New stadium funding

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

shildonlad
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: New stadium funding

Post by shildonlad » Wed Apr 20, 2022 5:34 pm

quaker4life wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:40 pm
shildonlad wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 3:47 pm
A re-built darlington arena is surely far cheaper than a new ground on fields or waste ground. Pitch could remain and utilities will be in place. All would be needed is tin sheds behind each goal, main stand and flat area which could be built on in future, the spare land could be used for car parking. Arena aint a bad location, ive walked it from station in 30 mins, nice flat walk. If gateshead ever had money for a new ground they would also have issues with nimbys. The IS does not have that issue and it aint in a bad location, just too big
You do know we don't own the Arena? And any proposed modifications would have to go through DMP?

You need to start expanding your thinking beyond the Arena, it's in the past and needs to be left there.
Yeah course would need to be a tie up with mowden park or the council, if they took it on
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

jjljks
Posts: 2498
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by jjljks » Wed Apr 20, 2022 8:36 pm

:o
Last edited by jjljks on Thu Apr 21, 2022 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

H1987
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by H1987 » Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:46 pm

There’s no point in dwelling too much on the recent past now. There’s nothing to say we would’ve raised a large amount of money AND boosted the budget. Pockets are only so deep. There’s so many different things that could and maybe should have been done differently in hindsight. I suspect the boards decisions to pursue a new stadium and going through whatever financing they can in order to achieve this is simply realisation of some of those errors.

I think we need to be modest in our expectations however. You’re probably looking at something more like Scarborough’s new stadium (albeit a little bigger) rather than York’s.

Vokuhila
Posts: 797
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlo

Re: New stadium funding

Post by Vokuhila » Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:09 am

jjljks wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 8:36 pm
Boris, Priti & Rishi all happy to spend good money sending the cross-Channel illegals to Rwanda but rather than do that, what about a secure structure for holding them at Teesside airport that could be converted into a stadium once this latest wheeze stops the flow? HMG & Houchen can then invite us in & pick up votes.
This post is so wrong, it's made me put my leg down from my chair.

Maurice_Peddelty
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by Maurice_Peddelty » Thu Apr 21, 2022 8:11 am

H1987 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:46 pm
There’s no point in dwelling too much on the recent past now. There’s nothing to say we would’ve raised a large amount of money AND boosted the budget. Pockets are only so deep. There’s so many different things that could and maybe should have been done differently in hindsight. I suspect the boards decisions to pursue a new stadium and going through whatever financing they can in order to achieve this is simply realisation of some of those errors.

I think we need to be modest in our expectations however. You’re probably looking at something more like Scarborough’s new stadium (albeit a little bigger) rather than York’s.
I'm curious to know what "errors" you are referring to.
Last edited by Maurice_Peddelty on Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

lo36789
Posts: 9964
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by lo36789 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 8:29 am

H1987 wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:46 pm
I suspect the boards decisions to pursue a new stadium and going through whatever financing they can in order to achieve this is simply realisation of some of those errors.
Or it is just how these things are done.

Paying for large capital expenditure using finance and then repaying using the increased revenues is the most basic business loan which exists.

real_darlo_85
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:06 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Newton Aycliffe

Re: New stadium funding

Post by real_darlo_85 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:11 am

shildonlad wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 5:34 pm
quaker4life wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:40 pm
shildonlad wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 3:47 pm
A re-built darlington arena is surely far cheaper than a new ground on fields or waste ground. Pitch could remain and utilities will be in place. All would be needed is tin sheds behind each goal, main stand and flat area which could be built on in future, the spare land could be used for car parking. Arena aint a bad location, ive walked it from station in 30 mins, nice flat walk. If gateshead ever had money for a new ground they would also have issues with nimbys. The IS does not have that issue and it aint in a bad location, just too big
You do know we don't own the Arena? And any proposed modifications would have to go through DMP?

You need to start expanding your thinking beyond the Arena, it's in the past and needs to be left there.
Yeah course would need to be a tie up with mowden park or the council, if they took it on

On the subject of a new ground and Mowden Park Rugby Club, didn't they have planning permission agreed for a stadium site at West Park before they decided to relocate to the Arena? If so could it be that we take on this option, rather than trying to get new planning permission granted at a new site? Surely it is easier if things have been earmarked already.

Personally, I'd prefer to stay at Blackwell and buyout the ground there rather than relocate yet again. That is despite the large funds required to develop it longer term at least we have a base of sorts and it isn't too far along from the town centre and Feethams.
"The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!"

Old Git
Posts: 1692
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by Old Git » Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:25 am

real_darlo_85 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:11 am
shildonlad wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 5:34 pm
quaker4life wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:40 pm
shildonlad wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 3:47 pm
A re-built darlington arena is surely far cheaper than a new ground on fields or waste ground. Pitch could remain and utilities will be in place. All would be needed is tin sheds behind each goal, main stand and flat area which could be built on in future, the spare land could be used for car parking. Arena aint a bad location, ive walked it from station in 30 mins, nice flat walk. If gateshead ever had money for a new ground they would also have issues with nimbys. The IS does not have that issue and it aint in a bad location, just too big
You do know we don't own the Arena? And any proposed modifications would have to go through DMP?

You need to start expanding your thinking beyond the Arena, it's in the past and needs to be left there.
Yeah course would need to be a tie up with mowden park or the council, if they took it on

On the subject of a new ground and Mowden Park Rugby Club, didn't they have planning permission agreed for a stadium site at West Park before they decided to relocate to the Arena? If so could it be that we take on this option, rather than trying to get new planning permission granted at a new site? Surely it is easier if things have been earmarked already.

Personally, I'd prefer to stay at Blackwell and buyout the ground there rather than relocate yet again. That is despite the large funds required to develop it longer term at least we have a base of sorts and it isn't too far along from the town centre and Feethams.
I doubt if either of your suggestions about a new ground location are feasible. I would imagine that any land that was earmarked for a rugby stadium at West Park has now been used for house building and may no longer be available. After all it was about 10 years ago.
As for Blackwell, it is a better location, but DRFC certainly don’t want us to develop the current stadium any further, even if that was possible. We could only buy them out if they are willing to sell, and I can’t see why they would want to do that.
Skerningham is where I believe we are heading.

lo36789
Posts: 9964
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by lo36789 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:10 pm

real_darlo_85 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:11 am
Personally, I'd prefer to stay at Blackwell and buyout the ground there rather than relocate yet again.
Not really an option is it. We don't own any stake in the lease so we can't 'buy it out'.

H1987
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by H1987 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 2:06 pm

I think most would regard the move to Blackwell, in hindsight, as a mistake. It's cost a lot of money, it's not even been a great temporary solution. In hindsight, we would've probably pulled the plug on the move when we discovered the issue with the pipe. We certainly shouldn't have built the existing stands so small so that it made expansion in the event of promotion even more difficult once we had that information. We would've had to spend some money at Bishop to stay in the division but it would've been far less, and we probably would've continued to fundraise towards our own site in Darlington. As it turned out, moving back didn't even really stimulate our attendances as we hoped it would. It's all hindsight so it's fairly pointless moaning too much about it. It hasn't worked out and that's why we will end up moving while still being liable for some kind of lease at Blackwell too. Just as we ended up leaving some expensive seating at Bishop, that also turned out to be a pretty silly and expensive mistake. There's no harm in acknowledging the mistake, it was made by different people in different circumstances and we just need to learn from it.

The rugby club have no desire or need to sell Blackwell, so buying it is a non-starter. I'm sure an alternative pitch at that site has at least been discussed as one option and I agree it's the best location, but i'm sure the decision hinges on funding and that could be tied to a potential site.

Maybe Amazon fancy building us the Amazon Arena. A nice little stadium would be pocket change to them :mrgreen:

lo36789
Posts: 9964
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by lo36789 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:36 pm

H1987 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 2:06 pm
I think most would regard the move to Blackwell, in hindsight, as a mistake. It's cost a lot of money, it's not even been a great temporary solution. In hindsight, we would've probably pulled the plug on the move when we discovered the issue with the pipe. We certainly shouldn't have built the existing stands so small so that it made expansion in the event of promotion even more difficult once we had that information. We would've had to spend some money at Bishop to stay in the division but it would've been far less, and we probably would've continued to fundraise towards our own site in Darlington. As it turned out, moving back didn't even really stimulate our attendances as we hoped it would. It's all hindsight so it's fairly pointless moaning too much about it. It hasn't worked out and that's why we will end up moving while still being liable for some kind of lease at Blackwell too. Just as we ended up leaving some expensive seating at Bishop, that also turned out to be a pretty silly and expensive mistake. There's no harm in acknowledging the mistake, it was made by different people in different circumstances and we just need to learn from it
I honestly, with the greatest respect, think this is absolute nonsense.

We had to get back to Darlington, we needed a ground which wouldnt have got us relegated. The most reasonable steps at the time were taken. The seats for the playoffs was an oversight and a mistake for sure - but in reality that was just a chance to play in the playoffs it wasn't like it definitively cost us promotion.

I think you are absolutely deluded if you think that people would have stumped up money to build stands at Bishop whilst simultaneously finding 10x the amount again to pay for a new ground, without a defined/tangible goal.

The only reason there is now discussion over an alternative is because of the opportunity within a new town plan...these are legal documents which, I think, are set every 5 years?

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 5428
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:02 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:36 pm
H1987 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 2:06 pm
I think most would regard the move to Blackwell, in hindsight, as a mistake. It's cost a lot of money, it's not even been a great temporary solution. In hindsight, we would've probably pulled the plug on the move when we discovered the issue with the pipe. We certainly shouldn't have built the existing stands so small so that it made expansion in the event of promotion even more difficult once we had that information. We would've had to spend some money at Bishop to stay in the division but it would've been far less, and we probably would've continued to fundraise towards our own site in Darlington. As it turned out, moving back didn't even really stimulate our attendances as we hoped it would. It's all hindsight so it's fairly pointless moaning too much about it. It hasn't worked out and that's why we will end up moving while still being liable for some kind of lease at Blackwell too. Just as we ended up leaving some expensive seating at Bishop, that also turned out to be a pretty silly and expensive mistake. There's no harm in acknowledging the mistake, it was made by different people in different circumstances and we just need to learn from it
I honestly, with the greatest respect, think this is absolute nonsense.

We had to get back to Darlington - we needed a ground which wouldnt have got us relegated. We took the reasonable steps.

I think you are absolutely deluded if you think that people would have stumped up money to build stands at Bishop whilst simultaneously finding 10x the amount again to pay for a new ground, which wouldn't have even had a location.

The only reason there is now discussion over an alternative is because of the opportunity within a new town plan...these are legal documents which I think are set every 5 years?
I pretty much agree with lo here. We HAD to get back to Darlington. Bishop was a temporary solution and barely okay whilst we were ploughing through non league oblivion and winning most weeks. National League North wouldn't have worked there, even if the stadium could have been upped to that standard, which is debatable.

Blackwell Meadows hasn't been a great success but it was the only option available at that time - and if you've only got one option, well, there isn't any choice is there.....

The only "mistake" I can see that has happened re B.M. revolves around "Seatgate". Gray did well that season pushing us into 5th place and we've seen lately just how hard this is to do, but was it in reality a mistake? Or was it just a bad situation caused by events and lack of money.
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
The Blackwell Meadows clock is wrong all day every day.

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5894
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:19 pm

I think some mistakes were made but at the time we had no other option than BM.

As mentioned not enough seats was a massive error and when we eventually got enough seats the roof doesn't fit over them 100%. After the first half year we had to fix the pitch drainage as well, could it have been done in advance of moving in - possibly/possibly not.

Also should we have put in a sprinkler system when doing the pitch, one of the biggest issues is how dry and slow it is, however easy to say this in hindsight without the worry of raising so much money which seemed difficult at the time anyhow.

I can accept the mistakes but as in any business, you can't learn unless you accept the mistakes. I think DJ stance on not spending any more money on BM has probably been the right choice, however frustrating for many and me personally that we don't look to be improving the ground (it would be wasted cash).

Darlobill
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:00 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by Darlobill » Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:46 pm

I’m sure I heard the pipes are in for sprinklers but the pumps etc to make it work was to expensive at the time. Also the club wanted a larger stepped tin shed and more seats but had to work within the budget and grants they could receive at the time. At the end of the day how many 2k matches since being at BM.

H1987
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by H1987 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:10 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:36 pm
H1987 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 2:06 pm
I think most would regard the move to Blackwell, in hindsight, as a mistake. It's cost a lot of money, it's not even been a great temporary solution. In hindsight, we would've probably pulled the plug on the move when we discovered the issue with the pipe. We certainly shouldn't have built the existing stands so small so that it made expansion in the event of promotion even more difficult once we had that information. We would've had to spend some money at Bishop to stay in the division but it would've been far less, and we probably would've continued to fundraise towards our own site in Darlington. As it turned out, moving back didn't even really stimulate our attendances as we hoped it would. It's all hindsight so it's fairly pointless moaning too much about it. It hasn't worked out and that's why we will end up moving while still being liable for some kind of lease at Blackwell too. Just as we ended up leaving some expensive seating at Bishop, that also turned out to be a pretty silly and expensive mistake. There's no harm in acknowledging the mistake, it was made by different people in different circumstances and we just need to learn from it
I honestly, with the greatest respect, think this is absolute nonsense.

We had to get back to Darlington, we needed a ground which wouldnt have got us relegated. The most reasonable steps at the time were taken. The seats for the playoffs was an oversight and a mistake for sure - but in reality that was just a chance to play in the playoffs it wasn't like it definitively cost us promotion.

I think you are absolutely deluded if you think that people would have stumped up money to build stands at Bishop whilst simultaneously finding 10x the amount again to pay for a new ground, without a defined/tangible goal.

The only reason there is now discussion over an alternative is because of the opportunity within a new town plan...these are legal documents which, I think, are set every 5 years?
I'm aware of and noted the relegation situation, but still maintain you have to accept Blackwell as a mistake if we are leaving this soon into a much longer lease. If people were aware that we would have to leave so soon, or of that issue with the pipe, I have a hard time believing they would've been enthused by it. The alternative might've been a stint back at the Arena mind. I'm not rewriting history and I hoped we would make it work, but for a number of reasons it's ended up a tremendous waste of money.

lo36789
Posts: 9964
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by lo36789 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:25 pm

H1987 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:10 pm
I'm aware of and noted the relegation situation, but still maintain you have to accept Blackwell as a mistake if we are leaving this soon into a much longer lease.
Depends the clawback period on Football Foundation grants is 21 years. I know from a copy of one I've seen in terms that release of funds that they requires a lease / legal agreement which covers that period of time.

What you are actually proposing is that by sticking at Bishop the fans would have had to pay for it all. We benefited from RFU money if I am not mistaken for part of the facilities upgrade also which wouldn't have been available.

So your solution would have been to still spend a fortune to avoid relegation, but knowing that it would never be a long term solution and you think that fans would have stumped up all of the money for that...whilst simultaneously contributing to a "build our own ground in the future" fund.

You actually are by suggesting in hindsight there were other options. Blackwell Meadows was the best solution at the time. Mowden flatly said no, remaining at Bishop would have meant relegation.

That it is no longer the best solution isn't a mistake it is just how time works, things change. I think an oversight was made with seat gate, that is a mistake, but the rest is nonsense.
Last edited by lo36789 on Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

H1987
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by H1987 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:30 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:25 pm
H1987 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:10 pm
I'm aware of and noted the relegation situation, but still maintain you have to accept Blackwell as a mistake if we are leaving this soon into a much longer lease.
Depends the clawback period on Football Foundation grants is 21 years. I know from a copy of one I've seen in terms that release of funds that they requires a lease / legal agreement which covers that period of time.

What you are actually proposing is that by sticking at Bishop the fans would have had to pay for it all. We benefited from RFU money if I am not mistaken for part of the facilities upgrade also which wouldnt have been available.

So your solution would have been to still spend a fortune to avoid relegation, but knowing that it would never be a long term solution and you think that fans would have stumped up all of the money for that...whilst simultaneously contributing to a "build our own ground in the future" fund.
I'm not proposing it, simply if we reflect upon it, it probably would've worked out cheaper in the long run. I'd assume we could still have applied for some kind of ground development grant there(probably along with Bishop) although that potentially would've affected grants for building our own ground. I assume we still have that issue now with Blackwell and the proposed new site, wherever it will be, hence the need for funding from elsewhere.

lo36789
Posts: 9964
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by lo36789 » Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:33 pm

No we couldn't not without a license which covered the same period of time ie. signing up legally to at least 21 years of being at Bishop.

Bishop had already maximised their available grant money building Heritage Park.

The reality is the club did what was the best, and most logical decision at the time. It hasn't been perfect, but there was no perfect solution.

We are not leaving tomorrow by the way...assuming that is the announcement it could plausibly be 2-5 years before there is actually a ground that we can move into.

Scarborough's stadium broke ground in 2015 and opened in 2017. Heritage Park took over 2 years from planning permission being granted to being opened.

The HM Treasury decision and the Darlington Economic Campus are clearly a bit of a turning point. To suggest decisions made without knowing that they would occur were mistakes and in hindsight we could have just waited for them to happen, things which might never have happened, is nonsense.

In fact, the decision not to throw money at BM, and go spend the bare minimum for the level we are at. When many said we should have gone bigger with the tin shed / stands when that would have been completely wasted if we move.

H1987
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by H1987 » Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:10 am

lo36789 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 5:33 pm
No we couldn't not without a license which covered the same period of time ie. signing up legally to at least 21 years of being at Bishop.

Bishop had already maximised their available grant money building Heritage Park.

The reality is the club did what was the best, and most logical decision at the time. It hasn't been perfect, but there was no perfect solution.

We are not leaving tomorrow by the way...assuming that is the announcement it could plausibly be 2-5 years before there is actually a ground that we can move into.

Scarborough's stadium broke ground in 2015 and opened in 2017. Heritage Park took over 2 years from planning permission being granted to being opened.

The HM Treasury decision and the Darlington Economic Campus are clearly a bit of a turning point. To suggest decisions made without knowing that they would occur were mistakes and in hindsight we could have just waited for them to happen, things which might never have happened, is nonsense.

In fact, the decision not to throw money at BM, and go spend the bare minimum for the level we are at. When many said we should have gone bigger with the tin shed / stands when that would have been completely wasted if we move.
Agreed, five years seems a more realistic timeframe really. If it's sooner than that, I'd be amazed. It does raise some questions over what happens if we manage to get promoted in the interim, but that'd be a problem i'd be delighted for us to have to deal with!

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:41 pm

H1987 wrote:
Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:10 am
Agreed, five years seems a more realistic timeframe really. If it's sooner than that, I'd be amazed. It does raise some questions over what happens if we manage to get promoted in the interim, but that'd be a problem i'd be delighted for us to have to deal with!
Agree on 5 years, it's not going to be an overnight job.

Regarding if we get promoted before then, any solution is a bad solution.

Solution 1 - Stay at BM and spend money we can't really afford to spend upgrading the ground to Cat A (as we'll also be needing to put money towards the new ground no doubt). This will be made worse by having to leave loads of assets behind (money spent on interior/exterior fencing and stands, turnstiles etc), and still having to pay rent on BM for the 20 year term. Maybe we could take the stands to a new ground, and cannibalise as much of the rest which we can, but that would depend on whether it is economical.

Solution 2 - Dial A. I think if we were in the process of building a new ground then we would be able to get permission to play at The Arena temporarily, if Mowden will have us. Still a bad solution though as we'd be paying 2 lots of rent during any tenure there, as well as trying to finance a move. On top of that, the rumours of The Arena losing it's safety certificate next year aren't good. Who knows what cost the required work would be to get it passed, but no doubt that cost would fall on us. Add to that, that everyone hates the Arena apart from me, moving there temporarily is a tough sell.

Solution 3 - Take promotion to the National League, show the plans required to get the ground up to Cat A by the end of March of that season, which I think is a condition of promotion - and then not do the work. This would cause us to be relegated back down to the National North for the following season, but hey, we might get relegated anyway. Obviously I imagine it could land us in a lot of bother if it was suspected that we didn't do the work on purpose and got promoted under false pretences, so this one isn't really a solution at all

Solution 4 - Refuse promotion based on not being able to fulfill ground grading requirements. This would obviously be devastating for everyone at the club, as well as all the fans.

There is also a chance that if we ever do reach the play offs in the next 5 years, that we do a Brackley and fluff it every time. Obviously this can't be a deliberate ploy, we might just get unlucky like Brackley...

Regarding the stadium costing £5m...now I'm no quantity surveyor or structural engineer, but I'd be truly surprised if we could get a 5k ground built for that cost. It's been a while since FCUM built their ground, and things have gone up a lot since then. Did they also have 4g pitches as part of their build, or not, I don't know.

Think we may need to be prepared to be told that the cost will be a lot more than £5m...
#Arenaherewecome

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:51 pm

As an aside, I've just thought - say we did somehow get promoted next season, which is the earliest chance - that's at least 1 year and 4 months before we'd be kicking off in the National league, so perhaps by that time we might have firm plans in place for the new ground or may even be at the stage of tendering for developers?

So if at that point we can say with some degree of certainty that within the following 2 seasons we'll have moved to our new ground, you never know, we might be able to get permission to play in the National League with a cat B ground for a couple of years on that proviso?

Worst case scenario we get relegated after 1 season or are refused promotion. But at least that would be on the FA/League, rather than it being our deliberate choice.
#Arenaherewecome

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 5428
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:28 pm

Like others, I don’t like the Arena, but if for some reason it was used as some kind of stepping stone, as in the move back was only temporary, then the idea would become more palatable.
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
The Blackwell Meadows clock is wrong all day every day.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6499
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by loan_star » Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:53 am

Or we groundshare with a local team who’s adequately sized ground meets national league requirements? Just have to hope the fences have been fixed….

Beano
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:33 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by Beano » Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:57 am

loan_star wrote:
Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:53 am
Or we groundshare with a local team who’s adequately sized ground meets national league requirements? Just have to hope the fences have been fixed….
This would likely also be more financially viable than the Arena.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 5428
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Sat Apr 23, 2022 11:07 am

Beano wrote:
Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:57 am
loan_star wrote:
Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:53 am
Or we groundshare with a local team who’s adequately sized ground meets national league requirements? Just have to hope the fences have been fixed….
This would likely also be more financially viable than the Arena.
But it would be absolutely bloody awful :thumbdown:
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
The Blackwell Meadows clock is wrong all day every day.

Darlobill
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:00 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by Darlobill » Sat Apr 23, 2022 3:10 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:10 pm
real_darlo_85 wrote:
Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:11 am
Personally, I'd prefer to stay at Blackwell and buyout the ground there rather than relocate yet again.
Not really an option is it. We don't own any stake in the lease so we can't 'buy it out'.
I’m sure I heard the RG lease with the council expires at the same time as the pitches behind the tinshed and the car park as does our licence with the RG so with all expiring T the same time perhaps there is something at BM could be done

EDJOHNS
Posts: 1207
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by EDJOHNS » Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:57 pm

loan_star wrote:
Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:53 am
Or we groundshare with a local team who’s adequately sized ground meets national league requirements? Just have to hope the fences have been fixed….
Sure I read somewhere that you can not move ground just to gain a promotion.
Was I dreaming?

Vodka_Vic
Posts: 2317
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by Vodka_Vic » Sat Apr 23, 2022 6:06 pm

Just checked the NL ground grading document and it said ground grading is permitted but 'Security of tenure must be 10 years'.

shildonlad
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: New stadium funding

Post by shildonlad » Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:11 pm

loan_star wrote:
Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:53 am
Or we groundshare with a local team who’s adequately sized ground meets national league requirements? Just have to hope the fences have been fixed….
Does the brewery field meet national league requirements?
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

H1987
Posts: 1936
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: New stadium funding

Post by H1987 » Mon Apr 25, 2022 11:59 am

shildonlad wrote:
Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:11 pm
loan_star wrote:
Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:53 am
Or we groundshare with a local team who’s adequately sized ground meets national league requirements? Just have to hope the fences have been fixed….
Does the brewery field meet national league requirements?
Not as it is. The capacity is too low. Your local options (of existing football grounds that would pass the grading) would be Pools (not gonna happen) or Gateshead) You'd have to imagine in such a scenario we would end up temporarily at the arena.

Post Reply