BM Alternatives

[AnthonyP]

This Blackwell Meadows thing is concerning me.

It's like bickering about the wedding arrangements before a marriage date is even set.

And where will we be in 7 or 8 years time? Stuck in an unhappy marriage of convenience, with limited options? And sharing a pitch?

Personally I can't see us ever returning to the Football league but I feel we can cement ourselves into the Conference as a good strong club - and a nice little modern, purpose built ground would solve our problems, forever.

To me somewhere on the Arena site would be perfect, and as has been pointed out on another thread, everything is there - even the space -and although some posters on here think it's ridiculous, I reckon it is possible.

I'd rather wait and get it right, than be pushed into a move where yet again we're second best.

I completely agree with this post. Very succinctly put.

Agreed

[darlodog]

One thing is clear unless we have a very wealthy fan with deep pockets (it hasn't happened yet) then it's up to ALL the fans to dig deep as continual fan funding is key for us to keep going. My worry is that some fans who brought the 500 club tickets thing the job is done, far from it.

[Robbie Painter]

One thing is clear unless we have a very wealthy fan with deep pockets (it hasn't happened yet) then it's up to ALL the fans to dig deep as continual fan funding is key for us to keep going. My worry is that fans who brought the 500 club tickets thing the job is done, far from it.

Incorrect. We now have no net debt, we don't need continual fan funding to keep us going.

We will need additional funding in order to build further infrastructure, return to Darlo, etc but not for standard running of club as it stands.

[JE93]

I wouldn't imagine anything will be done about the 500 club season tickets. You've paid money for a season ticket for 5 years which you now have. As long as the money is now ring-fenced / earmarked to be used to fund a move back to Darlo then I can't really see what problems the club would have with that money.

What I would want to know is what the clubs cash flow and balance sheet look like now that we have no more debt to be repayed (eg the footballing creditors from the old regime). And what the forecasts would be for our return to darlo in terms of revenue (with the money from 500 club taken out) etc. once we know this we can have a reasonable debate on what the club could sustain in terms of things like loans etc. But what I would be wary of doing is this speculative approach where we tie ourselves up in debt in the hope that the long term plan sustains it, in a back to darlo at all costs approach.

What I would like most of all in this situation is both clubs to publish what their demands would be for the deal and be completely transparent. After this, get both parties back around a table with some form of mediator, as well as perhaps some local interest (businesses, community sports initiatives leaders etc) and see if with the influence of these parties there can't be a deal worked out between the two clubs. If that doesn't work we call the BM situation dead in the water and we move on to alternative methods of returning home.

[AIDO]

.... the Arena scenario was never going to happen thank goodness. BM is not far off meeting requirements. Like I suggested earlier .... the obstacles to get over regarding DRFC are more than worth it .... talk of getting massive loans for some new stadium and especially BM being a dead duck are ridiculous .... lets wait and see what real people ... those behind the scenes .... come up with ....

[Feethams 1966]

It's a pity we couldn't share with the cricket club at Feethams. They only use their ground in the summer and I've heard that they only use it then, when it isn't raining.

[darlodog]

.... the Arena scenario was never going to happen thank goodness. BM is not far off meeting requirements. Like I suggested earlier .... the obstacles to get over regarding DRFC are more than worth it .... talk of getting massive loans for some new stadium and especially BM being a dead duck are ridiculous .... lets wait and see what real people ... those behind the scenes .... come up with ....

Aido give your crystal ball a rub it needs cleaning!!

[Unstuck]

How much did the rugby club pay for Blackwell Meadows? How about we get enough of a loan/grant from the council to buy a 50% stake in the land from the rugby club? We would then have equal footing with them and they would get some cash to keep them going. As other sports in the town wanted to be added to the 'sporting hub', they could buy their way in, paying for the facilities they need as they do so.

Darlington gets it's sporting hub, on land that is shared and can't be sold out from under any of the partners. The rugby club gets an investment boost. The council gets to do the right thing by supporting local sport. We get a home we can call (partially) our own.

The same thing could happen at the arena of course.

Is this a serious suggestion or a sarcastic swipe at some of the other nonsensical suggestions in this thread?

Only Quakerz appears to be talking any sense at all.

Yes it's serious. The only figure I can find for the cost of Blackwell Meadows is $1.7m. Assuming that was land and building works, then how much did the land cost? Say $1.5m as a top end guess. So we buy half that for $750k. Is the cost of servicing that loan going to be more than the cost of rent? Maybe over 20 years it is, but not over 30, 40 years.

The land is there, it can't be used for anything else, there is no other land available and even if there was, we couldn't afford it. The rugby club need the money. I don't see what is nonsensical about that.

[shawry]

How much did the rugby club pay for Blackwell Meadows? How about we get enough of a loan/grant from the council to buy a 50% stake in the land from the rugby club? We would then have equal footing with them and they would get some cash to keep them going. As other sports in the town wanted to be added to the 'sporting hub', they could buy their way in, paying for the facilities they need as they do so.

Darlington gets it's sporting hub, on land that is shared and can't be sold out from under any of the partners. The rugby club gets an investment boost. The council gets to do the right thing by supporting local sport. We get a home we can call (partially) our own.

The same thing could happen at the arena of course.

Is this a serious suggestion or a sarcastic swipe at some of the other nonsensical suggestions in this thread?

Only Quakerz appears to be talking any sense at all.

Yes it's serious. The only figure I can find for the cost of Blackwell Meadows is $1.7m. Assuming that was land and building works, then how much did the land cost? Say $1.5m as a top end guess. So we buy half that for $750k. Is the cost of servicing that loan going to be more than the cost of rent? Maybe over 20 years it is, but not over 30, 40 years.

The land is there, it can't be used for anything else, there is no other land available and even if there was, we couldn't afford it. The rugby club need the money. I don't see what is nonsensical about that.

Well the fact that the rugby club aren't happy with what we wanted and we weren't happy with what they were offering I somehow can't see why they would suddenly want to sell us half the land!

Seriously some people think the football just need to make an offer and it should be accepted.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Darlogramps]

How much did the rugby club pay for Blackwell Meadows? How about we get enough of a loan/grant from the council to buy a 50% stake in the land from the rugby club? We would then have equal footing with them and they would get some cash to keep them going. As other sports in the town wanted to be added to the 'sporting hub', they could buy their way in, paying for the facilities they need as they do so.

Darlington gets it's sporting hub, on land that is shared and can't be sold out from under any of the partners. The rugby club gets an investment boost. The council gets to do the right thing by supporting local sport. We get a home we can call (partially) our own.

The same thing could happen at the arena of course.

Is this a serious suggestion or a sarcastic swipe at some of the other nonsensical suggestions in this thread?

Only Quakerz appears to be talking any sense at all.

Yes it's serious. The only figure I can find for the cost of Blackwell Meadows is $1.7m. Assuming that was land and building works, then how much did the land cost? Say $1.5m as a top end guess. So we buy half that for $750k. Is the cost of servicing that loan going to be more than the cost of rent? Maybe over 20 years it is, but not over 30, 40 years.

The land is there, it can't be used for anything else, there is no other land available and even if there was, we couldn't afford it. The rugby club need the money. I don't see what is nonsensical about that.

Come on, engage your brain.

In addition to shawry's point, why would the council make the politically unpopular move of loaning us money to create a sports hub, when they could just invest the money themselves?

When budgets are being squeezed by central government, where do they get the funding from? And not just to buy the land but to develop it, pay all the admin costs etc.

Robbie Painter's ludicrous suggestion about using council reserves is rubbish. That money is there for emergencies (major financial issues affecting delivery of services or severe weather emergencies). It's not for giving large amounts of money to football clubs.

And you admit yourself most of your figures are guesses and assumptions. So you've got no idea whatsoever how much it would cost anyway, which destroys any semblance of credibility you may have had.

Your whole suggestion is nonsensical and illogical guesswork.

[Robbie Painter]

Robbie Painter's ludicrous suggestion about using council reserves is rubbish. That money is there for emergencies (major financial issues affecting delivery of services or severe weather emergencies). It's not for giving large amounts of money to football clubs.

a) Its not "giving", its a commercial loan
b) My "ludicrous" suggestion was backed up by two recent examples of councils doing exactly what I suggested

[Darlogramps]

Robbie Painter's ludicrous suggestion about using council reserves is rubbish. That money is there for emergencies (major financial issues affecting delivery of services or severe weather emergencies). It's not for giving large amounts of money to football clubs.

a) Its not "giving", its a commercial loan
b) My "ludicrous" suggestion was backed up by two recent examples of councils doing exactly what I suggested

A) Stop being pedantic - it's clear what was meant. A poor tactic to divert scrutiny from the flaws in your plan.

B) The ludicrous part of your idea was suggesting the council should use its emergency reserves. In neither of your examples did either council use its emergency reserves. So it wasn't "exactly" as you suggested.

Robbie - your plan is simplistic because you're only looking at this from a football club point of view.

How can the council justify to the public, in times of austerity, giving a large loan to the club? Particularly when a majority of people in the town wouldn't directly use or benefit any new ground or 'sports hub.'

Remember traders and businesses in the town have lost out through our three administrations. Doubtless they'd have something to say about the club receiving public money from the council.

A lot of non-football supporters in the town either don't care about the club or are wary of our past financial record.

Any loan would be unpopular and cause resentment at a time when we need to be rebuilding links with the community, including people who've lost from the club in the past.

[JE93]

Robbie Painter's ludicrous suggestion about using council reserves is rubbish. That money is there for emergencies (major financial issues affecting delivery of services or severe weather emergencies). It's not for giving large amounts of money to football clubs.

a) Its not "giving", its a commercial loan
b) My "ludicrous" suggestion was backed up by two recent examples of councils doing exactly what I suggested

A) Stop being pedantic - it's clear what was meant. A poor tactic to divert scrutiny from the flaws in your plan.

B) The ludicrous part of your idea was suggesting the council should use its emergency reserves. In neither of your examples did either council use its emergency reserves. Nor would they in our case.

Robbie - your plan is simplistic because you're only looking at this from a football club point of view.

How can the council justify to the public, in times of austerity, giving a large loan to the club? Particularly when a majority of people in the town wouldn't directly use or benefit any new sports hub.

Remember traders and businesses in the town have lost out through our three administrations. Doubtless they'd have something to say about the club receiving public money from the council.

A lot of non-football supporters in the town either don't care about the club or are wary of our past financial record.

Any loan would be unpopular and cause resentment at a time when we need to be rebuilding links with the community, including people who've lost from the club in the past.

Agree with you gramps. There's no way you'd have public support for using council money in a time of austerity to fund the football club.

where i would like to see the council etc involved though is perhaps as a mediator in negotiations between the clubs. The council after all have already spent on the basis of improving the bus stop at BM and by relaxing covenants allowing for increased borrowing by the rugby club. Perhaps would help better broker a deal.

[Spyman]

Surely a commercial loan is an opportunity for the council and taxpayers to make some money from DFC, rather than 'giving the club money'?

As has already been pointed out - there will be a knock on effect to the local economy through having the football club back in town and we'd pay interest on the loan. Not an immediate benefit to taxpayers but still a benefit.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Darlogramps]

Surely a commercial loan is an opportunity for the council and taxpayers to make some money from DFC, rather than 'giving the club money'?

As has already been pointed out - there will be a knock on effect to the local economy through having the football club back in town and we'd pay interest on the loan. Not an immediate benefit to taxpayers but still a benefit.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with you, but would the 85/90% of people in the town who aren't directly involved with the club see it that way?

Or would they see it as too much of a risk in financially austere times, particularly given our financial history in the last 10 years?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

[Bogratsteve]

Surely a commercial loan is an opportunity for the council and taxpayers to make some money from DFC, rather than 'giving the club money'?

As has already been pointed out - there will be a knock on effect to the local economy through having the football club back in town and we'd pay interest on the loan. Not an immediate benefit to taxpayers but still a benefit.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with you, but would the 85/90% of people in the town who aren't directly involved with the club see it that way?

Or would they see it as too much of a risk in financially austere times, particularly given our financial history in the last 10 years?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

This is the crux of the matter given our poor history in terms of financial stability, it would not make sense to back the club financially in the current or any climate to the outsider who does not share the DFC passion.

[Robbie Painter]

Robbie Painter's ludicrous suggestion about using council reserves is rubbish. That money is there for emergencies (major financial issues affecting delivery of services or severe weather emergencies). It's not for giving large amounts of money to football clubs.

a) Its not "giving", its a commercial loan
b) My "ludicrous" suggestion was backed up by two recent examples of councils doing exactly what I suggested

A) Stop being pedantic - it's clear what was meant. A poor tactic to divert scrutiny from the flaws in your plan.

B) The ludicrous part of your idea was suggesting the council should use its emergency reserves. In neither of your examples did either council use its emergency reserves. So it wasn't "exactly" as you suggested.

Robbie - your plan is simplistic because you're only looking at this from a football club point of view.

How can the council justify to the public, in times of austerity, giving a large loan to the club? Particularly when a majority of people in the town wouldn't directly use or benefit any new ground or 'sports hub.'

Remember traders and businesses in the town have lost out through our three administrations. Doubtless they'd have something to say about the club receiving public money from the council.

A lot of non-football supporters in the town either don't care about the club or are wary of our past financial record.

Any loan would be unpopular and cause resentment at a time when we need to be rebuilding links with the community, including people who've lost from the club in the past.

A) Use the correct terminology to avoid confusion - giving has an entirely different meaning to a loan

B) Reserves are effectively the councils savings account (as I'm sure you know). Its split into different pots for various aspects of council spending. As of 31st March this year DBC has £23.84m of general usable reserves, up £5m on the previous year.

Yes general reserves are there for emergencies, covering unexpected funding shortfalls, etc they can also be used for investment purposes.

I haven't looked at the council accounts for the 2 examples I gave so please correct me on how those councils funded the loan to FC United/purchase of Edgeley park. My working assumption is it came from their reserves. Are you saying the council's borrowed themselves to fund it? Issued debt? Received the money from a third party that they then lent out?

Referring to your last 4 paragraphs, I acknowledge those points. As I said in my original post there is a case to be made for a commercial loan - spyman has outlined some of those in his post. There are also many other positive benefits that a mutually owned community focussed football club can bring to the area. Clearly as highlighted by my two examples other councils have seen the positive factors outweigh the initial negative reaction from some residents.

I would also add that clearly since 2012 DFC has an entirely different model of operating than under previous owners. Since we have cleared historic debts the club is in a stable financial position. Referring to previous administrations is not really relevant imo.

[AIDO]

This is the crux of the matter given our poor history in terms of financial stability, it would not make sense to back the club financially in the current or any climate to the outsider who does not share the DFC passion.

.... and as an "insider" with DFC passion, I wouldn't want my club to go back to the same financial instability a massive loan for yet another stadium would bring .....

Having cleared our historic debt as such and gained some semblance of financial stability, why on earth would we revert to such a folly. That is why the BM model will be thrashed out. It makes sense for both clubs ... the council and ... to people like me

[Andrew Wilkinson]

As long as it's thrashed out that's fine. This thread is about alternatives to BM in case it doesn't go ahead. But both clubs must be in complete agreement or there will be trouble further down the road.
As for the argument that councils should provide only what most of the people want is flawed. Most people never go to the Civic Theatre yet it's an assist to the town. Nor do most people visit South Park, yet it's an asset.
It reflects badly on the town of Darlington that it cannot host its own football club. All that Robbie Painter is saying is that we have to explore all avenues to get back to town. If that turns out to be BM then all well and good.

[Beano]

It is most certainly in DBC's interest to have us back in the town. It is also in DBC's interest to facilitate a sporting hub, especially if it will cost them nothing.

As Spyman states, a commercial loan could make perfect sense for both parties.

[theoriginalfatcat]

As long as it's thrashed out that's fine. This thread is about alternatives to BM in case it doesn't go ahead. But both clubs must be in complete agreement or there will be trouble further down the road.

Too bloody right !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for the argument that councils should provide only what most of the people want is flawed. Most people never go to the Civic Theatre yet it's an assist to the town. Nor do most people visit South Park, yet it's an asset.

Good point - and can be used for many other amenities, the Dolphin Centre to add one more. Hartlepool did a survey recently and they worked out how much money having the football club in town brought in. It's important to have a football club in town and doing well, and personally I'm not sure if DBC fully understands this point, however in their defence, having a multiple of nutty owners over the last couple of decades hasn't helped.

Now that it seems we can never again be taken over by a Singh/Reynolds/Houghton type person, I feel that the Council should up there game - and this doesn't necessarily mean lending us money.

It reflects badly on the town of Darlington that it cannot host its own football club.

Agreed, and as a side issue, I originally came from the South and had heard of the town of Darlington for only two reasons - DFC (mentioned on TV/papers every week etc) and school lessons re railway history.

[Darlogramps]

A) Use the correct terminology to avoid confusion - giving has an entirely different meaning to a loan

Why are you being a pedantic dick? What is so semantically confusing about the phrase "being given a loan"? In the context of my post, that's what was obviously being said. You're the only person who's had an issue with it.

You take one phrase out of context and be an arse about it if you want, but I'm disappointed as I thought that would be beneath you.

I haven't looked at the council accounts for the 2 examples I gave so please correct me on how those councils funded the loan to FC United/purchase of Edgeley park. My working assumption is it came from their reserves.

Ah - so you don't know how the councils funded them. So you've picked the option which best fits your plan, even though you've no idea how realistic that would be. Glad to have cleared that up.

Referring to your last 4 paragraphs, I acknowledge those points. As I said in my original post there is a case to be made for a commercial loan - spyman has outlined some of those in his post. There are also many other positive benefits that a mutually owned community focussed football club can bring to the area. Clearly as highlighted by my two examples other councils have seen the positive factors outweigh the initial negative reaction from some residents.

On this I do agree with you. Whether other non-Darlington FC fans in the town would see it that way is up for debate.

I would also add that clearly since 2012 DFC has an entirely different model of operating than under previous owners. Since we have cleared historic debts the club is in a stable financial position. Referring to previous administrations is not really relevant imo.

A reasonable point, but it's also fair to point out that under the post-2012 model, the club has had major financial problems on more than one occasion, as Martin Jesper himself has acknowledged.

Had it not been for the Smith/Burn/Stockdale clauses, we'd have been in massive trouble. So it's not just previous administrations who've had problems, but also the existing one.

That makes it even harder to justify to the ordinary person (for want of a better phrase) in the town, who has no link or involvement with the club. You may not believe it's relevant, but the ordinary person in the town will.

[Darlogramps]

As for the argument that councils should provide only what most of the people want is flawed. Most people never go to the Civic Theatre yet it's an assist to the town. Nor do most people visit South Park, yet it's an asset.

That's not the argument though.

It's not about how many people use it, the issue is how does the council justify the use of public funds to loan money to a football club, instead of investing in other services, particularly when there are austerity cuts from central government.

I'm struggling to see how the council would be able to convince people who don't support DFC in the town that they should be loaned money.

I agree the town benefits from the football club, particularly with its current community focus. But it's a hell of a task to convince the Darlington public of that.

Ask the 90% of people who aren't involved in the club to list what they'd like money invested in - the club wouldn't come in the top 10.

It reflects badly on the town of Darlington that it cannot host its own football club.

It reflects worse on the football club who, in the eyes of the "ordinary person" have gotten themselves into this position through financial mismanagement.

[Spyman]

Surely a commercial loan is an opportunity for the council and taxpayers to make some money from DFC, rather than 'giving the club money'?

As has already been pointed out - there will be a knock on effect to the local economy through having the football club back in town and we'd pay interest on the loan. Not an immediate benefit to taxpayers but still a benefit.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with you, but would the 85/90% of people in the town who aren't directly involved with the club see it that way?

Or would they see it as too much of a risk in financially austere times, particularly given our financial history in the last 10 years?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

I do get that the football club may be seen as a risk to lend to based on history - credit ratings need to be rebuilt and this can take time, however there is a legitimate case to say that the mismanagement of the club in the past is entirely separate to the current management and so the history should begin three years ago - I appreciate many taxpayers won't buy into that though.

As for the majority having no interest in football, that surely isn't what spending (or lending, in this case) government funds should be about - it should be about providing for as wide a cross section of the community as possible. If you have no kids, do you get the hump at money going towards schools or childcare? If you don't read, do you object to a publically funded library?

The town having its own football club brings numerous benefits, just like a library, a museum, a theatre etc. We're not talking about a hand-out, just support.

Anyway, it is an option that could and possibly should be explored - if the Council say no for the reasons suggested by many in this thread them so be it. If the numbers don't add up from our point of view then so be it, but this discussion is about possible avenues the board can go down of Plan A doesn't work out and I don't think ideas like this should be shout down without further thought.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[theoriginalfatcat]

Giving/lending - there is a big difference. The Council could probably explain to the taxpayers the reasons for a loan, if it was watertight, secured etc.

However, on thinking about it, I'm not sure I want the Council to lend us money, or that it's a good idea, or that it would even be considered anyway - I feel that the Council can do more to help in other ways.

[Spyman]

.

It's not about how many people use it, the issue is how does the council justify the use of public funds to loan money to a football club, instead of investing in other services, particularly when there are austerity cuts from central government.

But surely by investing in other services, unless the Council are loaning money to other services, they are just spending reserves that should be kept available for emergency use.

By loaning a small section of the reserve, they have security against it and have repayments coming in, so the money is still effectively there long term if needed. I'm not an expert of public finance but I don't know that they can just decide to spend reserves on public services like that.

I suppose the Council would need to weigh up whether or not they can afford to temporarily be without 10% or so of reserves or not - ie do they still have enough in reserve to cover the costs that reserves are there to cover?


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Unstuck]

Forget about the council - that's not my point, even though I do believe they have some responsibility to the club.

My point is that talks seem to have broken down because the rugby club don't want to offer us an equal partnership at BM. They want us to be tenants, paying our way and being a source of income to them. That's fair enough, it's their ground. It's not an ideal situation for us anyway - we don't have control of our own destiny. If we could pay to be 50% owners of the ground, it would give the rugby club a massive cash injection and we could proceed with a partnership on equal terms with long term security. Yes, the numbers are guesswork, but they are within the realms of reality. The loan wouldn't have to come from the council, my calculations were based on commercial rates. It's not unrealistic.

If your argument is that it's a fantasy then you're right, it is. It requires DRFC to give up sole ownership of their ground which they obviously don't want to do. It's just idle speculation. But it's not nonsense.

[loan_star]

Forget for one moment we are talking about DFC here.
Say a business that has gone to the wall, is only 3 years old in its current guise and that has returned a small profit from its time trading, asked DBC to fund new premises for them with nowhere near the 30% deposit that is usually required for commercial mortgages. They would get laughed out of the town hall. Its just not going to happen and if by chance it did, the ombudsman would be all over it like a rash for potential misuse of council reserves.

[Darlo_Pete]

Forget for one moment we are talking about DFC here.
Say a business that has gone to the wall, is only 3 years old in its current guise and that has returned a small profit from its time trading, asked DBC to fund new premises for them with nowhere near the 30% deposit that is usually required for commercial mortgages. They would get laughed out of the town hall. Its just not going to happen and if by chance it did, the ombudsman would be all over it like a rash for potential misuse of council reserves.

I'm afraid Robbo is right, we may all want it to happen, but that doesn't mean it will.

[Andrew Wilkinson]

Hartlepool's stadium is owned by the council. So is Chester's Stadium. Had Darlington Council owned the Arena or Feethams we either wouldn't have gone through the turmoil of the last few years or - like Chester - we would have recovered a lot more quickly.
I recall that Darlington Council was criticised by the Ombudsman for allowing the Arena to be built to the size it was.
This has been a lively debate - anyone got any more ideas of what to do if BM falls through because experience tells me that once there is a breakdown in talks, it's very difficult to get back on track