Darlo Uncovered

Spyman wrote:

charlie wrote:
I don't know why they appear to be in a hurry, and I don't think personally things have been done in a questionable manner just that it hasn't been explained yet

So you don't think it is questionable that the CIC are using funds received by the club, to buy shares in the club? As AKITJ said, why was this £20 per ticket given to the CIC, and not the Trust, supporters club, me?

I'm just struggling to fathom what the explanation is that you're so sure is forthcoming other than 'we didn't really think that through'. It doesn't mean they did anything intentionally wrong, but again, as has been said by several people several times before, nobody is expecting perfection and I think most would be more forgiving if people just held their hands up and admitted when mistakes were made (if they have been).

The reason I don't think it's questionable is because when I bought my season ticket I knew £20 was going to the CIC no secret was made of it even if it wasnt on the form

Markodarlo wrote:Sorry, He was obviously appointed from a skill set point of view, I'd imagine there would have been a lot of legal jargon to be dealt with, I believe that anyone coming forward offering a skill needed during the creation would have been snapped up with thanks.

I see. That just leaves me with the question why Andrew would wish to be on the CIC Board, what does he get out of this. Similar questions for MJ's involvement as well tbh since neither are Darlington fans. Cynical of me perhaps.

Anyway I know this isn't the official channel for discussion so will leave it there.

Ingleby wrote:

Markodarlo wrote:Sorry, He was obviously appointed from a skill set point of view, I'd imagine there would have been a lot of legal jargon to be dealt with, I believe that anyone coming forward offering a skill needed during the creation would have been snapped up with thanks.

I see. That just leaves me with the question why Andrew would wish to be on the CIC Board, what does he get out of this. Similar questions for MJ's involvement as well tbh since neither are Darlington fans. Cynical of me perhaps.

Anyway I know this isn't the official channel for discussion so will leave it there.

You're such a fucking cunt

If you think something is amiss, or want to peddle a conspiracy theory during your lunch break on her McDonalds drive-thru, just come out with it. Literally all of your post are snide, underhand insinuations followed by a half arsed disclaimer.

Bottle job wanker

How embarrassing I have my very own stalker.

Seriously I didn't even know there was a follow option. Tend to ignore but WOW

I've got your number for all to see, don't play the stalker card

You remind me of the village gossip, going round making veiled accusations about people but never having the bottle to fully put them out there.

Bell end.

Spyman wrote:So you don't think it is questionable that the CIC are using funds received by the club, to buy shares in the club? As AKITJ said, why was this £20 per ticket given to the CIC, and not the Trust, supporters club, me?

Because you didn't offer something as part of the season ticket.

If the club had felt it worthwhile and within their budget for the season tickets I am sure they could have approached the Supporters Club with something like the following

"we reckon this will boost ST purchases, what we want to do is offer a £20 discount on membership + travel to away games for next season, we will recompense you for that expense but we want to offer it as part of our ST offering"

The thing is the majority of ST ticket holders don't go to away games, the majority of ST holders don't use the Supporters Trust bus - however the majority of ST holders would conceivably want a membership share in the club. Therefore it is a good incentive.

The route they chose to go down meant they could be pretty confident that they wouldn't be out of pocket from it either, fact remains they are separate entities and separate transactions.

Prove otherwise.

charlie wrote:

Spyman wrote:

charlie wrote:
I don't know why they appear to be in a hurry, and I don't think personally things have been done in a questionable manner just that it hasn't been explained yet

So you don't think it is questionable that the CIC are using funds received by the club, to buy shares in the club? As AKITJ said, why was this £20 per ticket given to the CIC, and not the Trust, supporters club, me?

I'm just struggling to fathom what the explanation is that you're so sure is forthcoming other than 'we didn't really think that through'. It doesn't mean they did anything intentionally wrong, but again, as has been said by several people several times before, nobody is expecting perfection and I think most would be more forgiving if people just held their hands up and admitted when mistakes were made (if they have been).

The reason I don't think it's questionable is because when I bought my season ticket I knew £20 was going to the CIC no secret was made of it even if it wasnt on the form

Pretend you are RS, you own 52% of the club, and others own the rest. you decide that you want to own 75% of the club, and so you state a portion of ST sales will go to you as an individual so you can reinvest it in the club in exchange for more shares.

I wouldnt find that acceptable, and so Im unable to find what the club & CIC are doing acceptable either, just because the CIC is fan owned doesnt mean I should agree that its right.

I guess the thing is, that even if it is legal, I find it a questionable way of increasing our stake in the club.

Im not knocking the CIC (well I guess I am on this issue) as I know that what they are trying to achieve is whats best for Darlo, and ultimately I want them to get their 75% - I just wish it wasnt this way.

lo36789 wrote:

Spyman wrote:So you don't think it is questionable that the CIC are using funds received by the club, to buy shares in the club? As AKITJ said, why was this £20 per ticket given to the CIC, and not the Trust, supporters club, me?

Because you didn't offer something as part of the season ticket.

If the club had felt it worthwhile and within their budget for the season tickets I am sure they could have approached the Supporters Club with something like the following

"we reckon this will boost ST purchases, what we want to do is offer a £20 discount on membership + travel to away games for next season, we will recompense you for that expense but we want to offer it as part of our ST offering"

The thing is the majority of ST ticket holders don't go to away games, the majority of ST holders don't use the Supporters Trust bus - however the majority of ST holders would conceivably want a membership share in the club. Therefore it is a good incentive.

The route they chose to go down meant they could be pretty confident that they wouldn't be out of pocket from it either, fact remains they are separate entities and separate transactions.

Prove otherwise.

What they should have done is allowed membership of all 3 bodies through your season ticket purchase, but each should have incurred additional cost on top of the season ticket, it should have been optional to join not compulsory.

lo36789 wrote:

Spyman wrote:So you don't think it is questionable that the CIC are using funds received by the club, to buy shares in the club? As AKITJ said, why was this £20 per ticket given to the CIC, and not the Trust, supporters club, me?

Because you didn't offer something as part of the season ticket.

If the club had felt it worthwhile and within their budget for the season tickets I am sure they could have approached the Supporters Club with something like the following

"we reckon this will boost ST purchases, what we want to do is offer a £20 discount on membership + travel to away games for next season, we will recompense you for that expense but we want to offer it as part of our ST offering"

The thing is the majority of ST ticket holders don't go to away games, the majority of ST holders don't use the Supporters Trust bus - however the majority of ST holders would conceivably want a membership share in the club. Therefore it is a good incentive.

The route they chose to go down meant they could be pretty confident that they wouldn't be out of pocket from it either, fact remains they are separate entities and separate transactions.

Prove otherwise.

That's like asking me to prove God doesn't exist. The burden of proof doesn't lie with me in this case.

Are you suggesting the only benefit of the Supporters Trust is a bus? I think you're wide of the mark there.

Regardless of whether the majority of what you are saying is the case or not, I am very confident that the season ticket purchases and and CIC renewals were not 'seperate transactions' as you put it.

If you are so confident that the majority of season ticket holders would want to be CIC members, why not just keep the two entirely seperate? You buy your season ticket from 'x', and you renew your CIC membership with 'y'. That way nobody has any right to complain, everything truly is entirely seperate, and like you say, the majority sign up for the CIC anyway, so they get their money anyway.

Found the original thread mildly interesting for the first page or so, then amusing and bewildering in equal measure.

In my time I've seen Brealey, Peden, Reynolds, Houghton, and worst of the lot Singh come and go. So forgive me for not being outraged about one group diverting £20 of my money from essentially one part of the club to another.

I don't expect the CIC or 1883 boards to get everything perfect, I do expect them to act in good faith in the best interests of the club and it's long term success. Despite 100's of posts now, albeit from the same few posters I do not feel cheated, angry, robbed or misled so I don't reckon I'm going to be now.

I don't even think it was the wrong decision to be honest, I can see exactly why it was done, in hindsight it could have been communicated better.

But lets get some perspective for god's sake.

shawry wrote:

charlie wrote:

Spyman wrote:

charlie wrote:
I don't know why they appear to be in a hurry, and I don't think personally things have been done in a questionable manner just that it hasn't been explained yet

So you don't think it is questionable that the CIC are using funds received by the club, to buy shares in the club? As AKITJ said, why was this £20 per ticket given to the CIC, and not the Trust, supporters club, me?

I'm just struggling to fathom what the explanation is that you're so sure is forthcoming other than 'we didn't really think that through'. It doesn't mean they did anything intentionally wrong, but again, as has been said by several people several times before, nobody is expecting perfection and I think most would be more forgiving if people just held their hands up and admitted when mistakes were made (if they have been).

The reason I don't think it's questionable is because when I bought my season ticket I knew £20 was going to the CIC no secret was made of it even if it wasnt on the form

Pretend you are RS, you own 52% of the club, and others own the rest. you decide that you want to own 75% of the club, and so you state a portion of ST sales will go to you as an individual so you can reinvest it in the club in exchange for more shares.

I wouldnt find that acceptable, and so Im unable to find what the club & CIC are doing acceptable either, just because the CIC is fan owned doesnt mean I should agree that its right.

I guess the thing is, that even if it is legal, I find it a questionable way of increasing our stake in the club.

Im not knocking the CIC (well I guess I am on this issue) as I know that what they are trying to achieve is whats best for Darlo, and ultimately I want them to get their 75% - I just wish it wasnt this way.

As I've previously said I knew I was paying my CIC renewal with my season ticket purchase. As for the Trust, the fact that they are heavily involved with the CIC keeps my faith in place. I can't comment about the Supporters Club or private investors but I have faith that everything is above board regarding the CIC. It isn't blind faith before anyone picks up on that one, its from what I've seen.

m62exile wrote:Found the original thread mildly interesting for the first page or so, then amusing and bewildering in equal measure.

In my time I've seen Brealey, Peden, Reynolds, Houghton, and worst of the lot Singh come and go. So forgive me for not being outraged about one group diverting £20 of my money from essentially one part of the club to another.

I don't expect the CIC or 1883 boards to get everything perfect, I do expect them to act in good faith in the best interests of the club and it's long term success. Despite 100's of posts now, albeit from the same few posters I do not feel cheated, angry, robbed or misled so I don't reckon I'm going to be now.

I don't even think it was the wrong decision to be honest, I can see exactly why it was done, in hindsight it could have been communicated better.



But lets get some perspective for god's sake.

About sums it up really

m62exile wrote:Found the original thread mildly interesting for the first page or so, then amusing and bewildering in equal measure.

In my time I've seen Brealey, Peden, Reynolds, Houghton, and worst of the lot Singh come and go. So forgive me for not being outraged about one group diverting £20 of my money from essentially one part of the club to another.

I don't expect the CIC or 1883 boards to get everything perfect, I do expect them to act in good faith in the best interests of the club and it's long term success. Despite 100's of posts now, albeit from the same few posters I do not feel cheated, angry, robbed or misled so I don't reckon I'm going to be now.

I don't even think it was the wrong decision to be honest, I can see exactly why it was done, in hindsight it could have been communicated better.

But lets get some perspective for god's sake.

I read the start of this thread this morning and was bewildered also. This post is brilliant and a lot of people need to get a grip. So what if money was paid as part of the season ticket via the CIC or directly to the club. The CIC is the model the club has chosen to use and I'm happy with that decision

Markodarlo wrote: 3 - Crowd projections: Mr. Jesper mentioned at the recent forum that a break even crowd figure for the season is 1,450, and that is before repaying debts. What actions will be taken if the crowds do not reach this figure?

Martin Jesper is constantly adjusting his projections based on actual revisions to expected revenues and expenditure – based on actual football and commercial activities that materialise. Monthly board meetings take place where this information is discussed with the CIC representatives (in their capacity of corporate director of Darlington 1883). The directors of the CIC are more than comfortable that Martin Jesper is being extremely professional in insisting on running an extremely tight ship in respect of financial management, planning and commercial activities. As a fan owned club, the biggest way in which the fans can support the financial position of the football club is through attending the matches in numbers, supporting the commercial activities that are announced and continuing with successful fundraising initiatives themselves.

The waffliest, nothingest answer of all time, right there.

Reading the threads on here re the CIC, the football club board etc, one cannot help thinking of George Orwell's "Animal Farm"!


Whatever the rights and wrongs of the season ticket money and the CIC membership, it seems that communication by and to the CIC / Football club needs to be improved.

It is sad to see that there is division between people who all want Darlington to be successful. Better communication will not change decisions, but it will ensure people know why decisions were made.

This thread topic has caused me to have the worst opinion possible of Darlo fans.

No scruples, no brains to question things, no intelligence period, really. The fact that Charlie is a moderator (and seemingly respected) despite being one of the most intelligently-challenged people I've ever come across says everything.

The heart-warming contributions from the Darlo fans who possess objectivity is small consolation but they are clearly the minority.

I now hope the club fails. The club is the fans and the fans are mostly cvnts.

To those fair-minded folk: get yourself another interest. This shower isn't worth it.

Bye-bye, you dregs of life.

A kick in the Jacobs wrote:This thread topic has caused me to have the worst opinion possible of Darlo fans.

No scruples, no brains to question things, no intelligence period, really. The fact that Charlie is a moderator (and seemingly respected) despite being one of the most intelligently-challenged people I've ever come across says everything.

The heart-warming contributions from the Darlo fans who possess objectivity is small consolation but they are clearly the minority.

I now hope the club fails. The club is the fans and the fans are mostly cvnts.

To those fair-minded folk: get yourself another interest. This shower isn't worth it.

Bye-bye, you dregs of life.

Thank you and good night .

A kick in the Jacobs wrote:This thread topic has caused me to have the worst opinion possible of Darlo fans.

No scruples, no brains to question things, no intelligence period, really. The fact that Charlie is a moderator (and seemingly respected) despite being one of the most intelligently-challenged people I've ever come across says everything.

The heart-warming contributions from the Darlo fans who possess objectivity is small consolation but they are clearly the minority.

I now hope the club fails. The club is the fans and the fans are mostly cvnts.

To those fair-minded folk: get yourself another interest. This shower isn't worth it.

Bye-bye, you dregs of life.

What a tit

I'm quite happy for his comments to remain, only person he's embarrassing is himself

A kick in the Jacobs wrote:This thread topic has caused me to have the worst opinion possible of Darlo fans.

No scruples, no brains to question things, no intelligence period, really. The fact that Charlie is a moderator (and seemingly respected) despite being one of the most intelligently-challenged people I've ever come across says everything.

The heart-warming contributions from the Darlo fans who possess objectivity is small consolation but they are clearly the minority.

I now hope the club fails. The club is the fans and the fans are mostly cvnts.

To those fair-minded folk: get yourself another interest. This shower isn't worth it.

Bye-bye, you dregs of life.

Too far.

I've kept out of this so far as I do appreciate the points you are making and actually agree to an extent and didn't see any reason for the debate to be stifled. But resorting to petty insults and name calling because a few people disagree with you isn't winning you any points here. And stereotyping all fans and wishing the whole club to fail because a few people on a messageboard oppose your view - laughable!

Take a bit of time to cool off, and let us know when you're ready to come back and debate like an adult...

A kick in the Jacobs wrote:This thread topic has caused me to have the worst opinion possible of Darlo fans.

No scruples, no brains to question things, no intelligence period, really. The fact that Charlie is a moderator (and seemingly respected) despite being one of the most intelligently-challenged people I've ever come across says everything.

The heart-warming contributions from the Darlo fans who possess objectivity is small consolation but they are clearly the minority.

I now hope the club fails. The club is the fans and the fans are mostly cvnts.

To those fair-minded folk: get yourself another interest. This shower isn't worth it.

Bye-bye, you dregs of life.

Since you're going to stereotype, I suppose I should lower my opinion of "Narwich" fans accordingly too.

"Intelligently challenged"? I haven't seen you challenge a single person in this thread nor the others in an intelligent fashion.

You have been given the correct advice on more than one occasion by several different members of this forum. You are the one with the understanding of the issue. You are the one making the accusation. You are the one who should take this to the proper body to get the answers. Yet you aren't even a Darlo fan. So why are you even here?

I had accepted you may have an issue - most other people had accepted you may have an issue - and you have been told how to get that issue resolved. Yet you chose to go round and round in circles. "Not a Darlo fan. Not my problem." And then somewhere along the line you compared it to child abuse. Really?

When it became clear that no-one was going to pick up your little problem and do the hard work for you, or that the CIC weren't going to sprint onto this unofficial message board, the flouncing and insults began. You've accused members of this forum of being "soft" on child abuse because they dared to challenge your analogy. You've insulted me and at least one moderator - ironically the moderator with - I hope she doesn't mind me saying - a record of challenging the board on things and getting answers. You chose to attack the person best placed to have done your job for you if only you could've been nice about it.

And then, finally, having gotten dizzy from going round in circles so often, you flounce off in a huff like all good trolls eventually do, in a hail of insults and "wah wah wah, no-one wants to do my job for me so I hope you all fail."

I can't say I'll miss you. We've locked horns on more than one occasion and you're probably lucky you hadn't been permanently banned before now so you were able to level these accusations in the first place. Now you've decided to leave voluntarily so I suppose I should be grateful you've saved me a few mouse clicks.

See ya.

(To the rest of you, I'm sorry this thread got derailed when it should've been a discussion about the content of the Q+A. In part, it has been. When I've got time tomorrow I'll split the thread into those kinds of parts, and everything else.)

No need to split the thread up,just leave it as it is so it makes sense.


Botrash - has it spot on. I couldn't have put it better myself -- AKITJ is a character and it surprises me that he's flipped out like this, seeing as he had the brain power to flag up something which is, for want of a better word, unusual.

This board should be used to sensibly debate important stuff , does history teach us nothing?

AKITJ has gone from raising what could've been a great point that only he saw to looking like a sad, single, hairy, spotty, fat, degenerate who has recently lost his kids and wife due to too much internet porn.

Sorry but he was flinging insults about I thought i'd join in...

Seriously though, he comes on and seems to entice the Spymans of the world in to agreeing with him (assuming he knows the guy?) and then spectacularly explodes as if we were never worth his time in the first place.

People WERE right!! Deejay and or a poolie!!

theoriginalfatcat wrote:No need to split the thread up,just leave it as it is so it makes sense.


Botrash - has it spot on. I couldn't have put it better myself -- AKITJ is a character and it surprises me that he's flipped out like this, seeing as he had the brain power to flag up something which is, for want of a better word, unusual.

This board should be used to sensibly debate important stuff , does history teach us nothing?

Yup. The beauty of these threads is the heat they generate.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Jesus, you can't fucking win with some people. Get a fucking grip.

I think now is a good time to wish CIC the best of luck for the future, especially from those who only have the club's interest at heart.

Viva Darlo.

Pity AKITJ imploded, because the whole CIC £20 is questionable.
However, unlike AKITJ, my feelings on the matter are bad communication , rather than deliberately trying to be underhand.

My big problem though, is the business-speak some of the questions are answered with - a fans club with fans in charge? then please give answers that the average fan understands? The question about the 3 CIC members was cleared up for me in one post in plain English on this board, lets hope this could be taken on board and any other issues can in future get a simlar response without having to be translated for numptys like me

Whatever the rights and wrongs of AKITJ's posts, he did have a fairly valid point and it does worry me that the club/CIC (kind of relevant to whole point that it's not clear which!) haven't responded through official channels.

OK, they shouldn't be expected to constantly monitor places like this, but an accusation like that must have quickly came to their attention and it would have been prudent to head off any accusations of legal wrongdoings as soon as possible.

As it stands, I guess we're still not any clearer on whether anything dodgy has gone down. And while I would never expect the motive of the CIC to be anything other then doing the right thing for the club, this is exactly the sort of info that the haters love to thrive on (look at the interest from NLZ and tinpot jpurnalists at the slightest whiff if any financial troubles).

I do wonder whether this will be addressed at all, or are we just hoping if we ignore it long enough it will go away?

I agree with the above. Even to a novice like me, it does seem like something isn't quite right that a proportion of season ticket money is being farmed off to the CIC.

I agree that the CIC should be the group looking to be a big part within the club, but that doesn't mean that the club should fund them. That seems highly unethical to me.

AKITJ had a very good point, just a shame it ended like it did.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

Unethical and unhealthy for the CIC to become dependent on the two football board members for the collection of their membership income. Also gives a false impression of the membership of the CIC too.
Is it legal for the CIC to increase its shareholding in this way? Are all other shareholders being given the same opportunity by the club?