Transfer

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Undercovered
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:35 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Undercovered » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:26 pm

Discussing on here isn't scrutinising though is it?
Image

Yarblockos
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Yarblockos » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:02 pm

Allan Quatermain wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Yarblockos wrote:It was explained at the AGM that Hardy was signed with money loaned to the club by a supporter. At the time we had a cash flow problem and could not afford to bring him in. The money was then paid back.
So in other words, the deal wasn't cost-neutral as the club claimed at the time.

Thanks for clearing that up.
It was also reported at the AGM that Gray has always stayed within budget since he has been here. Hence the one in one out scenarios.
So MG has "always stayed within budget" yet we've had an operating loss every year since we dropped to the Northern League.

Perhaps we need to be asking questions of the financial planning rather than the expenditure on the playing staff then
The board want us to be competitive and they have increased the playing budget after every promotion. There is no doubt we could cut back on the playing budget by a lot, but we all know what is likely to happen to our support if we end up struggling in the bottom half of the table.

darlo reborn
Posts: 1604
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by darlo reborn » Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:01 pm

Yes we are struggling now in some respect that is why crowds are below 2000 which everyone expected when we moved back to town

AndyPark
Posts: 12155
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by AndyPark » Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:28 pm

Who says we are struggling? Board budgeted for 1750 and that's what we are getting..

darlo reborn
Posts: 1604
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by darlo reborn » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:28 pm

I meant struggling with our performances not financially that`s why crowds are not what most people predicted before we moved back home

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5995
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:34 pm

Allan Quatermain wrote:
So MG has "always stayed within budget" yet we've had an operating loss every year since we dropped to the Northern League.

Perhaps we need to be asking questions of the financial planning rather than the expenditure on the playing staff then
From memory Dave Mills stated that MG had always been in and around budget with at the most a 5% difference.

So I don't think we have had a big issue sticking to an agreed budget, however setting budget and maybe being strong enough not to increase has perhaps been the challenge.

Some rumours suggest we are sticking to the original agreed budget for the season, whether that means a profit at the end of the season or if other items haven't been as good as we expected I don't know.

jjljks
Posts: 3014
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by jjljks » Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:58 pm

darlo reborn wrote:Always seems to score for Buxton so there style of play must suit him better then ours but then it is one league below
Nice to see Hardy on the scoresheet straightaway, although Blyth might not have been so happy! ;)
There is an outside chance we will see Hardy back at BM next season.....

Darlofan97
Posts: 5690
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlofan97 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:57 pm

Darlogramps wrote:I've already told you who left - Dowson on a free to Spennymoor, and Anth Callaghan.

Neither of those were big earners, and Callaghan certainly didn't command a big transfer fee.

It's very simple - the Hardy deal was not cost-neutral. All logical thought on this leads to this conclusion.
Lewis Gibbons also departed for Consett around about the same time we signed Hardy from Buxton - Gibbons was also a contracted player.

Out of interest I would like to know how you know that neither of those players were big earners, as you seem very sure of this. I can understand the rationale behind this for Callaghan, but not for Dowson.

Darlofan97
Posts: 5690
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlofan97 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:27 pm

Allan Quatermain wrote:So MG has "always stayed within budget" yet we've had an operating loss every year since we dropped to the Northern League.

Perhaps we need to be asking questions of the financial planning rather than the expenditure on the playing staff then
Between 2013 / 2014 we made a small operating profit of £600.

However I can accept that in the 12/13 & 13/14 seasons we did sail a bit too close to the wind on a number of occasions, saved by two payments from the Dan Burn transfer.

I think that the 14/15 season it was decided that the budget was to remain the same (despite being more than what we could afford to break-even), with the additional costs to be absorbed by cash reserves. A decision was then made to increase the budget further to sign Nathan Cartman due to the long-term injury sustained by Amar Purewal. This was possible due to a non-recurring payment being received over the summer (David Stockdale signing for Brighton).

We were all set to return home for August 2015 (planning permission & funding in place) however talks between DFC & DRFC hit a snag. Martin Gray was given a slightly increased budget for this season with - again - additional costs being absorbed by our significant cash reserves.

We hit a sticky patch around late January 2016 due to not playing any home games since the 31st October 2015. It was around this time we signed Hardy but his signing was made-up of money being loaned from a fan and departing players freeing up some room to work with (Gibbons, Callaghan & Dowson).

The budget has been slightly increased for this season with the return to Darlington imminent, many players signed improved 2-year contracts over the summer. 9 players have left from last season, 8 have come in. As far as I am aware, a fee has only been paid for one player (Ferguson from Shildon) and we have received fees for Watson, Mitchell, Nowakowski, Nightingale, Gaskell, Purewal and Hardy.

Did we sail too close to the wind? Yes. Did the respective boards at the time take risks? Yes. Thankfully they paid off, and we are in the Conference North to show for it. Now that we are back in Darlington the current Board are seemingly sticking to the budget with a figure of 1,750 average attendance to break-even being mentioned. Gray tried to sign a centre-half recently which was not possible due to the restrictive finances, and the same with Brodie too who signed for Boston.

Beano
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:33 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Beano » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:09 pm

Any ideas who the mystery centre half was Darlofan97?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Darlofan97
Posts: 5690
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlofan97 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:21 pm

Beano wrote:Any ideas who the mystery centre half was Darlofan97?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No idea, sadly.

I suspect that there is room to bring in 1 or 2 now that Hardy has departed and we received a fairly decent fee for him. The issue will be is if the right type of player is available to come in and improve us. I would say that Gray has targets otherwise he wouldn't have let Hardy leave at this stage of the season.

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:36 pm

Some nice euphemistic understatements there DarloFan97.

To quote Martin Jesper (to Michael Walker in the excellent book Up There, about North East football: "We got £75k from Fulham for Dan Burn in January 2014. Honestly, had that money not come, I don't think we'd be talking right now. People did not understand how precarious the situation was. We're talking days."

That's not "sailing a bit close to the wind." That's near-bankruptcy. Being honest, I think previous boards have been at times reckless and weak with financial management. If the current board are standing their ground and insisting MG stays within the playing budget, then this is a good thing.

We got a rare stroke of luck with those clauses (ironically negotiated by Raj Singh). If it wasn't for those clauses, the club probably would have gone under. And that's before we get on to the reasons behind the £50k CIC bailout in 2013.

You have a history of self-denial about our financial profligacy, so I'll take your claims with a pinch of salt. Take here on Hardy for instance (which you claimed was cost-neutral and then were proven incorrect), you rubbished a suggestion that we paid £15k for him:
£15k?! For a player who is 28 and who's contract expires in 3/4 months? I just honestly do not believe that.
Taken from: http://darlofc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.ph ... dy#p377458

As it turned out, the £15k figure was near enough spot on.

As for your question about Dowson, I know for a fact he was not one of the highest earners at the club when he left. Partly through speaking to people who know what they're talking about, partly through basic logic.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

lo36789
Posts: 10930
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by lo36789 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:39 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:and we have received fees for Watson, Mitchell, Nowakowski, Nightingale, Gaskell, Purewal and Hardy.
I doubt we got a fee for Gaskell. He wasn't contracted well at least according to him he wasn't. I also doubt Farsley could afford a fee for Nightingale or Bradford PA for Nowakowski and given but then we didn't pay anything for either of them.

The fees we would have got if any for the rest would have been absolutely negligible bar perhaps Hardy and Mitchell.

Darlofan97
Posts: 5690
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlofan97 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:06 pm

Darlogramps wrote:Some nice euphemistic understatements there DarloFan97.

To quote Martin Jesper (to Michael Walker in the excellent book Up There, about North East football: "We got £75k from Fulham for Dan Burn in January 2014. Honestly, had that money not come, I don't think we'd be talking right now. People did not understand how precarious the situation was. We're talking days."

That's not "sailing a bit close to the wind." That's near-bankruptcy. Being honest, I think previous boards have been at times reckless and weak with financial management. If the current board are standing their ground and insisting MG stays within the playing budget, then this is a good thing.

We got a rare stroke of luck with those clauses (ironically negotiated by Raj Singh). If it wasn't for those clauses, the club probably would have gone under. And that's before we get on to the reasons behind the £50k CIC bailout in 2013.

You have a history of self-denial about our financial profligacy, so I'll take your claims with a pinch of salt. Take here on Hardy for instance (which you claimed was cost-neutral and then were proven incorrect), you rubbished a suggestion that we paid £15k for him:
£15k?! For a player who is 28 and who's contract expires in 3/4 months? I just honestly do not believe that.
Taken from: http://darlofc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.ph ... dy#p377458

As it turned out, the £15k figure was near enough spot on.

As for your question about Dowson, I know for a fact he was not one of the highest earners at the club when he left. Partly through speaking to people who know what they're talking about, partly through basic logic.
I think it was entirely reasonable to suggest that we did not pay £15k for Hardy, given he only had 3 / 4 months left on his contract.

But you have also conveniently ignored the fact that another contracted player departed in the build-up to us signing Hardy, and also ignored Loan_Star alluding to us receiving a fee for Dowson (he knows his stuff, and more often that not when he posts on here, it is correct).

Dowson was one of our longest-serving players, I should think that his contract represented that.

Denial of our financial profligacy? I think that I have given a pretty fair account of our finances over the past 5 years, pointing out that we spent more than what we could afford and had extra additional costs absorbed by cash reserves on a number of different occasions. It's yourself that has turned its debate completely on to its head by making accusations of denial!

Darlofan97
Posts: 5690
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlofan97 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:13 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Darlofan97 wrote:and we have received fees for Watson, Mitchell, Nowakowski, Nightingale, Gaskell, Purewal and Hardy.
I doubt we got a fee for Gaskell. He wasn't contracted well at least according to him he wasn't. I also doubt Farsley could afford a fee for Nightingale or Bradford PA for Nowakowski and given but then we didn't pay anything for either of them.

The fees we would have got if any for the rest would have been absolutely negligible bar perhaps Hardy and Mitchell.
Lee Gaskell signed a one-year contract last summer, with the option of a further year.

Lewis Nightingale signed for Farsley for an "undisclosed fee", Scarborough also had a bid accepted.

However, I do agree with what you're saying, I suspect the deals for Hardy, Purewal & Mitchell carried more than Watson, Nightingale & Nowakowski.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 7105
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by loan_star » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:16 pm

Darlofan97 wrote: But you have also conveniently ignored the fact that another contracted player departed in the build-up to us signing Hardy, and also ignored Loan_Star alluding to us receiving a fee for Dowson (he knows his stuff, and more often that not when he posts on here, it is correct).
Sometimes clubs don't make transfer fees public. Sometimes at the request of the selling club and sometimes at the request of the buying club. Thats all I'm saying on this matter :silent:

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:50 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:Some nice euphemistic understatements there DarloFan97.

To quote Martin Jesper (to Michael Walker in the excellent book Up There, about North East football: "We got £75k from Fulham for Dan Burn in January 2014. Honestly, had that money not come, I don't think we'd be talking right now. People did not understand how precarious the situation was. We're talking days."

That's not "sailing a bit close to the wind." That's near-bankruptcy. Being honest, I think previous boards have been at times reckless and weak with financial management. If the current board are standing their ground and insisting MG stays within the playing budget, then this is a good thing.

We got a rare stroke of luck with those clauses (ironically negotiated by Raj Singh). If it wasn't for those clauses, the club probably would have gone under. And that's before we get on to the reasons behind the £50k CIC bailout in 2013.

You have a history of self-denial about our financial profligacy, so I'll take your claims with a pinch of salt. Take here on Hardy for instance (which you claimed was cost-neutral and then were proven incorrect), you rubbished a suggestion that we paid £15k for him:
£15k?! For a player who is 28 and who's contract expires in 3/4 months? I just honestly do not believe that.
Taken from: http://darlofc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.ph ... dy#p377458

As it turned out, the £15k figure was near enough spot on.

As for your question about Dowson, I know for a fact he was not one of the highest earners at the club when he left. Partly through speaking to people who know what they're talking about, partly through basic logic.
I think it was entirely reasonable to suggest that we did not pay £15k for Hardy, given he only had 3 / 4 months left on his contract.
But you were wrong. You made an assumption that wasn't based on any evidence.
DarloFan97 wrote:But you have also conveniently ignored the fact that another contracted player departed in the build-up to us signing Hardy, and also ignored Loan_Star alluding to us receiving a fee for Dowson (he knows his stuff, and more often that not when he posts on here, it is correct).
Whether we include Gibbons doesn't matter. Regardless of the number of players who left beforehand, seemingly we still had to loan money from a fan to finance the Hardy deal - demonstrating it was not affordable at the time, which has been my point all along.

You insisted at the time Hardy was affordable, even parroting the club's line about it being cost-neutral. That's since been proven to be incorrect.

If we're really going into that, the club only ever said the Dowson deal contributed to Hardy's signing. They never once mentioned Callaghan or Gibbons. http://darlingtonfootballclub.co.uk/qua ... om-buxton/

It also came at a time the club asked for money from fans to develop Blackwell Meadows.

And if loan_star is correct in suggesting we got a fee for Dowson, then the club have lied to fans, as they stated quite clearly that Dowson was allowed to go on a free transfer. They used that exact phrasing. http://darlingtonfootballclub.co.uk/17318-2/

This backs up my point about the need to scrutinise the club and its transfer dealings. They weren't 100% transparent about Hardy, now loan_star has suggested they've not been transparent about Dowson.
Dowson was one of our longest-serving players, I should think that his contract represented that.
Any evidence to back yourself up here? I've told you what I know to be true. You seemingly can't accept it because you want to save face.

You've also been selective and misleading in your descriptions (the absurdly understated "sailing a bit too close to the wind" as a euphemism for twice nearly going under).

It's coming across that you're a bit of an apologist for the club and lack objectivity. You can dislike my argument all you like, but at least I've backed it up with quotes, links etc. It's not just my supposition, it's based on what others have said (including Martin Jesper).
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlofan97
Posts: 5690
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlofan97 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:16 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Whether we include Gibbons doesn't matter. Regardless of the number of players who left beforehand, seemingly we still had to loan money from a fan to finance the Hardy deal - demonstrating it was not affordable at the time, which has been my point all along.
Of course it is relevant. You have pointed out that there were only 2 departures before we signed Hardy, there were actually 3 (Dowson, Callaghan & Gibbons). I have quoted your below post.
There were two departures around that time. We let Dowson join Spennymoor on a free that week, and Anthony Callaghan left a week or two before.
You insisted at the time Hardy was affordable, even parroting the club's line about it being cost-neutral. That's since been proven to be incorrect.

If we're really going into that, the club only ever said the Dowson deal contributed to Hardy's signing. They never once mentioned Callaghan or Gibbons. http://darlingtonfootballclub.co.uk/qua ... om-buxton/
In that statement, John Tempest said the following:

"“We have agreed this transfer with the club’s financial position fully in mind. There have been several components to this transfer and other transfer activity this week, which has brought about a cost neutral signing.”

The key words there are "several components", such as potentially there already being room in the budget from the departures of Callaghan & Gibbons in the weeks leading up to signing Hardy? And obviously the loan from the very generous fan. "Other transfer activity" clearly relates to receiving a fee for Dowson and getting him off the wage bill.
It also came at a time the club asked for money from fans to develop Blackwell Meadows.
Was the fundraising driving launched at this point? From memory it was around March time when a plea was launched to raise funds through DFC Supporters Group. The only other ongoing fundraising was the Back2Darlo Fund wasn't it? Which has been going on since December 2013.
And if loan_star is correct in suggesting we got a fee for Dowson, then the club have lied to fans, as they stated quite clearly that Dowson was allowed to go on a free transfer. They used that exact phrasing. http://darlingtonfootballclub.co.uk/17318-2/

This backs up my point about the need to scrutinise and question the club and its transfer dealings. They weren't 100% transparent about Hardy, now loan_star has suggested they've not been transparent about Dowson.
I agree that the club said that Dowson left on a free transfer, but as loan_star has said, sometimes the buying / selling club does not want it being made knowledge that money has changed hands for whatever reason that may be.
Dowson was one of our longest-serving players, I should think that his contract represented that.
Any evidence to back yourself up here? I've told you what I know to be true. You seemingly can't accept it because you want to save face.
I apologise, I am making a logical assumption based on his time at the football club. But then again you didn't know that we received a fee for Dowson, quite a shock for someone who knows what he was earning when he was here....
You've also been selective and misleading in your descriptions (the absurdly understated "sailing a bit too close to the wind" as a euphemism for twice nearly going under).

It's coming across that you're a bit of an apologist for the club and lack objectivity. You can dislike my argument all you like, but at least I've backed it up with quotes, links etc. It's not just my supposition, it's based on what others have said (including Martin Jesper).
I have not been selective and mis-leading, nor am I in denial, nor an apologist. I will openly admit that we did nearly go bust and the respective boards took huge risks with this football club. But since I did not include that in my original post, does that mean I am in denial? I don't think it does.

Quakerz
Posts: 20958
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Quakerz » Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:53 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
We got a rare stroke of luck with those clauses (ironically negotiated by Raj Singh). If it wasn't for those clauses, the club probably would have gone under. And that's before we get on to the reasons behind the £50k CIC bailout in 2013.
Yes, but the reason we had those clauses is because we spent like fuck to buy the assets of the club, take on the playing debts, and keep it in business. Those clauses were part of the assets that we bought.

Now the real irony is that we saved the club, brought it out of administration owing hundreds of thousands because of that, and then the FA decided we'd gone bust anyway and told everybody that was so.

If we had done the rational thing and let the club just go bust, we would have still started again in the NL, still be classed as a new club, but would have started with 0 debt, not a 6 figure debt owing.

Then we wouldn't have needed the clauses to keep us afloat.

The reason we very nearly ended up in the s*** was because we were trying to run a NL/Evo 1N club on £8-10 entry but with a sizeable legacy debt from when we were a professional club.
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:26 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:Of course it is relevant. You have pointed out that there were only 2 departures before we signed Hardy, there were actually 3 (Dowson, Callaghan & Gibbons).
Darlofan97 wrote:"“We have agreed this transfer with the club’s financial position fully in mind. There have been several components to this transfer and other transfer activity this week, which has brought about a cost neutral signing.”

The key words there are "several components", such as potentially there already being room in the budget from the departures of Callaghan & Gibbons in the weeks leading up to signing Hardy?
In other words - you don't know. So you're assuming and guessing. The only deal the club confirmed contributed to the Hardy was Dowson. Everything else is guesswork on your part.

My point really isn't difficult to understand. I've said all along the club couldn't afford to sign Hardy. Regardless of the number of departures, they still had to loan money from a fan, seemingly. This proves they couldn't afford Hardy. I don't get what you're struggling with here.
Darlofan97 wrote: Was the fundraising driving launched at this point? From memory it was around March time where a plea was launched to raise funds through DFC Supporters Group.
Desperate nit-picking. There'd been a fund-raising drive in 2015, and it was well-known another was needed to cover the shortfall left by the delay of the move to Blackwell Meadows. Simply, it was well-known the club needed money from fans to afford the move to BM. But at the same time it was paying £14k in transfer fees for a striker we let go a year later.
Darlofan97 wrote: I agree that the club said that Dowson left on a free transfer, but as loan_star has said, sometimes the buying / selling club does not want it being made knowledge that money has changed hands for whatever reason that may be.
Then why lie to fans? Why not just say undisclosed fee, or say nothing at all? There's no reason to lie to supporters.
Darlofan97 wrote:I apologise, I am making a logical assumption based on his time at the football club. But then again you didn't know that we received a fee for Dowson, quite a shock for someone who knows what he was earning when he was here....
Once again, you're making an assumption. You make a lot of those.

Your point is a fatuous one. I spoke to someone who knows North East non-league and Darlington FC inside out. They're far more reliable than you or I. It was around Christmas 2015/New Year 2016 and was broadly on the topic of finances at clubs generally and Darlington in particular.

This is where I got the info about who the big earners were. Given it was two months before Dowson's move actually happened, and given I can't see into the future, there's not really any way I could have known about Dowson's fee (if of course, loan_star is accurate - and we only have his word at this point).

You've once again made an assumption and once again been made to look a fool. Unless you believe I'm making up this conversation, in which case I'd love to see your evidence....
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlofan97
Posts: 5690
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlofan97 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:54 pm

In other words - you don't know. So you're assuming and guessing. The only deal the club confirmed contributed to the Hardy was Dowson. Everything else is guesswork on your part.

My point really isn't difficult to understand. I've said all along the club couldn't afford to sign Hardy. Regardless of the number of departures, they still had to loan money from a fan, seemingly. This proves they couldn't afford Hardy. I don't get what you're struggling with here.
It is totally logical, 3 players departed in the build-up to Hardy signing, yes? "Other components" is very vague, and you cannot categorically deny that the departures of two players - aside from Dowson - just before we signed Hardy helped contribute towards the signing. In fact, it's perfectly logical to suggest that the departures did help us to sign Hardy by reducing the wage bill.

Of course I understand that the club could not afford Hardy - and therefore had to loan money from a fan - but this whole thing has been blown out of proportion, IMO.
Desperate nit-picking. There'd been a fund-raising drive in 2015, and it was well-known another was needed to cover the shortfall left by the delay of the move to Blackwell Meadows. Simply, it was well-known the club needed money from fans to afford the move to BM. But at the same time it was paying £14k in transfer fees for a striker we let go a year later.
The £14k was made-up by a fairly decent fee for Dowson, plus other room in the budget made from previous player departures + Dowson. We then received a loan for the rest.
Then why lie to fans? Why not just say undisclosed fee, or say nothing at all? There's no reason to lie to supporters.
Read my post again and you will see why the club did not say undisclosed fee, but I agree the article could have been worded better in the sense that it explicitly said a free transfer.
Once again, you're making an assumption. You make a lot of those.

Your point is a fatuous one. I spoke to someone who knows North East non-league and Darlington FC inside out. They're far more reliable than you or I. It was around Christmas 2015/New Year 2016 and was broadly on the topic of finances at clubs generally and Darlington in particular.

This is where I got the info about who the big earners were. Given it was two months before Dowson's move actually happened, and given I can't see into the future, there's not really any way I could have known about Dowson's fee (if of course, loan_star is accurate - and we only have his word at this point).

You've once again made an assumption and once again been made to look a fool. Unless you believe I'm making up this conversation, in which case I'd love to see your evidence....
I am not doubting your conversation.

I can see the reasoning by your thinking, and why you're asking questions / scrutinising what was done at the time. However, the reality is a fee was received at the time which contributed significantly, for one reason or another this was not disclosed, but it certainly puts a twist to things. As the black and white of it makes it sound that the club took a much more significant risk than what it actually did to sign Hardy, and I think that is a really important point.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 7105
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by loan_star » Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:07 pm

Darlogramps wrote:there's not really any way I could have known about Dowson's fee (if of course, loan_star is accurate - and we only have his word at this point).
But you take other peoples word as to who the big earners are?
The problem is that unless DFC and Spenny come clean publicly then nobody will officially know whether a fee was paid and until they do then you will have to decide who you believe or not.

real_darlo_85
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:06 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Newton Aycliffe

Re: Transfer

Post by real_darlo_85 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:28 am

Quakerz wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
We got a rare stroke of luck with those clauses (ironically negotiated by Raj Singh). If it wasn't for those clauses, the club probably would have gone under. And that's before we get on to the reasons behind the £50k CIC bailout in 2013.
Yes, but the reason we had those clauses is because we spent like fuck to buy the assets of the club, take on the playing debts, and keep it in business. Those clauses were part of the assets that we bought.

Now the real irony is that we saved the club, brought it out of administration owing hundreds of thousands because of that, and then the FA decided we'd gone bust anyway and told everybody that was so.

If we had done the rational thing and let the club just go bust, we would have still started again in the NL, still be classed as a new club, but would have started with 0 debt, not a 6 figure debt owing.

Then we wouldn't have needed the clauses to keep us afloat.

The reason we very nearly ended up in the s*** was because we were trying to run a NL/Evo 1N club on £8-10 entry but with a sizeable legacy debt from when we were a professional club.
Certain truth in this and a risky urge by the board at the time to pay off the legacy debt early when we had more than enough time agreed to do this. Instead the board moved home fixtures forward to free non-cup match weekends, bringing money in up front early but not factoring in a host of postponements and weeks without any income later. I know that people make honest decisions and back then we were all new to running a football club and there may of been a plan behind it all but it is probably fair to say that this was rash and almost bombed us before we'd even got going.
"The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!"

User avatar
Robbie Painter
Posts: 2289
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:37 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Robbie Painter » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:49 am

Its never a good idea to get into a "discussion" with Darlogramps - they never end so I'm only posting once to make this point.

Darlogramps seems to be taking the "cost neutral" statement (I have no idea whether it was correct or not) & the fact that we took a loan to complete the deal as a proving it was not cost neutral. It does not.

We had a cashflow problem at the time due to having played next to no home games for months whilst at same time still paying out wages,etc. The cash from those home games did of course arrive in following couple of months and by all accounts the loan was paid back. This is a separate issue to whether the deal was cost neutral or not.

An example, your mortgage & outgoings can to entirely affordable & matched to your income but if you unexpectedly didn't get paid for X number of months you'd hit cashflow problems pretty quickly. At same time you come across a great opportunity to purchase a new car you've always wanted for a decent price & you decide to trade down from the 3 cars you own to just the one great new car, in a "cost neutral" deal (made up of proceeds of selling car, rationalisation of running costs over following months, rebate of insurance, etc).

Of course that cash freed up by selling the 3 cars will be prioritised towards living costs - meeting the mortgage is always the priority. So you take on a loan to complete car deal which is paid back once you receive the backpay owed to you.

Don't confuse cashflow & cost neutral.

User avatar
Geordie Quaker
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:32 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: See Username

Re: Transfer

Post by Geordie Quaker » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:40 am

I don't like the fact that we paid a substantial fee for Hardy, I will admit that. However I have to let that go as I have no idea what it takes in financial terms to truly compete at the level we're playing at.

What I am more concerned about is the perception of fans as our long-term investors. In Robbie's (otherwise useful) example above, it doesn't factor in that a number of other people (fans) are continually making donations or investments to fund work on the house, say a nice conservatory (developing BM). My worry is those people who are kindly funding this might look at this shiny new car (player) and wonder if their investment is truly necessary.

Whether you agree with the decision to buy Hardy / others or not, I think the above perception is a real issue - a number of people I have spoken to feel far less inclined to support the club financially as a consequence of knowing the Hardy fee and the circumstances around it.

User avatar
Robbie Painter
Posts: 2289
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:37 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Robbie Painter » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:28 am

Geordie Quaker wrote:I don't like the fact that we paid a substantial fee for Hardy, I will admit that. However I have to let that go as I have no idea what it takes in financial terms to truly compete at the level we're playing at.

What I am more concerned about is the perception of fans as our long-term investors. In Robbie's (otherwise useful) example above, it doesn't factor in that a number of other people (fans) are continually making donations or investments to fund work on the house, say a nice conservatory (developing BM). My worry is those people who are kindly funding this might look at this shiny new car (player) and wonder if their investment is truly necessary.

Whether you agree with the decision to buy Hardy / others or not, I think the above perception is a real issue - a number of people I have spoken to feel far less inclined to support the club financially as a consequence of knowing the Hardy fee and the circumstances around it.
I've always said in the past that I don't agree with paying out transfer fees whilst we were running at a loss at HP & had to finance move back to Darlo. I thought it was wrong to sign Cartman & Hardy for fees. Even if it was cost neutral I'd have rather run a lower budget.

However the sums of money we're talking about here, £5/10/15k, aren't going to get us anything substantial done at Blackwell Meadows and for the right player (i.e not one that's 28 with limited sell on value) I can see the case for investing, as long as we stay within budget.

Its very clear that we can't fund improvements to Blackwell Meadows out of our "regular" income and maintain the current quality of squad we have, nor I believe (just as importantly imo) keep MG happy to remain as manager. I had this discussion with another fan recently who believed we could substantially cut back on playing costs and divert money to infrastructure improvements instead. It is simply not feasible.

To improve facilities we will have to raise funds & apply for grants. The next round of fundraising will be the biggest challenge yet. We haven't got the clear incentive of moving back to Darlo to motivate people, we've not had the warmest of welcomes from our new landlords over the past few months and its not clear that playing at Blackwell Meadows will enable us to achieve our long term ambitions. A tough sell!
Last edited by Robbie Painter on Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

spen666
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by spen666 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:56 am

Robbie Painter wrote: ....
Its very clear that we can't fund improvements to Blackwell Meadows out of our "regular" income and maintain the current quality of squad we have, nor I believe (just as importantly imo) keep MG happy to remain as manager. I had this discussion with another fan recently who believed we could substantially cut back on playing costs and divert money to infrastructure improvements instead. It is simply not feasible.

To improve facilities we will have to raise funds & apply for grants. The next round of fundraising will be the biggest challenge yet. ....

Speaking to club and league officials regarding grants recently I was advised that a restriction is placed on grants from the Football Stadia Improvement Fund in a 5 year period. If Darlington were to remain in National League north, then they could not have more than £250,000 in grants in a five year period. Thus any grant received earlier this season would reduce the maximum available grant for the next 5 years

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlogramps » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:24 pm

loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:there's not really any way I could have known about Dowson's fee (if of course, loan_star is accurate - and we only have his word at this point).
But you take other peoples word as to who the big earners are?
I know this person, have had face-to-face conversations with them and trust them.

With respect, I've never met you and I've no idea where you got the info from. I'm not saying you're making it up, just that I can't stand it up myself, so only have your word.

So in this instance, to answer your question, yes I'll take this individual's word.



Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 2398
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by don'tbuythesun » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:52 pm

It's like watching message tennis!

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlogramps » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:16 pm

Robbie Painter wrote:Its never a good idea to get into a "discussion" with Darlogramps - they never end so I'm only posting once to make this point.
Only because I beat you every time. ;)
Robbie Painter wrote:Darlogramps seems to be taking the "cost neutral" statement (I have no idea whether it was correct or not) & the fact that we took a loan to complete the deal as a proving it was not cost neutral. It does not.

We had a cashflow problem at the time due to having played next to no home games for months whilst at same time still paying out wages,etc. The cash from those home games did of course arrive in following couple of months and by all accounts the loan was paid back. This is a separate issue to whether the deal was cost neutral or not.
I suppose the starting point has to be how we define "cost-neutral". To me, it means no net cost. I think this is a fair definition.

So in this case, to be cost-neutral, the £14k we paid for Hardy needs to be offset by 1. the money freed up from the departures of the other players and 2. the loan from the fan. But the fact we've had to pay the loan back means ultimately we've paid out money financially.

So, as a completely hypothetical example, if the player departures accounted for £10k, and the loan accounted for £4k, we've still had to pay back at least £4k (potentially plus interest, but let's not get on to that!).We're therefore down £4k.

That's why to me, if the loan covered some of the Hardy fee, the deal can't have been cost-neutral.

I take the point about having the finances further down the line, but if you take out a loan, you have to pay it back and therefore lose that money, which means the deal has cost us money.

Finally from me, the analogy of a car/mortgage is a poor one. In your example, Hardy is the car (the goods we're taking out a loan to pay, knowing we'll have the money later down the line to pay the loan back).

However, a car is a machine you know will work, can test and examine beforehand and you roughly know what you'll get from it in terms of performance.

You don't know what you'll get a footballer; they could be a success, they could be a flop, they could get injured. Which is why investing £14k (before we include wages/expenses etc) is a gamble, more so at a time the club is asking fans for investment off-the-field.

And then there's value for money. A car depreciates the more you use it. A player's value jumps up and down depending on his success, form etc. Have we got value for the £14k investment, bearing in mind Hardy's left after 13 months, a number of which were on loan at Buxton, and two other months were during the summer? I would say not. Again, this has to be placed in the wider context of the club needing fan investment to develop off-the-field.

I've banged on about this for far too long now, so I'll withdraw, unless anyone wishes to question me further.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Post Reply