisdiction act in a way that does not impact outside of the game because of mismanagement of clubs.

I can think of at least 2 previous "owners" of Darlo, and I am talking pre GR who it was well known were using the club to salt funds made by the club outside the country and for their own benefit, yet the FA allowed it to continue,and even saw fit to allow them into other clubs, we were not the first they did it to, where exactly the same happened again and again.

In more recent times the Vaughan's raped and pillaged Chester. Junior, (Steven), even served a sentence for breaking a police officers jaw, but was deemed "fit and proper" to take over yet another football club and has of course bankrupt that.

Are you honestly telling me the FA's, (of all countries), hold no responsibility for this?

2
The only "due diligence" the previous owners needed to make was that any finance they were due from the deal was in place. To say they were responsible for making sure the new owners were nice people is like saying anyone selling a house is responsible for the new owners behaviour.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4559
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:17 pm

EDJOHNS wrote: 1
The FA have a criteria laid out for anyone who is allowed to run a club under their jurisdiction. Should that criteria not be reached then yes they should act. If the criteria does not go far enough to protect the integrity of clubs then the criteria needs to be looked at and altered.
As the ruling authority of the game in England the FA are responsible for making sure that clubs under their jurisdiction act in a way that does not impact outside of the game because of mismanagement of clubs.

I can think of at least 2 previous "owners" of Darlo, and I am talking pre GR who it was well known were using the club to salt funds made by the club outside the country and for their own benefit, yet the FA allowed it to continue,and even saw fit to allow them into other clubs, we were not the first they did it to, where exactly the same happened again and again.

In more recent times the Vaughan's raped and pillaged Chester. Junior, (Steven), even served a sentence for breaking a police officers jaw, but was deemed "fit and proper" to take over yet another football club and has of course bankrupt that.

Are you honestly telling me the FA's, (of all countries), hold no responsibility for this?
Ah EDJOHNS! You’re back after throwing a tantrum and vowing never to speak to me again. How’s that working out for you?

You appear to have lost your ability to read. I’ve said the FA’s Fit and Proper Person’s needs looking at. And I do find it odd Singh is allowed to run a club, years after leaving another one in administration.

But when you say “The FA should act”, what do you mean? Because the FA would actually be breaking the law by interfering with a club. Legally, they can’t do it.

It’s also incredibly dangerous to hand the FA that power. Some cases aren’t black and white, so you’d have massive problems with consistency. And how can we be certain that power wouldn’t get abused? It’s like saying the Government should have stopped Woolworths from going under.

And let’s say Varghese was removed, like it or not, you’d be leaving Gateshead without an owner mid-season, in all likelihood causing them to fold. Who funds them after you’ve removed their primary source of income?

It’s not up to the FA to decide how clubs run themselves. If businesses are run badly, they fold. I don’t see why football clubs should be exempt from this.
EDJOHNS wrote: 2
The only "due diligence" the previous owners needed to make was that any finance they were due from the deal was in place. To say they were responsible for making sure the new owners were nice people is like saying anyone selling a house is responsible for the new owners behaviour.
Another typically poor analogy. When I sell a house, I couldn’t care what happens to it. The Bennetts all along claimed to be Gateshead fans and claimed to have its best interests at heart. Then they sold up to the first buyer without checking whether he’d keep things in order.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6041
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by loan_star » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:28 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:17 pm
If businesses are run badly, they fold. I don’t see why football clubs should be exempt from this.
Perhaps if this was to happen then we would see football clubs get their houses in order instead of trading virtually insolvent as most clubs seem to do these days.

shildonlad
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:20 pm

Well said mr ed johns. As for singh, im not defending him but he effectively did the crime and served his time. I believe his ban from football had passed (about 5 year) when he took over hartlepool. Singh only had one failure on his hands yet cala at gateshead (the real owner) had multiple dodgy dealings in football. Its the same with reynolds, when he took over darlington his criminal record was probably clean as it had been years since his last conviction and he had been running a solvent business for some time.
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5382
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:14 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:18 pm
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:16 am

Darlo's turnover is probably between around £500k/£600k (including BTB) but that provides a footballing budget (inc management) of say £300k/£340k - Disclaimer these are rough estimates/guesses.
Guessing also, but in agreement that your guess is not a million miles away from the actual figures. We know Tommy's total budget last year was 330k and that Alun has less than that but still more than he had at Blyth, so 300k total sounds very plausible to me + hopefully an additional 20k added to that since we overachieved on the BTB.
If no one put any money into Gateshead, what do you think the actual budget would be?
Again, rough guesses but expected revenue for Gateshead would be around £350k/£400k so I would imagine at least a 1/3 would go on costs, so budget would at best be £230k/£260k for players and staff. If you underperform attendances will drop and budget will reduce further, if you get relegated then it will reduce further again.

Sadly, for Gateshead it's continue the hope that your owner will subsidise you (take the chance of being in the same boat again) or drop down the leagues naturally. This is the reality of football that a lot of football fans won't accept, it took the catastrophe of our situation for us to understand (even then some still don't fully grasp the risk of private owners).
Totally agree, for Gateshead to even have a "low" FT budget of say 600k, that would require owners who are willing and able to put hundreds of thousands of pounds into the club year in and year out for no reward. This is exactly what the previous owners Wood and the Bennetts had to do.

Shildonlad keeps babbling on about how low their budget was last season but has never brought an actual figure to the table. Let's say it really was as low as 250k (and I doubt that they could even afford that without at least a few quid going in from the owners), then how was it possible to pay a full time squad out of that? There simply isn't enough money to go around.

Given that they stayed full time, I suspect that their budget - despite being "the lowest in the league" according to shildonlad, may have been more than 250k, which of course is unsustainable.

So regarding Gateshead's new owners, what's the plan there? Are they making noises about cutting their cloth accordingly (in which case Gateshead will do well to avoid relegation and/or have to go part time), or are they the next ones to attempt to chuck money at it and see if they can get somewhere?
Yeah when I say guesses, I do actually check our past accounts and make some assumptions to bring that detail forward and with Gateshead figures work from an attendance of 840 and then take into account some expectations.

I am very interested in our final accounts for 2018/2019 and what the targets/expectations are for 2019/2020, we should be starting to say growth in commercial, however match day income last year took a hit and the target this year if AA does ok must be to build that back up.

Back on topic, unless Gateshead new owners which seem to be a fan are going to throw a lot of money in again then the likely thing is reduced results which will result in reduced attendances and obviously reduced revenue. I honestly think the troubles are only just beginning for them, who is running the club moving forward and how they guarantee they can see out the season - all to be revealed I guess but I think they are going to have a lot of challenges.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:54 pm

Ah EDJOHNS! You’re back after throwing a tantrum and vowing never to speak to me again. How’s that working out for you?

No tantrum from me. What I said was that it was my last comment on that post as I refuse to get drawn into your puerile arguments. That stands.

I gave comment on a particular comment you had made, and I showed the entire comment. Twist as much as you like, that statement was incorrect on both counts. That you may have said something else elsewhere matters not 1 jot.

The simple facts are that no-one selling anything is responsible for the new owners actions, and that the FA are ultimately responsible for the control of the behaviour, of every club under their jurisdiction. If they know a person is not fit to run a club they have the authority to refuse to allow that person to run a club. While they may not be able to stop the purchase in law, they hold the right to remove the "golden share",(remember that?), from any club, thus removing the said club from competitions they hold sway over.

Again, rather than prattle on showing how clever you think you are go check out the rules of admittance to the FA.

Again, my last word on this subject. No doubt you will take that as me spitting my dummy out again and having another tantrum TTFN.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4559
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:20 am

EDJOHNS wrote: No tantrum from me. What I said was that it was my last comment on that post as I refuse to get drawn into your puerile arguments. That stands.
You didn’t. You said it was the last time you would ever speak to me, it’s there in black and white. Ever is very definite, and not specific to one post.

So not only have you thrown a massive wobbly, you’re now denying you threw a wobbly despite it being there for all. How old are you? Six?
EDJOHNS wrote: I gave comment on a particular comment you had made, and I showed the entire comment. Twist as much as you like, that statement was incorrect on both counts. That you may have said something else elsewhere matters not 1 jot.
Kind of does. It’s this wonderful thing called context. Reading something in context stops you looking like an idiot.
EDJOHNS wrote: The simple facts are that no-one selling anything is responsible for the new owners actions.
If you’re the Bennetts and you claim to care about the club, selling it to a random bloke from Hong Kong with no prior knowledge of English football, without asking who else is involved, you take some of the blame.

It’s like me saying “I need to give up my pet, but it needs to go to a good home, and then selling it to a complete wrong-un. I’m sorry, but if you claim to care for something, you take the blame if you haven’t done due diligence.

I notice you’ve ignored this point entirely, so presumably you’re struggling to counter it.
EDJOHNS wrote: and that the FA are ultimately responsible for the control of the behaviour, of every club under their jurisdiction. If they know a person is not fit to run a club they have the authority to refuse to allow that person to run a club. While they may not be able to stop the purchase in law, they hold the right to remove the "golden share",(remember that?), from any club, thus removing the said club from competitions they hold sway over.

Again, rather than prattle on showing how clever you think you are go check out the rules of admittance to the FA.
I’ve checked it out and nowhere in the FA’s standardised rules does it say that. You’ve literally made it up to suit your argument.

To put it in context (that thing you believe doesn’t matter) the discussion was about Gateshead and the issues there. First and foremost, if you’d bothered to read the standardised rules properly, you’d see it’s actually up to the leagues to decide action to take (so in this case, the National League).

The FA holds sway over the FA Cup, Trophy and Vase. Other league-related punishments are dished out by the individual leagues. Banning someone from the FA Trophy isn’t going to bring their ownership tumbling down.

Moreover, the very reason we have various laws relating to businesses, contracts etc (I.E. company law) is to cover these eventualities. There’s no eventuality whereby effectively shutting a club down (for what is the point of a football club if the FA won’t allow them to play) is even required as an option. And indeed it would be immediately challenged.

For some reason, you seem to believe law and statute doesn’t apply to the FA, and they should intervene in any club as they seem fit. You’re also grossly wrong. Legally, they can’t.
EDJOHNS wrote: Again, my last word on this subject. No doubt you will take that as me spitting my dummy out again and having another tantrum TTFN.
Given your latest episode of pant pissing, everyone will take this as you having a tantrum. You stick to cracking off about Rugby League. At least you might know something about that sport.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

EDJOHNS
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by EDJOHNS » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:15 am

Jesus Christ you really are 1 arrogant prig.

I’ve checked it out and nowhere in the FA’s standardised rules does it say that. You’ve literally made it up to suit your argument.

The FA holds sway over the FA Cup, Trophy and Vase. Other league-related punishments are dished out by the individual leagues. Banning someone from the FA Trophy isn’t going to bring their ownership tumbling down.

Can you not remember 2012 or are you really that thick?

The FA are overlords of the game in England, Not just the specific competitions they run under their banner. If the FA take away any clubs "Golden share" said club may not take part in any match which is under their jurisdiction.

LIke it or not, you are WRONG.

Now, to paraphrase another members comment Fuck off Gramps.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6041
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by loan_star » Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:34 am

EDJOHNS wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:15 am
The FA are overlords of the game in England, Not just the specific competitions they run under their banner. If the FA take away any clubs "Golden share" said club may not take part in any match which is under their jurisdiction.
Even at sunday league level you need to be affiliated to the FA in order to play in any league.
If the FA says you cant play in it then you cant play in it, end of.
I would guess that if the FA says an owner isnt fit and proper then they can deny a team permission to play.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by EDJOHNS » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:33 pm

loan_star wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:34 am
EDJOHNS wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:15 am
The FA are overlords of the game in England, Not just the specific competitions they run under their banner. If the FA take away any clubs "Golden share" said club may not take part in any match which is under their jurisdiction.
Even at sunday league level you need to be affiliated to the FA in order to play in any league.
If the FA says you cant play in it then you cant play in it, end of.
I would guess that if the FA says an owner isnt fit and proper then they can deny a team permission to play.
I was more on about being able to stop a person from buying a club with the threat of expulsion but,


Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6041
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by loan_star » Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:01 pm

EDJOHNS wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:33 pm

I was more on about being able to stop a person from buying a club with the threat of expulsion but,


Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.
I would think that if a potential owner didn't pass the test the FA cant really do anything to stop a sale going through but they are within their right to stop a team from participating in any competition or league.
I know teams are banned from playing at sunday level if they don't pay what they owe in fines for bookings etc, whilst leagues themselves can ban teams for owing money to the league, or not allow a team to enter if the people running it have previous for bad debts or failing to complete a season under another team name.

Post Reply