Darlo Uncovered

AGM will be on November 5th.

Accounts available to view here:

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/44f7c2f11 ... s_2015.pdf

When threads about automated threads get more comments than or annual AGM and accounts. That is when you know fans have their priorities right.

Good to see the debt gone. Midweek attendances averaging higher than weekend attendances is an interesting stat. I thought this last year but some of the KPIs are a little bit irrelevant, I am not sure how some link in with the business objectives - when league games played dropped was that really an indicator of the business performance? I would have thought that round progression in FA competitions and 'tier' played at would be more relevant as measures of performance.

...% home games played in Darlington would also be a real indicator against our targets...

Just a point Exodus Geoghagan was one of the players who waived his money...

Our playing budget whilst 'in' budget keeps calling out that we are potentially in a precarious position were it not for ex player income. Am I being really daft to suggest that the budget might be too generous? I am sure this has been said before but there can't be any other clubs turning over £300k and have an operational loss.

Fortunately 40k was made up of debt so maybe things will look more positive next time out.

Robbie Painter wrote:AGM will be on November 5th.

Accounts available to view here:

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/44f7c2f11 ... s_2015.pdf

I look forward to the fireworks.

lo36789 wrote:I am sure this has been said before but there can't be any other clubs turning over £300k and have an operational loss.

I bet there are loads of clubs turning over 300k and more, who have run at an operational loss.

Lol I meant at this level - knew I should have gone back and edited that!

lo36789 wrote:When threads about automated threads get more comments than or annual AGM and accounts. That is when you know fans have their priorities right.

Give people a chance, it's only just been posted and there are 37 pages to analyse!!

Exodus Geohaghen waived outstanding wages

lo36789 wrote:When threads about automated threads get more comments than or annual AGM and accounts. That is when you know fans have their priorities right.

This (apart from not making sense) is stupid.

The report itself is an amazing piece of work. It answers virtually every question you could probably ask about the state of the club at present - so much detail, and ideas too.

The part about Blackwell is interesting, outlining the difficulties that a semi-professional football club has in being under the control of a volunteer run Rugby club, whilst being held under a 25 year lease.

Also, naming the players that waived their final payments, not only Big X but others too--I wonder which players (if any) held out for full payment.

I'm very impressed by this.

[/quote]

theoriginalfatcat wrote:This (apart from not making sense) is stupid.

Sorry I missed a u out. I've just realised that it was probably the time on my phone, it initially appeared that the thread had gone 2 hours without a response which was considerably longer than some nonsense threads.

Can't be that many players left. I think that from the outset there were a number who waived their payments (Hatch, Chandler, Taylor I think?).

Am I reading right that we basically paid £40kish off of the £58k balance that there was from last year. A very decent gesture by those players named.

Makka Pakka wrote:Exodus Geohaghen waived outstanding wages

I should think so too, he obviously has a conscience.

However, before we start gushing too much I remember something around the players owed being made an offer of receiving a lump sum of say 80% rather than the full amount in instalments so yes they have waived some but it was more likely to get the cash up front than to spare the club.

divas wrote:

lo36789 wrote:When threads about automated threads get more comments than or annual AGM and accounts. That is when you know fans have their priorities right.

Give people a chance, it's only just been posted and there are 37 pages to analyse!!

plus as someone else said - when the club is in good health on and off the pitch there's not much debate. Think the only topic that falls out of that is the move back to darlo but it's been done to death.

Through my vocation, I have to endure reviews of numerous sets of Company reviews/financial statements and my first impression of the information within these latest Darlo accounts is: "very impressive".

As I went through the accounts, various questions popped up but as I continued through these were all answered. Not all companies are this transparent. Sadly.

As far as financial statements go, this is bordering on a work of art.

Cap doffed to all concerned.

I am really glad to see the clear layout of what is needed in terms of volunteers as well. Hopefully that can inspire some with relevant experience to get involved.

I wonder when the last time we were debt free was?

al_quaker wrote:I wonder when the last time we were debt free was?

Sterling Consortium I suspect, although there were programme notes from Singh which said that other chairmen can't believe it when he tells them that we are operating debt free...

turns out there was a reason why.

lo36789 wrote: Our playing budget whilst 'in' budget keeps calling out that we are potentially in a precarious position were it not for ex player income. Am I being really daft to suggest that the budget might be too generous? I am sure this has been said before but there can't be any other clubs turning over £300k and have an operational loss.

Fortunately 40k was made up of debt so maybe things will look more positive next time out.

It's an interesting point, I haven't been through the accounts fully yet. I guess we have costs of renting Bishop however if we moved to BM you would imagine these costs are similar and with player income coming in and debt being paid out it will be a little bit clouded.

From a quick look we also have things like Retail in terms of income but for this they will also be an outgoing. We may generate 40k revenue from Retail but this may actually cost us 25k.

super_les_mcjannet wrote:

lo36789 wrote: Our playing budget whilst 'in' budget keeps calling out that we are potentially in a precarious position were it not for ex player income. Am I being really daft to suggest that the budget might be too generous? I am sure this has been said before but there can't be any other clubs turning over £300k and have an operational loss.

Fortunately 40k was made up of debt so maybe things will look more positive next time out.

It's an interesting point, I haven't been through the accounts fully yet. I guess we have costs of renting Bishop however if we moved to BM you would imagine these costs are similar and with player income coming in and debt being paid out it will be a little bit clouded.

From a quick look we also have things like Retail in terms of income but for this they will also be an outgoing. We may generate 40k revenue from Retail but this may actually cost us 25k.

As stated in the report, underlying trading (i.e. excluding one offs) has been loss making in all of the past 3 years. Hardly the stuff of a sustainable business whilst at HP.

Operational expenses came to £390.1k (excluding non-recurring items but, I think, inc NC transfer fee), revenue (excluding non-recurring items) circa £300k. Even taking out the NC fee that is a substantial shortfall.

If we are going to be at HP for an extended period of time some difficult decisions will have to be made re the playing budget, it doesn't seem sustainable to me at the current level with our current crowds.

However on a positive note our balance sheet is rock solid, with substantial cash and zero debt so we are in an robust financial position for the first time in many, many years.

Henley wrote:Through my vocation, I have to endure reviews of numerous sets of Company reviews/financial statements and my first impression of the information within these latest Darlo accounts is: "very impressive".

As I went through the accounts, various questions popped up but as I continued through these were all answered. Not all companies are this transparent. Sadly.

As far as financial statements go, this is bordering on a work of art.

Cap doffed to all concerned.

That is praise indeed!

Some might not realise that you are never frightened of speaking your mind.
If there were fault you would say so!

Really good to hear, excellent stuff.

Robbie Painter wrote:
Operational expenses came to £390.1k (excluding non-recurring items but, I think, inc NC transfer fee), revenue (excluding non-recurring items) circa £300k. Even taking out the NC fee that is a substantial shortfall.

If we are going to be at HP for an extended period of time some difficult decisions will have to be made re the playing budget, it doesn't seem sustainable to me at the current level with our current crowds.

You have it absolutely spot on Robbie. The question is what can we do about it? One course of action is to reduce the playing budget to a sustainable level. But how do you find what is a sustainable level? Because one of the consequences of reducing the playing budget will be players of a lower ability, leading to poorer performances and lower crowds. So before you know it we could end up on a terminal downward spiral.

So if we want to preserve the wage bill we need a much greater proportion of the fan base to buy in to the principle that fan owned means fan funded i.e. it is down to the fans, all of us, to provide the additional funds that the owner/benefactors pump into the majority of our rival clubs. We need a greater proportion of our fans to invest into the club on a more regular basis – not just occasional purchases/payments.

For example, I understand we have around 250 fans that contribute to the fans Lottery and that raises around £7k a year. If we could boost that to say 750 fans that would produce a respectable sum. Despite owning more than 60% of the Club’s shareholding, the Supporters Group has just over 400 members. If it could double its membership, it could probably afford to invest >£12k a year into the Club. When you add these sums together, you are starting to take a significant step towards sustainability.

Another example, some Darlington based supporters spend huge sums over the season attending virtually every away game without hardly ever attending a home match. However, if they were to balance their priorities a little it might just make a difference.

Maurice is also correct with his post. There are a number of ways that fans can help. On Saturday the DFCSG are planning to issue forms for the Fans Lottery. To date this scheme has raised over £22,000 for the football club. If we can pick up another 50 members the club would benefit by another £2,000 per year, and the monthly "big" prize money would increase to about £600. Don't just ignore the form, fill it in and be a part of the fundraising initiative. Also, don't forget to buy 50/50, match day programme,etc.

Maurice_Peddelty wrote:

Robbie Painter wrote:
Operational expenses came to £390.1k (excluding non-recurring items but, I think, inc NC transfer fee), revenue (excluding non-recurring items) circa £300k. Even taking out the NC fee that is a substantial shortfall.

If we are going to be at HP for an extended period of time some difficult decisions will have to be made re the playing budget, it doesn't seem sustainable to me at the current level with our current crowds.

You have it absolutely spot on Robbie. The question is what can we do about it? One course of action is to reduce the playing budget to a sustainable level. But how do you find what is a sustainable level? Because one of the consequences of reducing the playing budget will be players of a lower ability, leading to poorer performances and lower crowds. So before you know it we could end up on a terminal downward spiral.

So if we want to preserve the wage bill we need a much greater proportion of the fan base to buy in to the principle that fan owned means fan funded i.e. it is down to the fans, all of us, to provide the additional funds that the owner/benefactors pump into the majority of our rival clubs. We need a greater proportion of our fans to invest into the club on a more regular basis – not just occasional purchases/payments.

For example, I understand we have around 250 fans that contribute to the fans Lottery and that raises around £7k a year. If we could boost that to say 750 fans that would produce a respectable sum. Despite owning more than 60% of the Club’s shareholding, the Supporters Group has just over 400 members. If it could double its membership, it could probably afford to invest >£12k a year into the Club. When you add these sums together, you are starting to take a significant step towards sustainability.

Another example, some Darlington based supporters spend huge sums over the season attending virtually every away game without hardly ever attending a home match. However, if they were to balance their priorities a little it might just make a difference.

The old DFC sold a few thousands lottery tickets each week, mainly to the general public with repeat door to door sales. There may be scope for employing door to door agents on a % of sales basis again.

Unfamiliar Darlo fans at away games are usually exiles. They contribute to the club commercially and visit home games now and then. Commercially they provide more than home fans per capita on shares, sponsorships, lottery tickets, sponsor a goal, programme subscriptions, club merchandise.

Being a NE club we have a big fan base away from the economically & politically neglected home area and as our away matches extend further South we can expect their numbers and commercial support to increase.

There are home based supporters who only contribute occasionally (e.g. attending a high profile or special offer matches) With a return to Darlo many may become actual fans and contribute more.

Maurice_Peddelty wrote:

Robbie Painter wrote:
Operational expenses came to £390.1k (excluding non-recurring items but, I think, inc NC transfer fee), revenue (excluding non-recurring items) circa £300k. Even taking out the NC fee that is a substantial shortfall.

If we are going to be at HP for an extended period of time some difficult decisions will have to be made re the playing budget, it doesn't seem sustainable to me at the current level with our current crowds.

You have it absolutely spot on Robbie. The question is what can we do about it? One course of action is to reduce the playing budget to a sustainable level. But how do you find what is a sustainable level? Because one of the consequences of reducing the playing budget will be players of a lower ability, leading to poorer performances and lower crowds. So before you know it we could end up on a terminal downward spiral.

So if we want to preserve the wage bill we need a much greater proportion of the fan base to buy in to the principle that fan owned means fan funded i.e. it is down to the fans, all of us, to provide the additional funds that the owner/benefactors pump into the majority of our rival clubs. We need a greater proportion of our fans to invest into the club on a more regular basis – not just occasional purchases/payments.

For example, I understand we have around 250 fans that contribute to the fans Lottery and that raises around £7k a year. If we could boost that to say 750 fans that would produce a respectable sum. Despite owning more than 60% of the Club’s shareholding, the Supporters Group has just over 400 members. If it could double its membership, it could probably afford to invest >£12k a year into the Club. When you add these sums together, you are starting to take a significant step towards sustainability.

Another example, some Darlington based supporters spend huge sums over the season attending virtually every away game without hardly ever attending a home match. However, if they were to balance their priorities a little it might just make a difference.

While I agree with the majority of the post, I don't think there are many fans at all who go to away games over home, exiles excluded. Even if they are people who want to support the team by going to away games can't really see why they should be criticised.

Surely we should be thankful that so many fans travel to our away games considering the distances and the level we are at. The more we take to away games the more support we have behind the team. If we were only taking 100 to Saturday away games people would probably have a go.

I didn't say they shouldn't go. I said they could balance their priorities a little.

.

We should be encouraging fans to support our team at away games. They often make the difference and can turn an away game, into feeling like a home game.

Lots of charities, organisations and people are attempting to raise funds for many good causes. We should perhaps be thinking of some big fund raising schemes. Perhaps there could be some committee formed, just into looking into innovative ways of raising funds for the club. We need to look at ways of broadening the people that contribute to club fundraising efforts, rather than it keep falling on the same people.

Darlo_Pete wrote:We should be encouraging fans to support our team at away games. They often make the difference and can turn an away game, into feeling like a home game.

Lots of charities, organisations and people are attempting to raise funds for many good causes. We should perhaps be thinking of some big fund raising schemes. Perhaps there could be some committee formed, just into looking into innovative ways of raising funds for the club. We need to look at ways of broadening the people that contribute to club fundraising efforts, rather than it keep falling on the same people.

We have a fundraising group that meet at 6.30pm the first Monday of the month in the Dolphin Centre Bistro. We need new people and we've appealed many times and still do.
The majority of the group at the moment have volunteer commitments elsewhere for the club as well as the frg. We are very few in number and we would massively welcome new faces and new ideas. It's not just about putting on events, it's about raising money!

Maurice_Peddelty wrote:I didn't say they shouldn't go. I said they could balance their priorities a little.

Why? They are free to do what they want and should not have to justify their actions for the good of the club or not, it's not a communist state last time I looked, so please stop implying they are doing something wrong it's very offensive and insulting.

Would love to know where you get your figures from to justify the claim that they go to away games and not home, I have seen little evidence of this having done a lot of away games and home and see the same faces at both.

Lets be honest extra strain is on for the simple fact we are away from darlington. Commercial revenue is lost, ticket revenues are undoubtedly lost and we have next to no presence in the town on matchdays creating interest. Other clubs ive visited have their clubhouse filled with regulars even when the match is over and thats just another stream we miss out on, and to be honest all of these are to change when we return.

Maybe the fan owned model has its risks and takes a lot of time up from the brilliant volunteers but until we get back in the town we have no real idea of just how stable we can be. Ive seen a lot of people wanting a backer to come in but they rarely exist.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Bogratsteve wrote:

Maurice_Peddelty wrote:I didn't say they shouldn't go. I said they could balance their priorities a little.

Why? They are free to do what they want and should not have to justify their actions for the good of the club or not, it's not a communist state last time I looked, so please stop implying they are doing something wrong it's very offensive and insulting.

Would love to know where you get your figures from to justify the claim that they go to away games and not home, I have seen little evidence of this having done a lot of away games and home and see the same faces at both.

He is implying they should realise that attending away games only supports the team, not the club. Given the stance in the annual report is that we are building a club not a team then it makes sense.

Clearly there aren't figures but there are a good few people who I know that will go to a lot of away games but won't go to home games. The excuse often given is that Bishop is too far to travel. You couldn't make it up.

Fact is we need to generate more revenue. That is clear through out the report. So instead of jumping on a genuine way that revenue could be boosted without being at the detriment of fans pockets please do give us your own suggestions.

Really comprehensive reporting from the club which answers a lot of questions in terms of the financial stability and the operations. Deserves a lot of praise to those who put their hard work and effort into writing it.

As we all knew anyway, getting back to the town is the key issue. We know we're missing out on key revenue from 'walk up' match day ticket sales. Extra bar revenues, increased sponsorship etc. But despite this the club's financial footing is solid.

Just a quick question? May have missed it in the report. Did it mention any more receivables on the Dan Burn transfer? Based on his appearances this season it looks like he will go past the 50 mark will this mean any more payments for us? If so this could make up for our inability to make it through a couple of rounds of the FA cup in terms of finance.

Finally was wondering if we had an events planning committee to plan for larger money making events possibly to take place over the summer when the club's income stagnates. I know DRFC organise their own it's a knockout day each summer which could see teams of fans captained by a player from the club competing against each other. Or perhaps charity matches fans paying to play with a mixture of first teamers and management. Simple events like this are capable of raising a few thousand pounds, which all adds up in terms of budgets and funding the back to darlo campaign.