Darlo Uncovered

MinistryOfSillyWalks wrote:It's not Pallister from what I've found out.

So what have you found out?

It's definitely 2 of the names mentioned on this thread who have put the money forward and are in discussions with progressing further. Both have been involved with us before.

MinistryOfSillyWalks wrote:It's definitely 2 of the names mentioned on this thread who have put the money forward and are in discussions with progressing further. Both have been involved with us before.

Hodge and Singh?

MinistryOfSillyWalks wrote:It's definitely 2 of the names mentioned on this thread who have put the money forward and are in discussions with progressing further. Both have been involved with us before.

OK lets take you at your word, and you do write 'definitely' so you must know.

Here are all the names mentioned on this thread - in no particular order....


Julian Joachim
Stuart Davies
Reynolds/Houghton/Hodgson
Mr Thornberry
Quakerpete
Gary Pallister
Darlogramps
Vic
Steve MCclaren
Tom Denton
Singh
Upshall
Specsavers
Wayne Raper
Abramovich
Martin Jesper
Tempest and Jowett
Franny Lee (still with us, I've checked)
Craig/Scott
Aspin
Gray
Wildes
Mills

Two of the above, I do love a good mystery.

theoriginalfatcat wrote:

MinistryOfSillyWalks wrote:It's definitely 2 of the names mentioned on this thread who have put the money forward and are in discussions with progressing further. Both have been involved with us before.

OK lets take you at your word, and you do write 'definitely' so you must know.

Here are all the names mentioned on this thread - in no particular order....


Julian Joachim
Stuart Davies
Reynolds/Houghton/Hodgson
Mr Thornberry
Quakerpete
Gary Pallister
Darlogramps
Vic
Steve MCclaren
Tom Denton
Singh
Upshall
Specsavers
Wayne Raper
Abramovich
Martin Jesper
Tempest and Jowett
Franny Lee (still with us, I've checked)
Craig/Scott
Aspin
Gray
Wildes
Mills

Two of the above, I do love a good mystery.

Raj Singh...... In the study, with the candlestick.

MinistryOfSillyWalks wrote:It's definitely 2 of the names mentioned on this thread who have put the money forward and are in discussions with progressing further. Both have been involved with us before.

Only three of the names mentioned have been involved with us before. Singh, Hodgson and Pallister.

Gray said one of the names was a 'top football man' and that he'd benefit from his coaching experience.

So based on what Gray said, and this mysterious new poster who happens to know something for definite, there must be one other involved who hasn't been mentioned.

I doubt throughout its history Darlington Football Club has ever had a sustained period of profit or breakeven. The club has always had to be bankrolled by its owners whoever they have been. Darlo does not have any real assets to give it any value. Should an owner ever want to sell the club it will only be for a minimal (contractual) fee e.g. £1 and they will have no hope of ever recouping the money they have put into keeping the club going. This is the situation Darlo has found itself in under the recent administrations. Investors and fans alike need to learn from this and understand that the club is not a business like other businesses and is actually a something to occupy fans once a week (read the banner).
Therefore the question is why do the potential investors need a majority shareholding of the football club? There is no valid reason for this other than they are in control of the destiny of the club and could kill it if and whenever it suits them. They should realise at the outset they won’t get their money back. Since 2012 fans have invested significant sums knowing this, so why would an investor think differently. By all means invite them to be significant members of the board and let them run things if they want but at the end of the day DFCSG must maintain control as a safeguard to ensure that when investors walk away the club is not going to be left in the situation it was in 2012. Measures must be put in place to ensure that the club is financially protected (i.e. is not spending way too much for its obligations) should investors choose to leave. Ideally, to mitigate the risks, there would be numerous investors each willing to support the club and not just one or two.
When any announcement is made, the potential investors need to explain what they want for the football club. If they mention developing anything other than the football club (e.g. land, hotels, houses, etc.) then alarms bells should start ringing as we’ve all been there before.

GAQuaker wrote:I doubt throughout its history Darlington Football Club has ever had a sustained period of profit or breakeven. The club has always had to be bankrolled by its owners whoever they have been. Darlo does not have any real assets to give it any value. Should an owner ever want to sell the club it will only be for a minimal (contractual) fee e.g. £1 and they will have no hope of ever recouping the money they have put into keeping the club going. This is the situation Darlo has found itself in under the recent administrations. Investors and fans alike need to learn from this and understand that the club is not a business like other businesses and is actually a something to occupy fans once a week (read the banner).
Therefore the question is why do the potential investors need a majority shareholding of the football club? There is no valid reason for this other than they are in control of the destiny of the club and could kill it if and whenever it suits them. They should realise at the outset they won’t get their money back. Since 2012 fans have invested significant sums knowing this, so why would an investor think differently. By all means invite them to be significant members of the board and let them run things if they want but at the end of the day DFCSG must maintain control as a safeguard to ensure that when investors walk away the club is not going to be left in the situation it was in 2012. Measures must be put in place to ensure that the club is financially protected (i.e. is not spending way too much for its obligations) should investors choose to leave. Ideally, to mitigate the risks, there would be numerous investors each willing to support the club and not just one or two.
When any announcement is made, the potential investors need to explain what they want for the football club. If they mention developing anything other than the football club (e.g. land, hotels, houses, etc.) then alarms bells should start ringing as we’ve all been there before.

None of the latter would be possible, it isn't the football clubs land. They'd have to buy the Rugby club to do that too, and they don't need an investor. Especially now they'll be doing quite nicely from their new landlords.

There's basically no assets to strip.

If Hodgy did come on board with Singh then I could see that being acceptable to most fans, given his wealth of knowledge of Darlo and his close relationship with Gray.

I have also spoken again with the guys in the accounting. Its Singh and McClaren currently

Darlo_Pete wrote:If Hodgy did come on board with Singh then I could see that being acceptable to most fans, given his wealth of knowledge of Darlo and his close relationship with Gray.

You think Singh would be acceptable to most fans?

Holding over 50%? i.e. the important bit.

Bearing in mind what happened before?

If after all this Gray delivers Singh I suggest there maybe controversy.

I am now typing like Neil.

In short.

Little sentences.

Darlo_Pete wrote:If Hodgy did come on board with Singh then I could see that being acceptable to most fans, given his wealth of knowledge of Darlo and his close relationship with Gray.

.

Not acceptable to me. Any consortium with Singh involved is a definite no go.

GaryChapman=God wrote:I have also spoken again with the guys in the accounting. Its Singh and McClaren currently

This.

banktopp wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:If Hodgy did come on board with Singh then I could see that being acceptable to most fans, given his wealth of knowledge of Darlo and his close relationship with Gray.

.

Not acceptable to me. Any consortium with Singh involved is a definite no go.

What he said.....

theoriginalfatcat wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:If Hodgy did come on board with Singh then I could see that being acceptable to most fans, given his wealth of knowledge of Darlo and his close relationship with Gray.

You think Singh would be acceptable to most fans?

Holding over 50%? i.e. the important bit.

Bearing in mind what happened before?

If after all this Gray delivers Singh I suggest there maybe controversy.

I am now typing like Neil.

In short.

Little sentences.

Singh on his own no, but if he's got McClaren involved then that's a big difference and I think we'd be stupid not to be very interested in what they are bringing to the table.

Darlo_Pete wrote:

theoriginalfatcat wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:If Hodgy did come on board with Singh then I could see that being acceptable to most fans, given his wealth of knowledge of Darlo and his close relationship with Gray.

You think Singh would be acceptable to most fans?

Holding over 50%? i.e. the important bit.

Bearing in mind what happened before?

If after all this Gray delivers Singh I suggest there maybe controversy.

I am now typing like Neil.

In short.

Little sentences.

Singh on his own no, but if he's got McClaren involved then that's a big difference and I think we'd be stupid not to be very interested in what they are bringing to the table.

What are they bringing to the table?

What knowledge/experience does McClaren have of owning/running a football club in the lower leagues? He's done very little of note in football management over the last decade - certainly not in this country.

As a coach/manager he may bring something to the table. He may have contacts in higher divisions but they very rarely translate to anything of any value as we've seen numerous times before.

The only way I can see Singh making a success of this (if you completely forgot about his previous legacy) would be if he were to acquire the club and land with planning permission upon which to create additional revenue streams for the club. This is what Houghton and he both wanted to do at the Arena but both were blocked by the Council and couldn't afford to fund the club indefinitely without either Council permission for development or greater footfall through the turnstiles.

So unless Singh has secured some land upon which he can realise those initial plans I just can't see what he brings to the table beyond a very short term injection of cash.

Spyman wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:

theoriginalfatcat wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:If Hodgy did come on board with Singh then I could see that being acceptable to most fans, given his wealth of knowledge of Darlo and his close relationship with Gray.

You think Singh would be acceptable to most fans?

Holding over 50%? i.e. the important bit.

Bearing in mind what happened before?

If after all this Gray delivers Singh I suggest there maybe controversy.

I am now typing like Neil.

In short.

Little sentences.

Singh on his own no, but if he's got McClaren involved then that's a big difference and I think we'd be stupid not to be very interested in what they are bringing to the table.

What are they bringing to the table?

What knowledge/experience does McClaren have of owning/running a football club in the lower leagues? He's done very little of note in football management over the last decade - certainly not in this country.

As a coach/manager he may bring something to the table. He may have contacts in higher divisions but they very rarely translate to anything of any value as we've seen numerous times before.

The only way I can see Singh making a success of this (if you completely forgot about his previous legacy) would be if he were to acquire the club and land with planning permission upon which to create additional revenue streams for the club. This is what Houghton and he both wanted to do at the Arena but both were blocked by the Council and couldn't afford to fund the club indefinitely without either Council permission for development or greater footfall through the turnstiles.

So unless Singh has secured some land upon which he can realise those initial plans I just can't see what he brings to the table beyond a very short term injection of cash.

As someone has said previously, if he wants to get his hands on BM then he should offer to buy the rugby club. Darlo aren't even allowed to have the letters FC on a sign, nevermind look at development of the land.

I would be against any investor who is more interested in land than they are in DFC.

The reasons they want to invest rarely translate to any benefit for DFC. The route that Houghton and Singh were trying to do wouldn't have had any massive benefit to DFC as any profit or return would go directly (rightly I might add) to the investor not DFC.

Only way it works for me for any investor is that they are being altruistic and want to spend their hard earned money on DFC, otherwise what is to stop the flow of cash into the club and if it does stop what can we as fans of DFC do to reverse that once we give up ownership.

Magical Quakers wrote:I would be against any investor who is more interested in land than they are in DFC.

The reasons they want to invest rarely translate to any benefit for DFC. The route that Houghton and Singh were trying to do wouldn't have had any massive benefit to DFC as any profit or return would go directly (rightly I might add) to the investor not DFC.

Only way it works for me for any investor is that they are being altruistic and want to spend their hard earned money on DFC, otherwise what is to stop the flow of cash into the club and if it does stop what can we as fans of DFC do to reverse that once we give up ownership.

I think its possible for an investor to be interested in using land as a means to sustain DFC. I do believe this is what Houghton/Singh intended to do at the outset. That may mean profit for them too, it may not - but the only way I can see any football club being truly sustainable at this level is by generating revenue away from football - by being a landlord to other businesses.

To be honest if Raj was involved then I think we'd stay as we were. Let's say it was just some figures like Hodgy and McClaren. If Hodgy did his best rousing speech then you'd still get members voting to stay fan-owned and being extremely cautious, which would be their right. You may at best get 90% then voting for investment. However, if Raj was on board there's simply too many people who wouldn't trust, even if someone else was on board as a safeguard. Can anyone really see more than 75% , which I believe is required for constitutional change, voting for investment under these circumstances. If it were 50%, then maybe, but not 75.

Vodka_Vic wrote:To be honest if Raj was involved then I think we'd stay as we were. Let's say it was just some figures like Hodgy and McClaren. If Hodgy did his best rousing speech then you'd still get members voting to stay fan-owned and being extremely cautious, which would be their right. You may at best get 90% then voting for investment. However, if Raj was on board there's simply too many people who wouldn't trust, even if someone else was on board as a safeguard. Can anyone really see more than 75% , which I believe is required for constitutional change, voting for investment under these circumstances. If it were 50%, then maybe, but not 75.

Was going to post this earlier... Can't understand why McClaren and Gray even thought this would even get off the ground.

Any good up and coming managers out there at this level who could come in?

SwansQuaker83 wrote:Raj Singh...... In the study, with the candlestick.

Death Threat!

It's like playing "snap", but only with similarly-worded death threats, as I got accused of here:

http://www.darlofc.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... 57#p232657

Even if someone bought the rugby club and land to do anything with it would cost a million just to move the pipe which must be in the way of any development

Mr_Tibbs wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote:Raj Singh...... In the study, with the candlestick.

Death Threat!

It's like playing "snap", but only with similarly-worded death threats, as I got accused of here:

http://www.darlofc.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... 57#p232657

Haha... I can assure people that this was merely a joke based on the previous poster's comments.

darlo reborn wrote:Even if someone bought the rugby club and land to do anything with it would cost a million just to move the pipe which must be in the way of any development

We could get to a FL standard ground without moving the pipe but it would probably involve knocking down the clubhouse.

Robbie Painter wrote:

darlo reborn wrote:Even if someone bought the rugby club and land to do anything with it would cost a million just to move the pipe which must be in the way of any development

We could get to a FL standard ground without moving the pipe but it would probably involve knocking down the clubhouse.

Here we go again....

Move the feckin pitch!!!!!!!

Joke..... seriously tho I think he meant development in general, housing etc...

Stuff the pipe build around use the space where the pipe is for portable toilets so they can be moved anytime

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

Vodka_Vic wrote:To be honest if Raj was involved then I think we'd stay as we were. Let's say it was just some figures like Hodgy and McClaren. If Hodgy did his best rousing speech then you'd still get members voting to stay fan-owned and being extremely cautious, which would be their right. You may at best get 90% then voting for investment. However, if Raj was on board there's simply too many people who wouldn't trust, even if someone else was on board as a safeguard. Can anyone really see more than 75% , which I believe is required for constitutional change, voting for investment under these circumstances. If it were 50%, then maybe, but not 75.

Was going to post this earlier... Can't understand why McClaren and Gray even thought this would even get off the ground.

Any good up and coming managers out there at this level who could come in?

I have to agree with this.

When I heard Gray speak at the FF I was sure what he was proposing was the way to go and since then I've pretty much treated all these rumours about Singh being involved as mischief making and that 'the investors' were the correct people to take the club forward. The rumours are going on too long and I'm seriously worried Singh is part of the mix. If so my vote would be one vote to remain as we are as I just can't contemplate handing the club over to the person who's actions ultimately put us in the Northern League. I really hope the names are clarified soon to quell the speculation.

DB

DarloBear wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

Vodka_Vic wrote:To be honest if Raj was involved then I think we'd stay as we were. Let's say it was just some figures like Hodgy and McClaren. If Hodgy did his best rousing speech then you'd still get members voting to stay fan-owned and being extremely cautious, which would be their right. You may at best get 90% then voting for investment. However, if Raj was on board there's simply too many people who wouldn't trust, even if someone else was on board as a safeguard. Can anyone really see more than 75% , which I believe is required for constitutional change, voting for investment under these circumstances. If it were 50%, then maybe, but not 75.

Was going to post this earlier... Can't understand why McClaren and Gray even thought this would even get off the ground.

Any good up and coming managers out there at this level who could come in?

I have to agree with this.

When I heard Gray speak at the FF I was sure what he was proposing was the way to go and since then I've pretty much treated all these rumours about Singh being involved as mischief making and that 'the investors' were the correct people to take the club forward. The rumours are going on too long and I'm seriously worried Singh is part of the mix. If so my vote would be one vote to remain as we are as I just can't contemplate handing the club over to the person who's actions ultimately put us in the Northern League. I really hope the names are clarified soon to quell the speculation.

DB

I don't see why they can't be now. Takeover bids are always public straight away. I've seen it at Swansea where a supporters trust has ownership of a percentage of the shares

Maybe there's more than one investor/group to consider.