BM Alternatives

[shawry]

The Council should build the stadium and retain ownership, we have a bit of cash to put towards it, then we can get the rugby club to share with us as equal partners moving forwards.

We can both then pay a reasonable, but cheap rent, to the council and suddenly the council has its sporting hub, and 2 clubs are partners.

ok, it wont happen but I can dream.

[poppyfield]

I know its a greenfield site with all the issues that go with that cost been the main one, but, Tommy Crooks park (its the playing fields opposite Cummings )does tick a lot of boxes ,
1 its owed by the council
2 its got 4 football pitches already there
3 road infrastructure is good
4 it should be big enough area for what we require
Not sure how much football is played there.
If it could be earmarked for our future use it would be something to aim for.
Anyway just a thought.

Just thought I would bring back one of my thoughts to the table , this site could be developed , I would not expect the council to build a new ground, but they could enable us to make a start by allocating the land to the club.
It would take a number of years I know, but at the moment we have nothing, and I would rather aim for our own ground and the secure long term future of the club than years of uncertainty, wasted money and at the end 25 years end up with nowt.

[MCFCDarlo3]

I know the club shop has moved but on DFC letterhead I have just received I see the BM address is still used so assume there must still be some DFC presence at BM?

Robbie I think your idea of council loans/assistance is a good one and is reasonable,as has been seen at other football clubs.

However,I fear that as has been pointed out DFCs credit rating must be that of a Swamp Donkey at present after 3 administrations and that could be a blocking point.

Unless of course a substantial deposit was made and decent equity available to the council should it all go tits up.

[My opinion]

Bloody annoying that DFC credit rating will be very low. Yet i'm sure that of Houghton and Singh will be high.

[gabbas]

We should do a Monaco and build it on top of the new multi storey car park. Plenty of car park spaces, close to town centre and buses etc etc!

[Quaker Mod]

Both Tesco and Sainsburys have halted their new store building projects with many land owners left in limbo having spent money on surveying new premises etc. may be worth looking into.

[Q8Quaker]

I've never been happy with the BM scenario. It's a bit like renting a house and then paying for an extension to be built yourself. If the deal does go ahead, what happens if DRC go tits up in a few years time owing debts? Surely the creditors will come in and grab the only asset available which is the ground which our stand will be sitting on.
In the very unlikely event of either the council or some rich benefactor building us a new ground any time soon then the only viable alternative is to try and negotiate a proper landlord / tenant agreement with Mowden.

[JE93]

I've never been happy with the BM scenario. It's a bit like renting a house and then paying for an extension to be built yourself. If the deal does go ahead, what happens if DRC go tits up in a few years time owing debts? Surely the creditors will come in and grab the only asset available which is the ground which our stand will be sitting on.
In the very unlikely event of either the council or some rich benefactor building us a new ground any time soon then the only viable alternative is to try and negotiate a proper landlord / tenant agreement with Mowden.

Not necessarily true. It was always my hope that in labelling BM a 'community sports hub' we would in fact be setting ourselves up for a future partnership with DRFC at BM. In the event of that then our investment into improvement in facilities could in fact give us ownership rights in the land (through a constructive trust, if it could be shown this was the thoughts of both parties) then even if they did go tits up we would have an interest in the land.

[shawry]

I've never been happy with the BM scenario. It's a bit like renting a house and then paying for an extension to be built yourself. If the deal does go ahead, what happens if DRC go tits up in a few years time owing debts? Surely the creditors will come in and grab the only asset available which is the ground which our stand will be sitting on.
In the very unlikely event of either the council or some rich benefactor building us a new ground any time soon then the only viable alternative is to try and negotiate a proper landlord / tenant agreement with Mowden.

Not necessarily true. It was always my hope that in labelling BM a 'community sports hub' we would in fact be setting ourselves up for a future partnership with DRFC at BM. In the event of that then our investment into improvement in facilities could in fact give us ownership rights in the land (through a constructive trust, if it could be shown this was the thoughts of both parties) then even if they did go tits up we would have an interest in the land.

Im not sure why we would ever expect the rugby club to allow us into full partnership, its in their interests to collect relent from us, and allow us to upgrade the ground too.

[Q8Quaker]

I've never been happy with the BM scenario. It's a bit like renting a house and then paying for an extension to be built yourself. If the deal does go ahead, what happens if DRC go tits up in a few years time owing debts? Surely the creditors will come in and grab the only asset available which is the ground which our stand will be sitting on.
In the very unlikely event of either the council or some rich benefactor building us a new ground any time soon then the only viable alternative is to try and negotiate a proper landlord / tenant agreement with Mowden.

Not necessarily true. It was always my hope that in labelling BM a 'community sports hub' we would in fact be setting ourselves up for a future partnership with DRFC at BM. In the event of that then our investment into improvement in facilities could in fact give us ownership rights in the land (through a constructive trust, if it could be shown this was the thoughts of both parties) then even if they did go tits up we would have an interest in the land.

You can call it a 'Community Sports Hub' or anything else you like but the simple fact is if DRFCs name is on the deeds and they go bust then the bailiffs won't care one jot what names hanging above the gate when they come calling.

[shawry]

I've never been happy with the BM scenario. It's a bit like renting a house and then paying for an extension to be built yourself. If the deal does go ahead, what happens if DRC go tits up in a few years time owing debts? Surely the creditors will come in and grab the only asset available which is the ground which our stand will be sitting on.
In the very unlikely event of either the council or some rich benefactor building us a new ground any time soon then the only viable alternative is to try and negotiate a proper landlord / tenant agreement with Mowden.

Not necessarily true. It was always my hope that in labelling BM a 'community sports hub' we would in fact be setting ourselves up for a future partnership with DRFC at BM. In the event of that then our investment into improvement in facilities could in fact give us ownership rights in the land (through a constructive trust, if it could be shown this was the thoughts of both parties) then even if they did go tits up we would have an interest in the land.

You can call it a 'Community Sports Hub' or anything else you like but the simple fact is if DRFCs name is on the deeds and they go bust then the bailiffs won't care one jot what names hanging above the gate when they come calling.

Not sure how it works to be honest, but they wont be able to take what we own - obviously the issue would be that what they want to take is under what we own

[JE93]

I can assure you that very much isn't the simple fact. If you have an effective constructive trust in land you have legal rights in the land. doesn't matter however much debt or whatever someone else is in, you would own a certain % or up to a certain amount, and if you own so much then they can't sell it and take it away from you its based on a legal principle 'nemo dat quod non habit'. In that situation we would be entitles to at least the value we put in back. But also if you were in that situation, then the creditors would obtain a piece of land that cn be used except for sporting purposes. I'm sure we would probably at the top of their list of people to speak to if they wanted to make any money out of it.

To answer your question shawry I wouldn't expect the two to become full partners I agree that wouldn't be in DRFC's interests, its far better for them to tie rent from us and make us pay costs of upgrading as and when we need to. But if we were recognised as junior partners in the fact that they acknowledge the amount of money we pay to bring BM up to the standard we need at the time, and in the intention this is to be our long term home. Then we should be entitled to this amount or it's % value back if the land is ever sold. That provides us with security that a simple tenancy agreement would not.

[shawry]

To answer your question shawry I wouldn't expect the two to become full partners I agree that wouldn't be in DRFC's interests, its far better for them to tie rent from us and make us pay costs of upgrading as and when we need to. But if we were recognised as junior partners in the fact that they acknowledge the amount of money we pay to bring BM up to the standard we need at the time, and in the intention this is to be our long term home. Then we should be entitled to this amount or it's % value back if the land is ever sold. That provides us with security that a simple tenancy agreement would not.

Have bolded the bit I have issues with.

A 25 year lease does not do this, although a 25 year lease is a relatively long time, and will hopefully mean we need to spend a lot of money upgrading the facilities/pitch in the grand scheme of things its a 'nothing' length of time. We should be talking 99 year leases at the very least, and this is what has put me off the BM ground share, Its clear that there are issues that need resolving between both parties, and the lack of communication between them both at the start of July was clear indication of it not all being rosy in the garden so to speak. If thats the case, whats to stop us being homeless in 25 years having spent several million upgrading.

[JE93]

To answer your question shawry I wouldn't expect the two to become full partners I agree that wouldn't be in DRFC's interests, its far better for them to tie rent from us and make us pay costs of upgrading as and when we need to. But if we were recognised as junior partners in the fact that they acknowledge the amount of money we pay to bring BM up to the standard we need at the time, and in the intention this is to be our long term home. Then we should be entitled to this amount or it's % value back if the land is ever sold. That provides us with security that a simple tenancy agreement would not.

Have bolded the bit I have issues with.

A 25 year lease does not do this, although a 25 year lease is a relatively long time, and will hopefully mean we need to spend a lot of money upgrading the facilities/pitch in the grand scheme of things its a 'nothing' length of time. We should be talking 99 year leases at the very least, and this is what has put me off the BM ground share, Its clear that there are issues that need resolving between both parties, and the lack of communication between them both at the start of July was clear indication of it not all being rosy in the garden so to speak. If thats the case, whats to stop us being homeless in 25 years having spent several million upgrading.

It would be my arguement that by investing in infrastructure to the extent we would be. This would be an indication of our long term intentions at BM despite the fact we are only initially getting a 25 year lease.. We arent a rich club so by investing the level of money we are talking about we could show intent to make it our long term home. Although i agree with you. The longer we could make the initial lease the better case we would have.

[Q8Quaker]

[quote="JE93"]I can assure you that very much isn't the simple fact. If you have an effective constructive trust in land you have legal rights in the land. doesn't matter however much debt or whatever someone else is in, you would own a certain % or up to a certain amount, and if you own so much then they can't sell it and take it away from you its based on a legal principle 'nemo dat quod non habit'. In that situation we would be entitles to at least the value we put in back. But also if you were in that situation, then the creditors would obtain a piece of land that cn be used except for sporting purposes. I'm sure we would probably at the top of their list of people to speak to if they wanted to make any money out of it'



So are you saying that DFC obtaining a 'constructive trust in the land', along with the ownership benefits this brings is part of the current negotiations?

[JE93]

I'd believe it would be part of the long term intentions on our part. And certainly both parties will be fully aware of the implications and legalities such as this. To make it clear a constructive trust is essentially a shield. It says that the investments we've put into the land is protected in the event of sale we own a certain % and would be due this money from the proceeds of sale.

[shawry]

I'd believe it would be part of the long term intentions on our part. And certainly both parties will be fully aware of the implications and legalities such as this. To make it clear a constructive trust is essentially a shield. It says that the investments we've put into the land is protected in the event of sale we own a certain % and would be due this money from the proceeds of sale.

You see, and this is another thing to bother me now, as the rugby club dont need to improve the facilities, so by doing so, they would lose value.

Not really sure how I can see the rugby club protecting its value, or the football club protecting its investment, one or the other is going to lose out.

I think this, in part, is why developing a self contained pitch ourselves might have been discussed at the earlier stages.

[Q8Quaker]

So are you saying that DFC obtaining a 'constructive trust in the land', along with the ownership benefits this brings is part of the current negotiations?

I'd believe it would be part of the long term intentions on our part. And certainly both parties will be fully aware of the implications and legalities such as this. To make it clear a constructive trust is essentially a shield. It says that the investments we've put into the land is protected in the event of sale we own a certain % and would be due this money from the proceeds of sale.

[/quote]

From the tone of your response I take it you either don't know if this is part of the negotiations or if it is, what timeframe it would be implemented in, meaning an unknown period of risk.
In addition, we have recently seen Scott & Sizer, as creditors of DFC, sell a £25M stadium for a reportedly £2M (less than 10% of it's build cost). In similar circumstances at BM we would get peanuts for our % of the assets.

[JE93]

Non of us know what the terms are of the agreement its mostly speculation. But certainly with lawyers being involved this point wont have gone un noticed.

should this go the way you're saying and DRFC go bust for example. Who do you think would be queuing up to buy land that they'd have to flatten, has a massive drainage pipe running underneath it and has a sporting use covenant over it. TBH if DRFC ever went bust we'd be in prime position to buy the site on the cheap and do with it as we please.

[theoriginalfatcat]

I think this, in part, is why developing a self contained pitch ourselves might have been discussed at the earlier stages.

I thought (mistakenly) the self contained thing was what we were getting into - but obviously not. But if we could get this scenario either at the BM site or Arena, then to me, that would be the answer.

A little stadium, under our control, tagged into somewhere where sport already takes place. This (to me) is where the Council could help.

It seems that DFC have always had a bum deal re their home. But historically we're bigger and more important than any cricket club or rugby club.

This is why I find this "junior partner" thing so annoying.

[bga]

It seems that DFC have always had a bum deal re their home. But historically we're bigger and more important than any cricket club or rugby club.

This is why I find this "junior partner" thing so annoying.

To be fair to both rugby clubs they have something like 17 teams each don't they, at various age groups males and females plus hundreds of social members? One owns its ground outright, and one owns with a mortgage. Mowden sometimes attract crowds of 1,000 plus and play in National League One. In business terms history counts for very little I am afraid, so we have to be realistic and accept we currently are perhaps the "junior partner"?

[lo36789]

In addition, we have recently seen Scott & Sizer, as creditors of DFC, sell a £25M stadium for a reportedly £2M (less than 10% of it's build cost). In similar circumstances at BM we would get peanuts for our % of the assets.

The ground wasn't a £25m asset. It may have cost 25m to build - although what percentage of that George actually paid is probably unceratain - but that is not how an asset is valued.

Both of the rugby clubs in town plays a considerably higher standard in equivalent terms than our players do right now. Your false sense of grand status is exactly why rugby fans had reservations over voting for the ground share. Nobody is more or less than anyone else in this world - and that extends beyond a petty sports team debate.

[Andrew Wilkinson]

That's not true. Darlington Rugby Club does not play at a higher standard in equivalent terms than the football club does.

[lo36789]

We are at Step 7 nationally. I was under the impression that MPRFC are at step 3 and DRFC at Step 6?

[Beano]

We are at Step 7 nationally. I was under the impression that MPRFC are at step 3 and DRFC at Step 6?

DRFC play at step 7 which is the Durham/Northumberland Division 1. As a comparison, the Northern League caters for the whole of the North East and Cumbria.

They were, at one time, very highly placed but have plummeted through the divisions in recent years.

[Beano]

We are at Step 7 nationally. I was under the impression that MPRFC are at step 3 and DRFC at Step 6?

DRFC play at step 7 which is the Durham/Northumberland Division 1. As a comparison, the Northern League caters for the whole of the North East and Cumbria.

They were, at one time, very highly placed but have plummeted through the divisions in recent years.

The Evo-Stik Premier Division is equivalent to Step 5 in Rugby Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_r ... al_leagues

[Spyman]

Arena is never gonna happen end of , trust me we are a laughing stock with the mowden employees and owners .
i hear we went begging for some high vis jackets back a couple of years ago and we were laughed out the building.
Council helping is never gonna happen either.

Blackwell meadows is nearly dead as well unless the supposed people in charge of us get their heads out of their arses and actually talk to DRFC.

Complete shambles the entire situation.

New username?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[lo36789]

Begged for high vis jackets was where I lost interest.

It is completely comprehensible that we asked "hey could we borrow some?". I highly doubt we begged for them.

[Darlo_Pete]

Arena is never gonna happen end of , trust me we are a laughing stock with the mowden employees and owners .
i hear we went begging for some high vis jackets back a couple of years ago and we were laughed out the building.
Council helping is never gonna happen either.

Blackwell meadows is nearly dead as well unless the supposed people in charge of us get their heads out of their arses and actually talk to DRFC.

Complete shambles the entire situation.

New username?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Probably someone from one of the Rugby Clubs, not sure which one though.

[Neil Johnson]

I like your thinking, but as we are speculating I would be happier if we could arrange a mortgage type thing over a longer period so at the end of it we owned the land, as with Blackwell in 25 years we could end up with nothing, it may sound along way off but when we talk about a long term future of the club its got to be a place we own, plus land is scarce at the moment god knows what the situation will be like in 25 years

No bank loan likely with the Administrations.
Without those blotting the copybook we could pay back in 40 plus years.
Years ago a council may have provided a loan, but not in our asset stripping & service cutting world.