The mess at my other club

[SwansQuaker83]

Thought I'd post this as a lesson to be learned moving forward. I'm not for one second saying that anyone involved with Darlo would act this way but just that money can do some very strange things to people...

For those who don't know, my boyhood club is Swansea City. Living at home I remember many games against Darlo and when I first moved here in 2002, some away games... Since then Swansea and Darlo have fortunately (for Swansea) and unfortunately (for Darlo) gone in very different directions.

Swansea City Football Club was in crisis 13 years ago. Some of you may remember Tony Petty, a crook who systematically set about dismantling our club from the moment he walked thru the door... The War Against Tony (TW@T) culminated in violence towards him, threats on his life, and various other unsavoury acts, before a consortium of fans, through various desperate measures (a few remortgaged their houses, one without telling his wife) raised the money needed to buy the club... The wheel tappers and shunters committee as they were known, became Directors, taking on different roles based on their very limited strengths. A supporter's trust was established and they acquired 21% of the shares, the rest being shared between Brian Katzen, John Van Zweden, Leigh Dineen, Martin Morgan and now Chairman Huw Jenkins. Initial difficulties were followed by ten years of success, back to back promotions, a new stadium (paid for by the council) and eventually Premier League football, where we are just finishing our 5th season.

But like all good things, the feel good factor at Swansea appears to have come to an end. Those who keep an eye on the latest goings on at the top of the game will have heard a takeover by two Americans is imminent. This would involve some (not all) board members selling a 60% stake in the club... This was to rise to 75.1% to gain overall control. The Trust met with fans last night and established some very sad things:

Some of the Directors have been planning this for months.
The Trust were only informed within the last few weeks.
Huw Jenkins signed a Heads of Terms on behalf of the Trust and some (unknown) Directors without their knowledge
This despite the fact that Huw Jenkins and "friend" Huw Cooze, Chair of the trust, travel to every away game together... nothing was mentioned, something which Cooze stated he was personally very "hurt" by.
Jenkins and Vice Chair Leigh Dineen were invited to the Trust meeting but declined.
Despite Sky Sports sources, the deal will probably not go through in the next week but it is imminent.
The Trust would need to own a minimum of 25% to safeguard against the club being done with as the yanks see fit... But owing to the value of shares, the Trust are not confident of raising the money to buy them, although I posted on our forum the amazing success we have had at Darlo of an example of what fan power can achieve when people come together. EDIT: the amount needed is £5m

So it seems the whole thing is unravelling, the once hailed board appear to be divided and certain members including the man who many would argue has been the best Chairman in the country, have their reputation in tatters... Seems like a very sad end (despite where we are on the field) to an amazing story as some irreparable damage has been done.

I started going to Darlo games sporadically in about 2008... I began going regularly during our first year following the expulsion from the Conference. The last few seasons, the promotions, the amazing generosity of our fans and the togetherness on and off the field has been amazing to be a part of, and has reminded me of the last 13 years following the Swans. As I said at the start, I'm not for one second suggesting anyone involved with our club would behave like this, but history is there to be learned from. With all the feel good factor over the last few weeks with us going top of the league and the fund raising, it will be strange tomorrow as I travel up to Newcastle to watch Swans away, with fans calling for the head of Jenkins et al... I guess this is the price of success.

This is all public knowledge, there are no rumours or laundry being aired... Information about this is available on the Swansea Evening Post website and on the forum Planet Swans.

[liddle_4_ever]

I can't claim to know much/anything about Swansea but it's a concerning read. It seems like an all or nothing role of the dice.

Reading this has made me think, it would be nice (although some would say an inappropriate use of funds) to have a message literally set in stone at the new ground at BM, "Our club is for life not just for business" or "by fans, for fans, forever" etc etc etc. As you can guarantee that in future someone will come in to try to buy the club promising the world and fans will be tempted. Setting this in stone will forever be a reminder of the ideology behind the recovery of the club and a warning to future generations of the potential perils of a leaving the fan owned model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spen666]

I can't claim to know much/anything about Swansea but it's a concerning read. It seems like an all or nothing role of the dice.

Reading this has made me think, it would be nice (although some would say an inappropriate use of funds) to have a message literally set in stone at the new ground at BM, "Our club is for life not just for business" or "by fans, for fans, forever" etc etc etc. As you can guarantee that in future someone will come in to try to buy the club promising the world and fans will be tempted. Setting this in stone will forever be a reminder of the ideology behind the recovery of the club and a warning to future generations of the potential perils of a leaving the fan owned model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sounds very ANIMAL FARM like - remember everyone is equal became everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

The Darlington model is different as the trust own the majority of the shares, not a minority as it appears happens at Swansea.

The problem for Darlington would only arise if enough people did not get involved with the Trust and allowed a few individuals to control things. Even then as trust owns majority of shares it would seem hard for a small group to put through a sale without the members having a vote

It is sad to hear what has happened at Swansea as they were held out as a beacon of fan power

[lo36789]

The problem for Darlington would only arise if enough people did not get involved with the Trust and allowed a few individuals to control things. Even then as trust owns majority of shares it would seem hard for a small group to put through a sale without the members having a vote

It shouldn't be able to happen as very soon the DFCSG will have a >90% share that should be pretty difficult to shift. This shareholding will increase year on year as the DFCSG have surplus funds (at least that is my understanding).

I think the only way anything could go wrong is if a majority of DFCSG members were to vote to sell the DFCSG shareholding in the club. I hope there is plenty of red tape in place which would stop this due to the community investment status.

[liddle_4_ever]

I think the only way anything could go wrong is if a majority of DFCSG members were to vote to sell the DFCSG shareholding in the club.

That's my concern. The problems of the last 13 years could be quickly forgotten in a few decades time when a millionaire turns up and offers us an easy leg up a couple of leagues. The fan owned ideology is what we've rebuilt the club on and (in my opinion) would be an appropriate cornerstone for the ground so that it is never forgotten.

[lo36789]

Agreed. I think saving grace is that the articles of the company state that no individual can own a certain percentage of the club.

Again though I guess articles can be changed with an EGM. I think we saw a glimpse of it with Mr Dubai that some were saying we should be looking into it.

[spen666]

The problem for Darlington would only arise if enough people did not get involved with the Trust and allowed a few individuals to control things. Even then as trust owns majority of shares it would seem hard for a small group to put through a sale without the members having a vote

It shouldn't be able to happen as very soon the DFCSG will have a >90% share that should be pretty difficult to shift. This shareholding will increase year on year as the DFCSG have surplus funds (at least that is my understanding).

I think the only way anything could go wrong is if a majority of DFCSG members were to vote to sell the DFCSG shareholding in the club. I hope there is plenty of red tape in place which would stop this due to the community investment status.

As I understand the constitution, it is a majority of the DFCSG members who chose to vote. This is why I said the problem will be if not enough people are engaged on such an issue.

Look at an issue as important as who rules the country and this last time the Tories get the power on a majority of those who voted, but that is only a tiny % of those eligible to vote.

Apathy has to be guarded against and as liddle_4_ever says the struggles of the last few years will be forgotten by many over time as it becomes a memory.

However, the Darlington constitution makes it much harder for the club to find itself in Swansea's situation

[Mr_Tibbs]

Sorry to hear the sad tale of woe down at Swansea - I didn't realise things were like they are... I'll take a keener interest in it now.

As far as Darlo goes then here's a reminder of who/what we are (I know it's still a bit confusing to those who just want to go and watch a game of football... and why not?).

The Darlington FC Supporters Group is the trading name of a Community Benefit Society registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, which says what we can and can't do...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/14/contents

The CIC, Trust & Supporters Club merged and became a CBS on the advice of Supporters Direct as their model rules for a Community Benefit Society provided a set of objects that were a much better fit for our activities and provided a democratic constitution that the previous (CIC-led) structure lacked.

This change also allowed us to issue the Community Shares.

Supporters Direct's model rules for a CBS state:

The Society’s purpose is to be the vehicle through which a healthy, balanced and constructive relationship between the Club and its supporters and the communities it serves is encouraged and developed. The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members.

The Society’s objects are to benefit the community by:

1. being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of the Club and strengthening the bonds between the Club and the communities which it serves;
2. achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running and ownership of the Club;
3. promoting responsible and constructive community engagement by present and future members of the communities served by the Club and encouraging the Club to do the same;
4. operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;
5. being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all supporters of the Club regardless of their age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality or religious or moral belief.

[Neil Johnson]

DFCSG must keep control of DFC board appointments and more importantly dismissals, otherwise a few can change the constitution and/or steal the assets.

[Mr_Tibbs]

DFCSG must keep control of DFC board appointments and more importantly dismissals, otherwise a few can change the constitution and/or steal the assets.

As I understand it the DFC Directors are appointed by the DFCSG - they can't be appointed any other way.

[Darlo_Pete]

They aren't doing any better on the pitch than off it, as they are losing 1-0 at Newcastle.

[MCFCDarlo3]

Thought I'd post this as a lesson to be learned moving forward. I'm not for one second saying that anyone involved with Darlo would act this way but just that money can do some very strange things to people...

For those who don't know, my boyhood club is Swansea City. Living at home I remember many games against Darlo and when I first moved here in 2002, some away games... Since then Swansea and Darlo have fortunately (for Swansea) and unfortunately (for Darlo) gone in very different directions.

Swansea City Football Club was in crisis 13 years ago. Some of you may remember Tony Petty, a crook who systematically set about dismantling our club from the moment he walked thru the door... The War Against Tony (TW@T) culminated in violence towards him, threats on his life, and various other unsavoury acts, before a consortium of fans, through various desperate measures (a few remortgaged their houses, one without telling his wife) raised the money needed to buy the club... The wheel tappers and shunters committee as they were known, became Directors, taking on different roles based on their very limited strengths. A supporter's trust was established and they acquired 21% of the shares, the rest being shared between Brian Katzen, John Van Zweden, Leigh Dineen, Martin Morgan and now Chairman Huw Jenkins. Initial difficulties were followed by ten years of success, back to back promotions, a new stadium (paid for by the council) and eventually Premier League football, where we are just finishing our 5th season.

But like all good things, the feel good factor at Swansea appears to have come to an end. Those who keep an eye on the latest goings on at the top of the game will have heard a takeover by two Americans is imminent. This would involve some (not all) board members selling a 60% stake in the club... This was to rise to 75.1% to gain overall control. The Trust met with fans last night and established some very sad things:

Some of the Directors have been planning this for months.
The Trust were only informed within the last few weeks.
Huw Jenkins signed a Heads of Terms on behalf of the Trust and some (unknown) Directors without their knowledge
This despite the fact that Huw Jenkins and "friend" Huw Cooze, Chair of the trust, travel to every away game together... nothing was mentioned, something which Cooze stated he was personally very "hurt" by.
Jenkins and Vice Chair Leigh Dineen were invited to the Trust meeting but declined.
Despite Sky Sports sources, the deal will probably not go through in the next week but it is imminent.
The Trust would need to own a minimum of 25% to safeguard against the club being done with as the yanks see fit... But owing to the value of shares, the Trust are not confident of raising the money to buy them, although I posted on our forum the amazing success we have had at Darlo of an example of what fan power can achieve when people come together. EDIT: the amount needed is £5m

So it seems the whole thing is unravelling, the once hailed board appear to be divided and certain members including the man who many would argue has been the best Chairman in the country, have their reputation in tatters... Seems like a very sad end (despite where we are on the field) to an amazing story as some irreparable damage has been done.

I started going to Darlo games sporadically in about 2008... I began going regularly during our first year following the expulsion from the Conference. The last few seasons, the promotions, the amazing generosity of our fans and the togetherness on and off the field has been amazing to be a part of, and has reminded me of the last 13 years following the Swans. As I said at the start, I'm not for one second suggesting anyone involved with our club would behave like this, but history is there to be learned from. With all the feel good factor over the last few weeks with us going top of the league and the fund raising, it will be strange tomorrow as I travel up to Newcastle to watch Swans away, with fans calling for the head of Jenkins et al... I guess this is the price of success.

This is all public knowledge, there are no rumours or laundry being aired... Information about this is available on the Swansea Evening Post website and on the forum Planet Swans.

Such a shame,always found Swansea fans to be very decent types,good job you have the points already with all that going on.

[SwansQuaker83]

Only just had a chance to read the responses to this now... very interesting read and thanks for all the well wishes.... Saturday was pretty depressing... there were no protests but a lot of talk about what has transpired.

I'm not sure how this will play out, the only possible solution is that those who aren't selling donate some of the shares to the trust to get to the magic 25% which seems to be the point at which the fans will have enough to ensure the Americans can't do as they please... in fact I believe it will be enough to make sure they walk away as they've seemed to make it clear they want 75.1% and full control... very interesting off season ahead on and off the field for us...

[spen666]

Only just had a chance to read the responses to this now... very interesting read and thanks for all the well wishes.... Saturday was pretty depressing... there were no protests but a lot of talk about what has transpired.

I'm not sure how this will play out, the only possible solution is that those who aren't selling donate some of the shares to the trust to get to the magic 25% which seems to be the point at which the fans will have enough to ensure the Americans can't do as they please... in fact I believe it will be enough to make sure they walk away as they've seemed to make it clear they want 75.1% and full control... very interesting off season ahead on and off the field for us...

Surely In Swansea's situation it doesn't matter if individuals or the trust hold the shares as long as at least 25% are not owned by the Yanks.

[Neil Johnson]

DFCSG must keep control of DFC board appointments and more importantly dismissals, otherwise a few can change the constitution and/or steal the assets.

As I understand it the DFC Directors are appointed by the DFCSG - they can't be appointed any other way.

Did all DFCSG members have a vote on make-up of both boards?

Can "pals" just appoint each other and at some point manipulate the rules & votes?

[SwansQuaker83]

Only just had a chance to read the responses to this now... very interesting read and thanks for all the well wishes.... Saturday was pretty depressing... there were no protests but a lot of talk about what has transpired.

I'm not sure how this will play out, the only possible solution is that those who aren't selling donate some of the shares to the trust to get to the magic 25% which seems to be the point at which the fans will have enough to ensure the Americans can't do as they please... in fact I believe it will be enough to make sure they walk away as they've seemed to make it clear they want 75.1% and full control... very interesting off season ahead on and off the field for us...

Surely In Swansea's situation it doesn't matter if individuals or the trust hold the shares as long as at least 25% are not owned by the Yanks.

This is the bit that confuses me... it's been said that they will somehow dilute the shares to get what they want, or make a very good offer to the remaining Directors, seeing as tho they've very much undervalued the club, believing it to be worth £100m. That's why it's important to get the additional 4% in the hands of the supporters.

[Mr_Tibbs]

DFCSG must keep control of DFC board appointments and more importantly dismissals, otherwise a few can change the constitution and/or steal the assets.

As I understand it the DFC Directors are appointed by the DFCSG - they can't be appointed any other way.

Did all DFCSG members have a vote on make-up of both boards?

Can "pals" just appoint each other and at some point manipulate the rules & votes?

Apologies once again to the OP from drifting slightly off-topic, but it's interesting to show the comparison between the way the two clubs are set up, and set a few minds at rest that the same thing can't happen here.

In answer to Neil's last question first... in the case of the DFCSG board the rules require that the board should comprise a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 12 members. At the (quorate) AGM in November a total of 11 nominations were received and therefore an election was not called for and each of the nominees was duly appointed.

The members (or their proxies) present at the AGM also agreed unanimously to provide the board with a mandate to vote on three resolutions at the Darlington FC AGM (which took place a couple of days later) and this included the re-appointment of the DFCSG themselves as the Corporate Director and Dave Mills as Director.

As we are a Community Benefit Society we are governed by the rules set in an Act of Parliament so we're very restricted in our ability to change rules which would necessarily be extremely transparent and democratically applied, and as for manipulating votes I'm not sure what you're suggesting there... the DFCSG Board sought and obtained a mandate to act on the members' behalf at the AGM, and all DFCSG members were given the opportunity to either attend or nominate a proxy to vote on their behalf. I know my vote was counted in my absence.

The short answer to anyone who has any particular concerns about the running of our club is to first and foremost to put themselves in a position to complain or question decisions taken in their name by joining the DFCSG or otherwise by owning a share in the football club, and then to pose their questions to their respective board... and stand for election at the next AGM if they feel they have the qualities needed to help the club progress. Unlike in the case with the Trust (IIRC) I don't believe there is any qualifying period (e.g. being a member for six months) before you can stand for election as a DFCSG board member - I think you can join and also stand for election at the very next AGM?

Maybe it's possible to improve the way Darlington FC directors are selected and appointed (I'm not saying it's a bad idea... quite the opposite is true) but I think, thus far, they've been a bit hard to find because it's a really demanding position to volunteer for. If anything I'd personally like to see us grow into a club where we can offer a nominal/performance-based reward to the directors of the football club, and I think some suggestions along the lines of developing key performance indicators in order to measure their performance would be a good step in that direction.

I'm pretty sure you'll know more than most about KPIs, Neil!

There's a full list of current DFCSG board members on the website in case any DFCSG members wants to direct a particular question to a specific member:

http://www.darlingtonfcsupportersgroup.org/aboutus

and anyone who isn't a member can click on the following link and join up in a matter of minutes using the new online form and (now) payments by GoCardless:

http://www.darlingtonfcsupportersgroup.org/join

The board members are all highly visible and willing to talk to anyone who might have useful suggestions (and even half-baked ideas can sometimes be developed into something useful) or who would like to volunteer in some way, and we also have something on the back burner which will allow us to better engage, unify, and expand our fan base.

[grytters]

Here you go.

David Conn in The Guardian on the self-same topic, and making most of the self-same points

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... -investors

Swansea City’s owners to make huge profit with sale to US investors

• Huw Jenkins among shareholders set to make millions if they sell

[Mr_Tibbs]

Here you go.

David Conn in The Guardian on the self-same topic, and making most of the self-same points

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... -investors

Swansea City’s owners to make huge profit with sale to US investors

• Huw Jenkins among shareholders set to make millions if they sell

Very well written and easy to understand. It's a shame these CVA's don't come with a kind of sell-on clause.

[SwansQuaker83]

Here you go.

David Conn in The Guardian on the self-same topic, and making most of the self-same points

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... -investors

Swansea City’s owners to make huge profit with sale to US investors

• Huw Jenkins among shareholders set to make millions if they sell

Very well written and easy to understand. It's a shame these CVA's don't come with a kind of sell-on clause.

A lot of those businesses who accepted the 5p in the pound have done very well as a result of the success we've since had...

[Mr_Tibbs]

Here you go.

David Conn in The Guardian on the self-same topic, and making most of the self-same points

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... -investors

Swansea City’s owners to make huge profit with sale to US investors

• Huw Jenkins among shareholders set to make millions if they sell

Very well written and easy to understand. It's a shame these CVA's don't come with a kind of sell-on clause.

A lot of those businesses who accepted the 5p in the pound have done very well as a result of the success we've since had...

I'm sure they have but Swansea's a bit of an exception in terms of the success you've had - except that Bournemouth also springs to mind. What I meant was that it might make it easier for clubs who go into admin to come out of them with a CVA if there was some way to write in some sort of profit sharing benefit if the club then goes on to have the kind of success you've had. Maybe some companies who agreed that 5p in the pound weren't quite so fortunate.

Anyway, I hope you get your problems sorted out. I'm against all of these vultures piling into our clubs, personally. They don't appreciate that these are communities they are toying with.

[spen666]

....


I'm sure they have but Swansea's a bit of an exception in terms of the success you've had - except that Bournemouth also springs to mind.

Leicester did a bit of this a few years back. Remember their dodgy administration helped result in 10 point deduction rule.


Wonder whatever happened to them?

What I meant was that it might make it easier for clubs who go into admin to come out of them with a CVA if there was some way to write in some sort of profit sharing benefit if the club then goes on to have the kind of success you've had. Maybe some companies who agreed that 5p in the pound weren't quite so fortunate.

Anyway, I hope you get your problems sorted out. I'm against all of these vultures piling into our clubs, personally. They don't appreciate that these are communities they are toying with.

The lesson for Darlington fans is to ensure they remain active and do not let the CIC be run by a small minority. This would ensure that profiteering would be virtually impossible.

The Darlington structure is complicated and at times cumbersome, but it should ensure a situation like that at Swansea ever happening.

A far sighted set up some may say

[SwansQuaker83]

http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2016/10/20/ ... m-address/

What a mess.

[Darlo_Pete]

Are you pleased with your new manager or would you have preferred Giggs?

[SwansQuaker83]

Are you pleased with your new manager or would you have preferred Giggs?

No I didn't want Giggs... I didn't want Bradley either but if that was our only choice then Bradley every time... There are some encouraging signs on the field, we create a lot of chances and defended well today (by all accounts, I was at HP)... It'll come.