Tracey Crouch says

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Post Reply
dfcdfcdfc
Posts: 554
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:45 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Tracey Crouch says

Post by dfcdfcdfc » Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:41 am


User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 5060
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:09 am

Well spotted Tracy :clap:
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

lo36789
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by lo36789 » Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:15 pm

Standout points for me...

1. Championship average wage to turnover ratio 107%
2. Recommendation to allow artificial surfaces in the football league
3. No new regulator with regard running leagues. Seems to be an entirely financial prudence regulator proposed.
4. Remove clubs from the boards of the league competitions
5. Recommendation for NL Prem to be absorbed into EFL

spen666
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by spen666 » Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:37 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:15 pm
Standout points for me...

...
4. Remove clubs from the boards of the league competitions
5. Recommendation for NL Prem to be absorbed into EFL
...
If this is adopted, then as soon as the directors of a league make decisions clubs don't like the argument will be used that the directors not being involved with clubs are too remote from what benefits the clubs and therefore need to be replaced.

The FA have had similar arguments for years that county FA members shouldn't be involved with professional game and England team.

Whatever the decision is regarding identity / status of directors, it will only last until the directors make a decision that some clubs do not like, then if status quo exists, the argument of bias exist, if its non connected directors, then the argument will be they are out of touch

On a related note, are the existing board members paid for their work as board members, because I am sure independent board members will require payment to take on the responsibilities.

I wonder if this issue is perhaps only the symptom of the bigger issue of the voting rights ( and composition) of the league / board. If all 3 leagues had equal voting rights (or at least NLN & NLS combined have equal rights to the NL) and membership of board was limited to say 2 years at a time, then a rolling change of directors would limit chances of clubs being able to use board to their advantage, and equal voting rights for all 3 leagues would mean we don't have last season's farce of NL controlling agenda to exclusion and serious detriment of the NLN and NLS clubs.

Whatever solution is chosen it is still problematic and there is no cure. Its choosing crap system A or Crap system B.


*********************************************************************************
The idea of putting NL into EFL sounds good and will be attractive to NLN & NLS clubs, but the EFL will vote against it, because instead of TV and other money being split between 72 clubs it will need to be split between 96 ( or 95 at present) clubs, so each club will get less money and therefore the existing EFL clubs will vote against it.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 5060
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:50 pm

Perhaps votes should apply only to the leagues applicable? At present steps 1 and 2 are lumped together and the fact that each step 1 vote is worth 4 times a step 2 vote means that they are our boss.

I reckon either 1 vote per club or divorce. :shock:
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: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by spen666 » Thu Jul 22, 2021 3:04 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:50 pm
Perhaps votes should apply only to the leagues applicable? At present steps 1 and 2 are lumped together and the fact that each step 1 vote is worth 4 times a step 2 vote means that they are our boss.

I reckon either 1 vote per club or divorce. :shock:
I agree, my only concern would be 1 vote per club would simply reverse the current problem as NLN & NLS would have double the votes of NL.

Perhaps each step should have same number of votes- say 2 votes each for NL and 1 vote each for NLN & S clubs. That was no step could control the other one.


Whichever way you try to fix the problem, its not easy. Obviously for NLN & NLS south clubs 1 voter per club is preferential, but it skews voting in favour of step 2 unlike now when it is skewed totally in favour of step 1

shildonlad
Posts: 584
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by shildonlad » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:51 pm

spen666 wrote:
Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:37 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:15 pm
Standout points for me...

...
4. Remove clubs from the boards of the league competitions
5. Recommendation for NL Prem to be absorbed into EFL
...
If this is adopted, then as soon as the directors of a league make decisions clubs don't like the argument will be used that the directors not being involved with clubs are too remote from what benefits the clubs and therefore need to be replaced.

The FA have had similar arguments for years that county FA members shouldn't be involved with professional game and England team.

Whatever the decision is regarding identity / status of directors, it will only last until the directors make a decision that some clubs do not like, then if status quo exists, the argument of bias exist, if its non connected directors, then the argument will be they are out of touch

On a related note, are the existing board members paid for their work as board members, because I am sure independent board members will require payment to take on the responsibilities.

I wonder if this issue is perhaps only the symptom of the bigger issue of the voting rights ( and composition) of the league / board. If all 3 leagues had equal voting rights (or at least NLN & NLS combined have equal rights to the NL) and membership of board was limited to say 2 years at a time, then a rolling change of directors would limit chances of clubs being able to use board to their advantage, and equal voting rights for all 3 leagues would mean we don't have last season's farce of NL controlling agenda to exclusion and serious detriment of the NLN and NLS clubs.

Whatever solution is chosen it is still problematic and there is no cure. Its choosing crap system A or Crap system B.


*********************************************************************************
The idea of putting NL into EFL sounds good and will be attractive to NLN & NLS clubs, but the EFL will vote against it, because instead of TV and other money being split between 72 clubs it will need to be split between 96 ( or 95 at present) clubs, so each club will get less money and therefore the existing EFL clubs will vote against it.
As you say as if the efl are going to vote for a extra 24 clubs becomeing part of the efl diluting tv money and parachute payments further but they could always reach a compromise with the national league like 3 up 3 down, then we wont see so many relegated clubs in non league for multiple seasons and you would get yo yo teams, which we have never seen
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

eek
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by eek » Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:15 pm

I think the plan was /is to take division 2 and the national league and create from there two 24 place regional leagues with promotion to division one with demotion to the appropriate national league north or south.

So the first national league would be division 1 and beneath then division 2 north and division 2 south.

The argument is one of more local rivals and lower transport costs

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 5060
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:18 pm

If that’s the plan, or a plan, it could be viewed as almost a demotion for all the league two clubs. Having to mix it in a regional league with all the has-beens and wannabes who find themselves in the EFL without really earning it. :o

It’s not improving the League structure, it’s kind of weakening it by making less national clubs.
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

eek
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by eek » Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:39 am

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:18 pm
If that’s the plan, or a plan, it could be viewed as almost a demotion for all the league two clubs. Having to mix it in a regional league with all the has-beens and wannabes who find themselves in the EFL without really earning it. :o

It’s not improving the League structure, it’s kind of weakening it by making less national clubs.
https://www.thenonleaguefootballpaper.c ... ns-survey/ has the survey results 66% were in favour

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 5060
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:28 am

I’ve had a look through Tracy’s ideas. It makes a good read but it’s kind of like a wish list and I wonder how much of it will actually happen? I’m glad that the National League’s failures have been flagged up and I also see that Barwick has had a name check in various newspapers - it’s about time the mismanagement under his watch is flagged up to a wider audience.
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

onewayup
Posts: 2141
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by onewayup » Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:37 pm

Barwick and his cohorts have got to explain how they disproportionately devised the plan on which they distributed the £11 million lottery grant funding, which they now say was 10 million, Discrepancy again it was stated at the time of granting 11 million, somehow they now say it was actually 10 million, to me that's 1 million missing, they have got to clear this up before anyone can have any faith with the national league management/government personal who attended that crucial meeting where no minutes were supposedly taken , then miraculously some were found but they won't make them public even though they have been told by compliance officers,
The mind boggles at what is at the root of getting to the truth of what happened.

spen666
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by spen666 » Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:50 pm

onewayup wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:37 pm
Barwick and his cohorts have got to explain how they disproportionately devised the plan on which they distributed the £11 million lottery grant funding, which they now say was 10 million, Discrepancy again it was stated at the time of granting 11 million, somehow they now say it was actually 10 million, to me that's 1 million missing, they have got to clear this up before anyone can have any faith with the national league management/government personal who attended that crucial meeting where no minutes were supposedly taken , then miraculously some were found but they won't make them public even though they have been told by compliance officers,
The mind boggles at what is at the root of getting to the truth of what happened.


The minutes of meeting were prepared by the DCMS and are in their possession and they are refusing to disclose them.


The DCMS are nothing to do with Barwick & the National League.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 5060
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tracey Crouch says

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:41 pm

spen666 wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:50 pm
onewayup wrote:
Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:37 pm
Barwick and his cohorts have got to explain how they disproportionately devised the plan on which they distributed the £11 million lottery grant funding, which they now say was 10 million, Discrepancy again it was stated at the time of granting 11 million, somehow they now say it was actually 10 million, to me that's 1 million missing, they have got to clear this up before anyone can have any faith with the national league management/government personal who attended that crucial meeting where no minutes were supposedly taken , then miraculously some were found but they won't make them public even though they have been told by compliance officers,
The mind boggles at what is at the root of getting to the truth of what happened.


The minutes of meeting were prepared by the DCMS and are in their possession and they are refusing to disclose them.


The DCMS are nothing to do with Barwick & the National League.
I think that’s correct Spen, I fell into the same trap previously. Barwick and cronies do have stuff to hide but it has to be asked what are DCMS scared of? They’ve previously made out that they are blameless in this matter - if that’s the case then you would think they would like to prove it.
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

Post Reply