Blackwell meadows

Mr_Tibbs · Post by **Mr_Tibbs** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:10 pm

Sounded to me like a very mixed message coming through there, and what sounded like a bit of blame-projection.

Still committed to the groundshare... but... problems with the retail/commercial agreement... but... the club could still start the season there (if we hurry up!)... but they wish us well if we don't come.

"This unfortunately resulted in the DRFC having to acknowledge the Darlington Football Club's unilateral decision to suspended any ongoing work streams concerning Blackwell Meadows and to withdraw from negotiations concerning the groundshare."

Sounds like it was written by a committee.

lo36789 · Post by **lo36789** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:37 pm

Also from that article all I get is it is one man that is the blocker and showstopper. that gives me some confidence that as a body of members the rugby club may have more reasonable approaches...which will enable things to progress.

dfc4me · Post by **dfc4me** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:40 pm

Two things:
1. Negotiating is a 2 way thing. It won't work if one side refuses to budge which looks like that is what DRFC are doing by wanting 100% food and drink income.
2. If the DRFC grant has to go back they could be in trouble because they have, apparently, already spent some of it on refurbishing the club house.

darlo reborn · Post by **darlo reborn** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:43 pm

If they get all the money from food and drink I for one will just have a drink in town before the match

AIDO · Post by **AIDO** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:54 pm

.... this would all be a great deal worse had we just moved in and then all these shenanigans started .... best knowing what we could face in the future NOW rather than when it's too late .... all reminiscent of that 'platonic' relationship we had with the cricket club ... or rather, a certain character there at Feethams .....

notgnilrad · Post by **notgnilrad** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:11 pm

*Once again we have probably been shafted by people being greedy, we are a supporters owned group that is run by volunteers and the Rugby club is trying to jump on the back of our supporters by asking for unreasonable demands.

*They are trying to milk the money off the very fans who are keeping the club alive and if they want 100% of all match day food and drink takings then they are just as bad as West Auckland who doubled the price of their match day tickets. Why cant some people in Darlington like ie: Cricket club Johnson and the Rugby club just stop trying to fleece the club and let the Football club ground share they are no worse off if we are there or not, its just about people getting greedy and seeing pound signs.

DRFC please do the right thing and bring DFC back home please and don't be like other people who have ripped us off the in past. You will prosper more with Rugby and Football in the same venue as me myself like football and rugby.

*Allegedly

super_les_mcjannet · Post by **super_les_mcjannet** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:06 pm

Statement from RFC Chairman just before AGM, seems to me he wanted to get info to the members before the AGM. Getting in there first and setting the scene of what he wants the members to know.

I do think the Rugby Club should benefit from the groundshare and grow stronger but DFC have to also ensure we don't sign up to terms that could cost us a lot of revenue in the long term.

If the rumour of food and drink is true then that removes all possibility of making money off hospitality as well as normal drinkers. I always assumed we would earn the revenues on our match day of food/drink etc but perhaps the Rugby Club would clear a smaller percentage of this. Possibly 2k fans spending money 25 times or so a season is a lot of revenue.

Hopefully some middle ground can be found where both clubs are happy.

lo36789 · Post by **lo36789** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:30 pm

As I say I think that is how it was discussed by the Rugby Club and could simply be how the message landed with members. That might be the explanation for the article, it does quite clearly state it is negotiation over revenue shares.

The article is either designed as a tool to try and shift blame, or it is there to 'manage expectations' for rugby club members.

Darlofan97 · Post by **Darlofan97** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:49 pm

I would be very interested to see how a sporting hub would still be achieved at the site should we not share there, how it would be financed and how the council would sit with it.

I think that the statement by DRFC comes in light of the upcoming AGM and the pressure being applied by Jenny Chapman and DBC (who have already invested money into the project under the Pubic Infrastructure Scheme, and relaxed a very important covenant in benefit of DRFC).

What it looks like they're doing is trying to force our hand a little. Seems to be a bit of a stand-off at the moment. Hopefully a deal can be reached which benefits both parties.

shawry · Post by **shawry** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:41 pm

to be honest if the rumour of 100% food and drink revenue was true then we would be better off at HP, I cant see how anyone connected to the rugby club would have thought we would ever agree to that.

theoriginalfatcat · Post by **theoriginalfatcat** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:53 pm

shawry wrote:to be honest if the rumour of 100% food and drink revenue was true then we would be better off at HP, I cant see how anyone connected to the rugby club would have thought we would ever agree to that.

The 100% food/drink rumour can't be right.

Obviously the Rugby Club needs to benefit from linking up with us, but not in this way.

Although very inconvenient, I too would rather stay at Bishop and call a halt to this scheme, than sign up to an unsatisfactory deal.

shawry · Post by **shawry** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:07 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
shawry wrote:to be honest if the rumour of 100% food and drink revenue was true then we would be better off at HP, I cant see how anyone connected to the rugby club would have thought we would ever agree to that.
The 100% food/drink rumour can't be right.

Obviously the Rugby Club needs to benefit from linking up with us, but not in this way.

Although very inconvenient, I too would rather stay at Bishop and call a halt to this scheme, than sign up to an unsatisfactory deal.

I don't think that rumour is right, because its clearly something we could never agree to.

So at the point, the issue has to be one of percentages, which hopefully can get worked out, there should be no reason why both clubs cant benefit massively from this.

Beano · Post by **Beano** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:32 pm

Undoubtedly, the Rugby Club should benefit from our move to Blackwell Meadows as they have invested in, and built, that current infrastructure which was financed by selling their former site on McMullan Road. However, we cannot be held to ransom.

I can certainly see logic in all stakeholders in the sporting hub giving a percentage of revenues back to the hub, but it has to be fair and equitable.

Darlo_Pete · Post by **Darlo_Pete** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:15 pm

I'm happy at HP for now, but what happens come the end of the season and we can't take up any promotion, if we are lucky enough to win the league or the play-offs? I don't think we should move to BM, if the Rugby Club is holding us to ransom.

JE93 · Post by **JE93** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:05 am

Dont know how many times we will have to say this there would be nothing stopping us from taking promotion at HP as long as we could show that by April the following year the ground would comply with conference north ground grading rules

crapname · Post by **crapname** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:21 am

Out of interest, what's the situation with profits from food and drink at HP? Do we keep a percentage ?

lo36789 · Post by **lo36789** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 6:50 am

I don't think it was ever agreed at that revenue split - that isn't the rumour - I think that is how the terms have landed with the rugby club membership. MW has as good as confirmed on this article that revenues were planned to be split - and maybe he proposals needed repositioning with members.

Similadly the other message that has landed with members from other meetings is that the debts are well on their way to being cleared. I think a small profit (not even named) and £175k of debt begs to differ.

Darlogramps · Post by **Darlogramps** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 6:56 am

JE93 wrote:Dont know how many times we will have to say this there would be nothing stopping us from taking promotion at HP as long as we could show that by April the following year the ground would comply with conference north ground grading rules

Yes, but then we'd have to improve Bishop's ground for them in order to carry on progressing ourselves.

That would be pointless (and also expensive) if there's the chance we can get sorted at Blackwell.

divas · Post by **divas** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:17 am

It's a tough situation re: off field revenue, tougher than HP as there's only ever one team playing there at a time.

At BM I think I'm right in saying that potentially there will football and rugby fans eating and drinking together therefore it becomes difficult to account for who is spending what. Obviously the RC will have an idea currently of an average take per game from their fans, but whose to say that will remain constant. So before you even get into what share of the FC's take that the rugby club will want, you first have to be able to allocate revenue.

It's a minefield, and one that always concerned me when this idea of a hub was first broached. There was obviously some kind of indication during the drawing up of heads of terms that when it's come to the crunch has changed. It's difficult to see a way around it with two separate clubs/accounts, no matter if it's the rugby club and football club, or two totally different clubs of disparate sizes at one venue.

Vodka_Vic · Post by **Vodka_Vic** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:23 am

Darlogramps wrote:
JE93 wrote:Dont know how many times we will have to say this there would be nothing stopping us from taking promotion at HP as long as we could show that by April the following year the ground would comply with conference north ground grading rules
Yes, but then we'd have to improve Bishop's ground for them in order to carry on progressing ourselves.

That would be pointless (and also expensive) if there's the chance we can get sorted at Blackwell.

Didn't some guy leave a million pounds or so in his will to Bishop to be spent on the ground? There was an article in the Echo I think. Also, one of thr Bishop directors tweeted recently that ground improvements were no problem, presumably based on this.

Mr_Tibbs · Post by **Mr_Tibbs** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:52 am

Vodka_Vic wrote:Didn't some guy leave a million pounds or so in his will to Bishop to be spent on the ground? There was an article in the Echo I think. Also, one of thr Bishop directors tweeted recently that ground improvements were no problem, presumably based on this.

I think it was nearer £300k - a nice amount, but not megabucks in this day and age.

shawry · Post by **shawry** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:55 am

divas wrote:It's a tough situation re: off field revenue, tougher than HP as there's only ever one team playing there at a time.

At BM I think I'm right in saying that potentially there will football and rugby fans eating and drinking together therefore it becomes difficult to account for who is spending what. Obviously the RC will have an idea currently of an average take per game from their fans, but whose to say that will remain constant. So before you even get into what share of the FC's take that the rugby club will want, you first have to be able to allocate revenue.

It's a minefield, and one that always concerned me when this idea of a hub was first broached. There was obviously some kind of indication during the drawing up of heads of terms that when it's come to the crunch has changed. It's difficult to see a way around it with two separate clubs/accounts, no matter if it's the rugby club and football club, or two totally different clubs of disparate sizes at one venue.

I'd say that both clubs will record attendances, so Id be happy from a fans point of view to just do a straight forward proportional split. Then the rugby club get a standing small percentage of our profit weekly.

PierremontQuaker03 · Post by **PierremontQuaker03** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:56 am

I thought the whole point of this "sports hub" was that "costs" would be shared so that the two clubs become more economically viable longer term from a lower cost base.

yaccly · Post by **yaccly** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:03 am

Is it too simple to say that all revenues made go into a central fund which is used for all utilities, repairs, improvements etc

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

JE93 · Post by **JE93** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:08 am

Darlogramps wrote:
JE93 wrote:Dont know how many times we will have to say this there would be nothing stopping us from taking promotion at HP as long as we could show that by April the following year the ground would comply with conference north ground grading rules
Yes, but then we'd have to improve Bishop's ground for them in order to carry on progressing ourselves.

That would be pointless (and also expensive) if there's the chance we can get sorted at Blackwell.

http://www.footballgroundguide.com/leag ... rence.html have a look on this site at the grounds of Oxford City, Brackley, and AFC Flyde. These are all teams that have been in the conf north for more than one season. Look what is actually required at the ground to meet that standard. Bishop have been left 300K ear marked for ground improvements. Now I'm not saying that they have to or will do this. But a full length 4/5 step terrace along the side of the grass bank (easily adds 1000-1200 to capacity), and the addition of another set of turnstiles behind one of the goals would pretty much bring Bishop up to standard. I'm no building contractor but I'm pretty sure you could have that done and have a sizable chunk of 300K left over.

Maurice_Peddelty · Post by **Maurice_Peddelty** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:14 am

divas wrote:It's a tough situation re: off field revenue, tougher than HP as there's only ever one team playing there at a time.

At BM I think I'm right in saying that potentially there will football and rugby fans eating and drinking together therefore it becomes difficult to account for who is spending what. Obviously the RC will have an idea currently of an average take per game from their fans, but whose to say that will remain constant. So before you even get into what share of the FC's take that the rugby club will want, you first have to be able to allocate revenue.

It's a minefield, and one that always concerned me when this idea of a hub was first broached. There was obviously some kind of indication during the drawing up of heads of terms that when it's come to the crunch has changed. It's difficult to see a way around it with two separate clubs/accounts, no matter if it's the rugby club and football club, or two totally different clubs of disparate sizes at one venue.

My husband & I spoke to MW after a meeting(about 2 years ago when MW&TS spoke) and he mentioned a swipe card to be used for bar & food to show how much fans were spending at matches and any other events.

theoriginalfatcat · Post by **theoriginalfatcat** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:03 am

yaccly wrote:Is it too simple to say that all revenues made go into a central fund which is used for all utilities, repairs, improvements etc

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Yes.

In a way the ground share will be an unequal partnership,.We will generate much more money than the Rugby club on match days, however the costs per game of providing wages to the players and management team will likewise be much higher.

The deal needs to be fair - and also open, because if word gets round that too much of our match day revenue is being lost, it will hit sales.

Maurice_Peddelty · Post by **Maurice_Peddelty** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:08 am

Maurice_Peddelty wrote:
divas wrote:It's a tough situation re: off field revenue, tougher than HP as there's only ever one team playing there at a time.

At BM I think I'm right in saying that potentially there will football and rugby fans eating and drinking together therefore it becomes difficult to account for who is spending what. Obviously the RC will have an idea currently of an average take per game from their fans, but whose to say that will remain constant. So before you even get into what share of the FC's take that the rugby club will want, you first have to be able to allocate revenue.

It's a minefield, and one that always concerned me when this idea of a hub was first broached. There was obviously some kind of indication during the drawing up of heads of terms that when it's come to the crunch has changed. It's difficult to see a way around it with two separate clubs/accounts, no matter if it's the rugby club and football club, or two totally different clubs of disparate sizes at one venue.
My husband & I spoke to MW after a meeting(about 2 years ago when MW&TS spoke) and he mentioned a swipe card to be used for bar & food to show how much fans were spending at matches and any other events.

I've been hacked by the missus!

dfc4me · Post by **dfc4me** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:18 am

Really wish both clubs would come out and tell us exactly what the differences are. As daft as it sounds, maybe one of us could come up with a solution that would suit both sides because, sometimes, looking at a problem with a different perspective is all it takes.

al_quaker · Post by **al_quaker** » Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:53 am

Obviously it all massively depends on what the differences between the two clubs are, and as I don't know them then this is purely speculation. It seems obvious the the rugby club want a greater share of revenue of certain things than we want to give away. If the revenue we will lose by agreeing to the rugby club terms is at least covered by the greater attendances and sponsorship we would gain by being in Darlington, then it could be best to agree to their terms. Once we are back in Darlington (which would be much better for the clubs long term prospects) there could perhaps be scope for renegotiation. Of course, this is purely hypothetical that the differences are stuff such as % of matchday food/drink etc and not something much bigger.

I fully support the board in trying to get the best deal for the club, but if BM falls through I struggle to see how we will return to the town in any reasonable time frame, which would be terrible. And I think the rugby club know that.

Darlo Uncovered

Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows

Re: Blackwell meadows