All this club can't survive in the stadium bollocks

[Charlie_Darlo]

I am sick of hearing it.

The reason why we are in the mess is the way the club has been run, not the stadium. Houghton was clueless. Yes he made money from care homes, but he had an awful track record of businesses going under.

To be fair I know nothing about Singh, but I'm not impressed with what I've seen yet. For starters, he's borrowed everything he's put in.

The only person who ran this club right in recent years was Stewart Davies, a chartered accountant who knew how to run a business. Its just a shame he was only there until he sold the club and that he sold the club to Houghton.

[QuakerPete]

I am sick of hearing it.

The reason why we are in the mess is the way the club has been run, not the stadium. Houghton was clueless. Yes he made money from care homes, but he had an awful track record of businesses going under.

To be fair I know nothing about Singh, but I'm not impressed with what I've seen yet. For starters, he's borrowed everything he's put in.

The only person who ran this club right in recent years was Stewart Davies, a chartered accountant who knew how to run a business. Its just a shame he was only there until he sold the club and that he sold the club to Houghton.

In my opinion, there would be a few provisos:

1. Is it presently profitable or could it be profitable? Unless anyone has access to the stadium company's accounts, no-one can say one way or the other but I would take some convincing
2. Even if the stadium is profitable, are those profits being chanelled into the football club's coffers? Seem to remember Singh saying that "not all" would be. He would have to be totally dedicated to the football club itself in order to subsidise it with all stadium profits. Again, I would take some convincing on that point.
3. If some / all of the stadium's profits are given over, is it sufficient to properly fund the football team to any kind of reasonable level?
4. Other flies in the ointment: Houghton still owns 50% of the stadium and 50% of the land, something which worries me greatly when considering the huge losses built up against the club during his tenure and which weren't explained at all. Where did all that money go? And if he's still involved, what is he getting out of it? How can any other developments take place without his input? When will the club start paying rent on his part of the stadium (if they aren't already having to accommodate him somehow)? Is Houghton taking half of the stadium "profits"?
5. Stewart Davies didn't give a s*** about the club, just about his money
6. Too many "ifs" and "buts" surrounding the stadium, Singh and Houghton

[A kick in the Jacobs]

The only person who ran this club right in recent years was Stewart Davies, a chartered accountant who knew how to run a business. Its just a shame he was only there until he sold the club and that he sold the club to Houghton.

Utter tosh. He ran it until the money he'd set aside for it ran out.

If you match the ownership period of Stewart Davies with the same part of George Houghton's reign, you'll find very little difference.

[ShrewsX]

The only person who ran this club right in recent years was Stewart Davies, a chartered accountant who knew how to run a business. Its just a shame he was only there until he sold the club and that he sold the club to Houghton.

Utter tosh. He ran it until the money he'd set aside for it ran out.

If you match the ownership period of Stewart Davies with the same part of George Houghton's reign, you'll find very little difference.

Stewart Davies at least made an effort to bring the club and the fans closer together. That is what I liked about him. he made an effort to talk to people, he tried things out. Simple things like having entertainment in the bar after the game, getting the players to sign autographs. Even a fairly pathetic attempt to give the club a song (Judas Priest FFS). Simple things that go a long way to repairing the damaged relationship between supporter and club. But he did it without the Mike Ashley-esque "on the terraces approach". Thats what I liked about him.
But most of all, SD never claimed anything he wasn't. He admitted he wasn't in it for the long run, and under his short reign there was very little rumour or contraversy, and a lot of stuff was open. He never tried to hide the dealings he was involved in.

[loan_star]

It also helped that the manager at the time was also one for getting the fans involved and getting the club shown in a positive limelight.

[AndyPark]

I still remember when Davies walked over to our away support a few years back when we had Lincoln City away, when we just missed out on a play off place.

[A kick in the Jacobs]

The only person who ran this club right in recent years was Stewart Davies, a chartered accountant who knew how to run a business. Its just a shame he was only there until he sold the club and that he sold the club to Houghton.

Utter tosh. He ran it until the money he'd set aside for it ran out.

If you match the ownership period of Stewart Davies with the same part of George Houghton's reign, you'll find very little difference.

Stewart Davies at least made an effort to bring the club and the fans closer together. That is what I liked about him. he made an effort to talk to people, he tried things out. Simple things like having entertainment in the bar after the game, getting the players to sign autographs. Even a fairly pathetic attempt to give the club a song (Judas Priest FFS). Simple things that go a long way to repairing the damaged relationship between supporter and club. But he did it without the Mike Ashley-esque "on the terraces approach". Thats what I liked about him.
But most of all, SD never claimed anything he wasn't. He admitted he wasn't in it for the long run, and under his short reign there was very little rumour or contraversy, and a lot of stuff was open. He never tried to hide the dealings he was involved in.

That's a lot of words to say you liked SD getting his wallet out in the pub.

[Charlie_Darlo]

Davies only got £2million back in the end, which was less than he lent Reynolds never mind the interest ne never got. Yes he did only run the club til he sold it, but the time he did run it, it was on an even keel.

[comeondarlo]

Spot on Jacobs

It wouldn't surprise me if SD's still involved in some way

[Charlie_Darlo]

Davies is not involved at all. The stadium was sold to Houghton for £2m (have got documentary proof), which he had borrowed from 2 business associates (Scott and Sizer). Davies sold for less than he lent Reynolds.

Not bad getting a £15m stadium for £2m and shifting the loan used to pay for it to another company which then goes into administration.

[A kick in the Jacobs]

Davies only got £2million back in the end, which was less than he lent Reynolds never mind the interest ne never got. Yes he did only run the club til he sold it, but the time he did run it, it was on an even keel.

You think SD lost out in his dealings with GR/DFC?

Also, if you're suggesting SD ran DFC on an even keel, you must also be saying Hartlepool are currently being ran on an even keel.

[Charlie_Darlo]

Davies only got £2million back in the end, which was less than he lent Reynolds never mind the interest ne never got. Yes he did only run the club til he sold it, but the time he did run it, it was on an even keel.

You think SD lost out in his dealings with GR/DFC?

Also, if you're suggesting SD ran DFC on an even keel, you must also be saying Hartlepool are currently being ran on an even keel.

SD did lose out. He never got all of his capital back, never mind his interest. Has his Sterling consortium lent to football clubs since? No.

As for running on an even keel, he never pumped large amounts of money in during his short tenure. The budget was less than a million. He also sold the club debt free according to the first set of accounts of the Houghton era (have got a copy of those too). So how is that not running the club on an even keel?

The one thing Davies did was to shaft Reynolds by exercising his rights and taking a £15m stadium for a debt of around £3 to 4million. He still never got all of his money back, though.

[A kick in the Jacobs]

Have you seen the accounts covering SD's period of ownership?

How is a loss of £600-700k being ran on an even keel.

Do you also want to explain how SD only got £2m back and where he got that money from?

[darloaturfeet]

id say tesco will buy the stadiuim and knock it down then build upon the land...cant see us surviving at the stadium in conference...this has got to be one of the worst years ever!!

[alleztfc]

You know what, deej?
People just might think that you sound a wee bit jealous there.

Mind it!

[wylam_rangers]

id say tesco will buy the stadiuim and knock it down then build upon the land...cant see us surviving at the stadium in conference...this has got to be one of the worst years ever!!

Welcome to the board Mr Tesco. It'll cost you a lot - we don't come cheap and we need a modern replica of Feethams but with corporate facilities.

Oh, and it has to be in the Town Centre so you'll have to buy that land that used to be the Ford Garage and knock a few Terraces down as well.