Bill Dixon, S&S et al

PierremontQuaker03 · Post by **PierremontQuaker03** » Tue May 08, 2012 12:12 pm

Good luck

mispentyouth · Post by **mispentyouth** » Tue May 08, 2012 12:20 pm

Good to see once an asshole always an asshole PQ.

PierremontQuaker03 · Post by **PierremontQuaker03** » Tue May 08, 2012 12:28 pm

mispentyouth wrote:Good to see once an asshole always an asshole PQ.

Are you a supporter of S&S?

Quote from the Northern Echo:
"In December 2007, Scott and Sizer were part of the Southern Cross management team that shared personal windfalls of £36.6m from the sale of shares priced at 550p a share.

Scott, a qualified nurse, is reported to have enjoyed a personal windfall of £11.1m from the share sales, while Sizer claimed £7.9m. A matter of weeks later, they both left the firm.

Seven months after the dividend, in July 2008, Darlington-based Southern Cross failed to meet a £46m loan repayment deadline, and the company's shares tumbled 58 per cent to 130p a share.

Last summer, Southern Cross collapsed entirely as it was unable to meet a £250m annual rent bill at the same time as fees from local councils were falling. The company broke itself up and handed back its 750 homes to landlords."

These guys make Gordon Gekko look tame. So if you expect me to feel sorry for them your having a tin bath.

mispentyouth · Post by **mispentyouth** » Tue May 08, 2012 12:34 pm

I work for them. They left Southern Cross in 2007 when it was worth a £1bn. Hardly their fault that 4 years later their successors had screwed up the business. you just choose to believe everything you read in your copy of Nuts

In addition, they bailed the club out with £25k to avoid the first liquidation. They have bought DFC1883 shares and will roll that investment over once repaid via crowdcube. They have at all times tried to assist when possible.

I dont expect you to feel sorry for them at all. I just expect you to stop being a dick and move on from your little negative campaign about them

PierremontQuaker03 · Post by **PierremontQuaker03** » Tue May 08, 2012 12:53 pm

I would expect you to protect them as you work for them.
I would hope that they will dip their hand in their pocket for 1883.

Charlie_Darlo · Post by **Charlie_Darlo** » Tue May 08, 2012 8:57 pm

Scott and Sizer were never the bad guys. They put up the cash at the 11th hour when Harvey Madden was about to wind the club up. They also invested in 1883 and still pledge their cash. Do they deserve this s***???

Quakerz · Post by **Quakerz** » Tue May 08, 2012 8:59 pm

No, they don't.

If I was a business man and I had a chance to cash in on my shares if they were at a stupidly high price, I would too. £11.1m though, nice, very nice!

Charlie_Darlo · Post by **Charlie_Darlo** » Tue May 08, 2012 9:02 pm

They owe 1883 nothing, nothing at all yet, have offered something.

Post by **uncovered** » Tue May 08, 2012 9:22 pm

Agree, Scott and sizer don't deserve any criticism in this. They have found themselves in a position they have never wanted to be in. They helped to keep the club afloat by investing. Can't really understand why pq3 has started on them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Christophano · Post by **Christophano** » Tue May 08, 2012 9:29 pm

I was a bit wary when S&S first became involved but, in all honesty, I can't really fault anything they've done.

One of them looks uncannily like Emperor Palpatine though...

m62exile · Post by **m62exile** » Tue May 08, 2012 9:29 pm

There's one or two have for the hump from the Inside Out programme and other reporting of the Southern Cross deal years ago. Have read a few different accounts of that period as well with differing views.

Have to say from a DFC point of view they seem to have been more than fair, and let's face it we'd have gone on Jan 18th without their £25k. I've met PS a couple of times briefly and found him quite affable actually.

Whatever opinions exist, I'd rather have them onside rather than antagonised - I do remember mispentyouth posting a few months ago that they wouldn't rule out further sponsorship at some future stage. Wouldn't that be nice...

PierremontQuaker03 · Post by **PierremontQuaker03** » Tue May 08, 2012 9:42 pm

My reason for putting the picture on and the name on the thread was to say to Bill Dixon, S&S et al - that the stadium is not Darlington FC's problem anymore.
It was in light of Bill Dixon's comments in the Echo today where Bill seems more concerned with saving the stadium than Darlington FC - which ringed me off.
I have my opinion on S&S and I am entitled to it - mispentyouth works for them so will be completely biased.
I hope S&S put money in going forward, they have plenty of it........and I will gladly keep my trap shut and keep my opinions to myself if they do this - Fee negotiable

TinShedDarloFan · Post by **TinShedDarloFan** » Wed May 09, 2012 8:42 am

Cant knock S&S, all these guys want is there money back that they loaned Houghton afew years ago, theyve been nothing but helpful to Darlington Football Club, like us fans, just another 2 people been screwed over by bad chairman

Spyman · Post by **Spyman** » Wed May 09, 2012 8:45 am

PierremontQuaker03 wrote: I have my opinion on S&S and I am entitled to it - mispentyouth works for them so will be completely biased.

and he/she is entitled to be so.

Lawman3 · Post by **Lawman3** » Wed May 09, 2012 10:33 am

I'm not going to join the S and S love-in. I recall Mr Scott showing his true feelings towards the club and land in his e-mail to Raj last year:

"Marketing of the stadium will commence asap and I suspect the outcome will be that we will become your new landlords. That is a possibility we are very excited about as we have real plans for the site in the long-term once Raj has tired of pumping his own capital into a club that has no material prospects."

PierremontQuaker03 · Post by **PierremontQuaker03** » Wed May 09, 2012 10:47 am

Lawman3 wrote:I'm not going to join the S and S love-in. I recall Mr Scott showing his true feelings towards the club and land in his e-mail to Raj last year:

"Marketing of the stadium will commence asap and I suspect the outcome will be that we will become your new landlords. That is a possibility we are very excited about as we have real plans for the site in the long-term once Raj has tired of pumping his own capital into a club that has no material prospects."

Completely agree - S&S have an agenda here but everyone seems to be blinded by the fact they have "donated" to our cause.
These are very astitue business people and will have an end game for the Stadium.
At the end of the day Raj offered to buy the stadium from them, at a reduced price of course, but they rejected. Raj gave them a chance to "get out".
But no, they rejected this offer, from this Raj put us in adminsitration, and now they are left with an empty stadium.
S&S have plans....and before you say it.....they might have GOOD plans going forward.

If I had a loan of 2 million quid and have the chance to get 500k (i'm using assumptions here) in straight away or be left with an asset that was on the face of it a white elephant then any sensible person would take the money.

I would like Mispentyouth to explain to me why they decided to keep the stadium rather that sell to Raj.

divas · Post by **divas** » Wed May 09, 2012 10:52 am

Lawman3 wrote:I'm not going to join the S and S love-in. I recall Mr Scott showing his true feelings towards the club and land in his e-mail to Raj last year:

"Marketing of the stadium will commence asap and I suspect the outcome will be that we will become your new landlords. That is a possibility we are very excited about as we have real plans for the site in the long-term once Raj has tired of pumping his own capital into a club that has no material prospects."

They weren't wrong though were they....

MB86DFC · Post by **MB86DFC** » Wed May 09, 2012 11:04 am

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:
Lawman3 wrote:I'm not going to join the S and S love-in. I recall Mr Scott showing his true feelings towards the club and land in his e-mail to Raj last year:

"Marketing of the stadium will commence asap and I suspect the outcome will be that we will become your new landlords. That is a possibility we are very excited about as we have real plans for the site in the long-term once Raj has tired of pumping his own capital into a club that has no material prospects."
Completely agree - S&S have an agenda here but everyone seems to be blinded by the fact they have "donated" to our cause.
These are very astitue business people and will have an end game for the Stadium.
At the end of the day Raj offered to buy the stadium from them, at a reduced price of course, but they rejected. Raj gave them a chance to "get out".
But no, they rejected this offer, from this Raj put us in adminsitration, and now they are left with an empty stadium.
S&S have plans....and before you say it.....they might have GOOD plans going forward.

If I had a loan of 2 million quid and have the chance to get 500k (i'm using assumptions here) in straight away or be left with an asset that was on the face of it a white elephant then any sensible person would take the money.

I would like Mispentyouth to explain to me why they decided to keep the stadium rather that sell to Raj.

Would you? In that case can you lend me a grand, I'll offer you 250 quid back in a couple of years if that'll keep you happy.

Post by **loan_star** » Wed May 09, 2012 11:09 am

We have seen with Singhs attitude to the CVA negotiations that he isnt really top of the list of people easy to negotiate with. I have no personal opinion on S&S but I would reckon that they probably found Singh just as hard to negotiate with as 1883 did.

PierremontQuaker03 · Post by **PierremontQuaker03** » Wed May 09, 2012 11:11 am

[/quote]Would you? In that case can you lend me a grand, I'll offer you 250 quid back in a couple of years if that'll keep you happy.[/quote]

What do you need if for - for a deposit for a new House at Feethams? I'd rather invest in the Greek economy.

Andrew Wilkinson · Post by **Andrew Wilkinson** » Wed May 09, 2012 11:13 am

Not taking sides, but doesn't this debate demonstate why there have been problems ever since the stadium was built. It's about money, loans, land, and nothing about football.

Spyman · Post by **Spyman** » Wed May 09, 2012 11:18 am

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:
I would like Mispentyouth to explain to me why they decided to keep the stadium rather that sell to Raj.

Probably because he offered them just 25% of what he owed them.

I have no real opinion either way, but as far as I can see all they've done is protect their interests, have behaved in a fair manner towards DFC and maybe a bit beyond, although it could be argued that if they'd let the club die in January they'd have damaged their own chances making their money back in the future.

divas · Post by **divas** » Wed May 09, 2012 11:36 am

loan_star wrote:We have seen with Singhs attitude to the CVA negotiations that he isnt really top of the list of people easy to negotiate with. I have no personal opinion on S&S but I would reckon that they probably found Singh just as hard to negotiate with as 1883 did.

It's very difficult when you never actually try and negotiate......

mispentyouth · Post by **mispentyouth** » Wed May 09, 2012 11:39 am

In response to your question PQ3, 2 reasons. First being they were not and arent waiting on the money so 25p in the pound wasnt attractive in any way, shape or form. Secondly when Singh entered into the lease for Darlington 2009 he asked for S and S consent as the preference creditors of the property holding company. He knew of the S and S loans and agreed to repay them in full.

To then find months later he offered 25% of those loans ensured that S and S would never ever sell to him particularly as he went on the offensive in the fanzine and local press.

Singh screwed up. He was very naive in lending funds to the property company without taking security, then putting more funds into the football club on the assumption he could railroad S and S into selling the land and stadium to him for a very low price. He compounded those poor business decisions by also trying to release covenants on land he didnt own. A business genius..NOT

As for Lawman's point, Scott lost his temper with Singh after he received the poor offer.

In closing PQ3, Scott has asked me to ask you to get a valuation on your house and he will come over at the weekend and buy it for 25% of that valuation. Given your suggestion that Singh's offer was reasonable I am sure you will apply the same wonderful logic to the sale of your house.

AnthonyP · Post by **AnthonyP** » Wed May 09, 2012 11:44 am

mispentyouth wrote:In closing PQ3, Scott has asked me to ask you to get a valuation on your house and he will come over at the weekend and buy it for 25% of that valuation. Given your suggestion that Singh's offer was reasonable I am sure you will apply the same wonderful logic to the sale of your house.

PierremontQuaker03 · Post by **PierremontQuaker03** » Wed May 09, 2012 11:51 am

mispentyouth wrote:In response to your question PQ3, 2 reasons. First being they were not and arent waiting on the money so 25p in the pound wasnt attractive in any way, shape or form. Secondly when Singh entered into the lease for Darlington 2009 he asked for S and S consent as the preference creditors of the property holding company. He knew of the S and S loans and agreed to repay them in full.

To then find months later he offered 25% of those loans ensured that S and S would never ever sell to him particularly as he went on the offensive in the fanzine and local press.

Singh screwed up. He was very naive in lending funds to the property company without taking security, then putting more funds into the football club on the assumption he could railroad S and S into selling the land and stadium to him for a very low price. He compounded those poor business decisions by also trying to release covenants on land he didnt own. A business genius..NOT

As for Lawman's point, Scott lost his temper with Singh after he received the poor offer.

In closing PQ3, Scott has asked me to ask you to get a valuation on your house and he will come over at the weekend and buy it for 25% of that valuation. Given your suggestion that Singh's offer was reasonable I am sure you will apply the same wonderful logic to the sale of your house.

So let me get this straight - Singh was trying to release covenants on the land - so the land would be worth more justifying Singh to pay S&S fully what was owed.

Robbie Painter · Post by **Robbie Painter** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:02 pm

AnthonyP wrote:
mispentyouth wrote:In closing PQ3, Scott has asked me to ask you to get a valuation on your house and he will come over at the weekend and buy it for 25% of that valuation. Given your suggestion that Singh's offer was reasonable I am sure you will apply the same wonderful logic to the sale of your house.

The thing is that there is a (relatively) transparent market for residential property. The market for football stadiums is rather more opaque, especially ones with a tenant that can't afford the rent & running costs.

We'll find out in the coming months/years exactly what value the Arena actually has.

mispentyouth · Post by **mispentyouth** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:08 pm

That may have been his motivation PQ3 but when the lease was granted to him, no conditions were attached. He agreed to repay the loans period, not if he ever got covenants lifted. S and S stopped dealing with Singh because he simply became abusive. He attempted to bully them, the Council and anyone else in an effort to get his way. Quite rightly the Council wouldnt talk to him about the land as he didnt own it so regardless of his motives, he was wrong.

He never asked S and S to join the discussions he had with the Council. Instead he took to the airwaves and press with a negative campaign saying S and S were laughing at him. That was so not true then, albeit I can confirm they are laughing their arses off now at the hole he has so comprehensively dug for himself.

Spyman · Post by **Spyman** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:26 pm

mispentyouth wrote:That may have been his motivation PQ3 but when the lease was granted to him, no conditions were attached. He agreed to repay the loans period, not if he ever got covenants lifted. S and S stopped dealing with Singh because he simply became abusive. He attempted to bully them, the Council and anyone else in an effort to get his way. Quite rightly the Council wouldnt talk to him about the land as he didnt own it so regardless of his motives, he was wrong.

He never asked S and S to join the discussions he had with the Council. Instead he took to the airwaves and press with a negative campaign saying S and S were laughing at him. That was so not true then, albeit I can confirm they are laughing their arses off now at the hole he has so comprehensively dug for himself.

I don't understand why PQ3 doubts or questions any of that - it all sounds perfectly believable from what we've seen over the last few months.

Singh has shown himself up to be (allegedly, blah blah blah) naive, untrustworthy, a bully and all the rest. Whether S&S are nice people or not, I don't really care. They ended up with the land and stadium as a result of a legal agreement. What they want for it, and what they do with it, is their business.

The football club may have lost out long term, but I don't see that as S&S fault.

theoriginalfatcat · Post by **theoriginalfatcat** » Wed May 09, 2012 6:57 pm

Loanstar calls it right for me. Mr Singh can't seem to negotiate with anyone successfully.

Players/no
S and S/no
Council/no
Cooper,Dryden/no

Have I missed anyone out?

As for mispentyouth I find his input interesting, especially about the value of the stadium. It belongs to S and S, therefore they are perfectly entitled to sell it under the terms that they choose.

Darlo Uncovered