Potential new investors

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

shawry
Posts: 2594
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by shawry » Tue May 02, 2017 9:31 pm

super_les_mcjannet wrote:Taking a controlling share but still expecting the fans to raise money at the same levels is something I would be nervous of. Mainly because it won't happen, if an investor wants to be in control they will have to assume the main responsibility of financial responsibility.

Obviously who it is will have to come out and then we can deal with that situation, I presume this will be at the same time.
They can take the main financial responsibility, however let's face it, if we want external investment but to keep an element of control/influence then we will need to fundraise, and I think that's right.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Tue May 02, 2017 9:35 pm

shawry wrote:
super_les_mcjannet wrote:Taking a controlling share but still expecting the fans to raise money at the same levels is something I would be nervous of. Mainly because it won't happen, if an investor wants to be in control they will have to assume the main responsibility of financial responsibility.

Obviously who it is will have to come out and then we can deal with that situation, I presume this will be at the same time.
They can take the main financial responsibility, however let's face it, if we want external investment but to keep an element of control/influence then we will need to fundraise, and I think that's right.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I don't mind the principle but I question whether it will occur. I already see some of our larger investors previously back away at the moment as they believe in fan owned. Some have put a few thousand in but wouldn't do this if we were investor controlled, they bought into the fan owned element.

Sure they may not be against investment but maybe against ploughing their own money in if someone else makes the decisions and has control.

shawry
Posts: 2594
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by shawry » Tue May 02, 2017 9:43 pm

super_les_mcjannet wrote:
shawry wrote:
super_les_mcjannet wrote:Taking a controlling share but still expecting the fans to raise money at the same levels is something I would be nervous of. Mainly because it won't happen, if an investor wants to be in control they will have to assume the main responsibility of financial responsibility.

Obviously who it is will have to come out and then we can deal with that situation, I presume this will be at the same time.
They can take the main financial responsibility, however let's face it, if we want external investment but to keep an element of control/influence then we will need to fundraise, and I think that's right.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I don't mind the principle but I question whether it will occur. I already see some of our larger investors previously back away at the moment as they believe in fan owned. Some have put a few thousand in but wouldn't do this if we were investor controlled, they bought into the fan owned element.

Sure they may not be against investment but maybe against ploughing their own money in if someone else makes the decisions and has control.
I'm guessing if we still have to fundraise then we might have more sway and we could lock in decisions about loans etc and constitution changes requiring 75%.

Tbh, I favour the investment model, I actually detest fan owned as I feel we seem to have generated a holier than thou attitude to other clubs, and our own fans who raise valid concerns, but by the same token i don't want us throwing away everything we've worked so hard for these last few years either.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

User avatar
grimsbyquaker
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:03 pm
Team Supported: Darlington FC
Location: 53°22'N, 0°01'W

Re: Potential new investors

Post by grimsbyquaker » Tue May 02, 2017 9:48 pm

I think any plan has to involve us having a proper home, not just a license to play. This means either getting hold of BM or the Arena. I envisage this consortium will be split into football and commercial workstreams, arriving at a position where all parties see benefits. The club needs matchday revenue which it would get 100% if it owned its stadium. If land around that stadium could be developed, the developer benefits and the club can too (part of the plan?). Other element of the team can build up the football side of the development inc expanding the MG academy into a revenue stream?? Fan involvement is key though as has been said. If there is a clear markation of roles then it's potentially very exciting, especially if there are people with positive links with the club and area

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4203
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue May 02, 2017 10:21 pm

grimsbyquaker wrote: inc expanding the MG academy into a revenue stream??
Revenue stream for whom?
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

princes town
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington/Blackburn

Re: Potential new investors

Post by princes town » Tue May 02, 2017 10:29 pm

al_quaker wrote:This is the interesting part for me:

"In order for the fans to retain a say in how the Club is run in the future we will need to continue to raise money in some way shape or form."

Good that we will hear something within a week
I'm not actually sure what this means. Shareholding rather than fundraising is the only leverage we have in shaping policy, surely?

User avatar
HarrytheQuaker
Posts: 2885
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:57 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by HarrytheQuaker » Wed May 03, 2017 5:30 am

lo36789 wrote:
princes town wrote:Actually that is a very important point. I don't see many people volunteering under a private investor model. The outcome being that we will pay a lot more in off field costs. Volunteering for the community club is a different motivation to volunteering for a private club
It depends. I think for us probably that will be the case. That said visit Salford City and Fylde and they are still heavily powered by volunteers.

I wonder if that is because they had the strong volunteer base in the first place and those people are committed and basically that is part of their routine. We haven't historically had a volunteer base so it feels more contrived and as a result much more likely to walk away.
Fylde pay 50/50 and programme sellers a percentage of the money earned so they aren't volunteers

princes town
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington/Blackburn

Re: Potential new investors

Post by princes town » Wed May 03, 2017 6:56 am

HarrytheQuaker wrote:
lo36789 wrote:
princes town wrote:Actually that is a very important point. I don't see many people volunteering under a private investor model. The outcome being that we will pay a lot more in off field costs. Volunteering for the community club is a different motivation to volunteering for a private club
It depends. I think for us probably that will be the case. That said visit Salford City and Fylde and they are still heavily powered by volunteers.

I wonder if that is because they had the strong volunteer base in the first place and those people are committed and basically that is part of their routine. We haven't historically had a volunteer base so it feels more contrived and as a result much more likely to walk away.
Fylde pay 50/50 and programme sellers a percentage of the money earned so they aren't volunteers
It's an interesting point. I think there has been a volunteer culture at Darlington pre-reformation but this largely related to fund raising (inck 50-50) and travel. I suspect they will continue as normal. Where there will be changes are the match-day functions that largely grew out of a desire to save the club cash under the fans model. These functions like stewarding require qualified people who will need to he paid if we are to handle growing and potentially more challenging ex-league away followings. We shouldn't just look at professional standards at board level without looking at the wider staffing situation. Fortunately many of our stewards come from the Arena era so are fully qualified and effective but attracting new matchday recruits on a volunteer basis simply won't be sustainable longer term. A private investor model will do little to encourage a 'volunteer spirit' nor should it in my opinion.

The staffing budget needs to be reviewed as a whole rather than just a player fund. A full-time business manager is also a must. For this reason, I'm not averse to hearing a private investor as I can't see a fans model committing funds to this budget

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 12502
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Darlo_Pete » Wed May 03, 2017 7:45 am

Interesting that the statement says investor and not investors.

User avatar
Mr_Tibbs
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:55 pm
Team Supported: The Almighty Darlo
Location: Gruzia
Contact:

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Mr_Tibbs » Wed May 03, 2017 8:09 am

Darlo_Pete wrote:Interesting that the statement says investor and not investors.
But then it goes on and mentions proposals (plural), but it could still be a single investor and the DFCSG discussing several options. A proposal which doesn't require a change of ownership model is much more likely to succeed. I think the opposite is probably true for one which does, but we'll have to wait and see what it is.

http://dfcsg.co.uk/?x=entry:entry170503-051911

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 12502
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Darlo_Pete » Wed May 03, 2017 8:14 am

An investor could have different proposals!!

Quakerz
Posts: 20959
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Quakerz » Wed May 03, 2017 8:17 am

Interesting to see the proposals may include an advance of funds whilst we try and sort the full proposal out.

Not sure I'm liking that for a few reasons, because when it comes down to a vote fans will feel that they have to vote in favour because of that. If the fans vote against, we would owe money out.
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

m62exile
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:11 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by m62exile » Wed May 03, 2017 8:22 am

Quakerz wrote:Interesting to see the proposals may include an advance of funds whilst we try and sort the full proposal out.

Not sure I'm liking that for a few reasons, because when it comes down to a vote fans will feel that they have to vote in favour because of that. If the fans vote against, we would owe money out.
I didn't read it like that, more that "lets see if its worth advancing discussions" You may be right, but I hadn't read it as the "investor might advance funds prior to sorting thing out.."

Not sure.

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 11779
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Spyman » Wed May 03, 2017 8:24 am

There's a lot of talk about if we're under non-fan ownership, volunteering will dry up.

I believe this is one of the root causes of the problems we've had all along. A belief that if we don't own the club, we have no responsibility towards its survival. This was a problem under previous owners - whether we're fan owned or privately owned ultimately the club is there for us and we have to contribute towards its success.

If a private owner were raking in personal wealth off the back of our efforts then I could understand this attitude, but lets be honest, that's never going to be the case.
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC

TDS
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:15 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by TDS » Wed May 03, 2017 9:52 am

In an effort to try and link Singh to the Club/Location, could this be his main interest?

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/business ... e-12519329

4.25 acres of land, housing/development opportunity? Possibly look to improve the whole area and fund the club into a profitable position then look to sell on?

Either way, it is clear any proposals worth accepting are a month or two away, and we've got a football club to be responsible for, so I'd suggest we get investing as Singh is the guy we are looking at.

lo36789
Posts: 8332
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Potential new investors

Post by lo36789 » Wed May 03, 2017 9:59 am

Why buy a football club nearby though that doesn't really add up. Singhs previous actions were to threaten clossure of club/admin and simultaneously pressure the council to allow development which otherwise isn't allowed.

I don't know whether the two were linked, whether it was strategic or if it was just strange coincidence and timing that it happened twice with the same person.

TDS
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:15 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by TDS » Wed May 03, 2017 10:03 am

Yeah, I mean I know it was a shot in the dark really, but I cannot see why anybody would choose to lose money twice, on the same football club, years after he fucked everybody off massively in the town.

Quakerz
Posts: 20959
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Quakerz » Wed May 03, 2017 11:00 am

m62exile wrote:
Quakerz wrote:Interesting to see the proposals may include an advance of funds whilst we try and sort the full proposal out.

Not sure I'm liking that for a few reasons, because when it comes down to a vote fans will feel that they have to vote in favour because of that. If the fans vote against, we would owe money out.
I didn't read it like that, more that "lets see if its worth advancing discussions" You may be right, but I hadn't read it as the "investor might advance funds prior to sorting thing out.."

Not sure.
No you're right. It was me that got the wrong end of the stick, there is no mention of advance investment, the perils of reading stuff when half asleep!
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

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4203
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Wed May 03, 2017 11:47 am

TDS wrote:In an effort to try and link Singh to the Club/Location, could this be his main interest?

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/business ... e-12519329

4.25 acres of land, housing/development opportunity? Possibly look to improve the whole area and fund the club into a profitable position then look to sell on?

Either way, it is clear any proposals worth accepting are a month or two away, and we've got a football club to be responsible for, so I'd suggest we get investing as Singh is the guy we are looking at.
Yes, the hotel is for sale, and it may interest Singh - but it has no relevance to what happens on the other side of the road. I can't see a connection here.

ps -- it seems quite cheap for what you get!
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

TDS
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:15 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by TDS » Wed May 03, 2017 12:05 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
TDS wrote:In an effort to try and link Singh to the Club/Location, could this be his main interest?

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/business ... e-12519329

4.25 acres of land, housing/development opportunity? Possibly look to improve the whole area and fund the club into a profitable position then look to sell on?

Either way, it is clear any proposals worth accepting are a month or two away, and we've got a football club to be responsible for, so I'd suggest we get investing as Singh is the guy we are looking at.
Yes, the hotel is for sale, and it may interest Singh - but it has no relevance to what happens on the other side of the road. I can't see a connection here.

ps -- it seems quite cheap for what you get!
No I agree, he could just do it alone, either way to ensure we come across as a viable option vs the private ownership model when the vote happens I hope people are still investing what they intended to. This could collapse overnight.

quaker4life
Posts: 2310
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Potential new investors

Post by quaker4life » Wed May 03, 2017 2:49 pm

grimsbyquaker wrote:I think any plan has to involve us having a proper home, not just a license to play. This means either getting hold of BM or the Arena. I envisage this consortium will be split into football and commercial workstreams, arriving at a position where all parties see benefits. The club needs matchday revenue which it would get 100% if it owned its stadium. If land around that stadium could be developed, the developer benefits and the club can too (part of the plan?). Other element of the team can build up the football side of the development inc expanding the MG academy into a revenue stream?? Fan involvement is key though as has been said. If there is a clear markation of roles then it's potentially very exciting, especially if there are people with positive links with the club and area
You are deluded up to the point it is actually infuriating.

Shut up.
love it! wrote:Considering we are Darlington 1883 I'm happy that we are named correctly

User avatar
MKDarlo
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:39 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by MKDarlo » Wed May 03, 2017 3:48 pm

princes town wrote:
al_quaker wrote:This is the interesting part for me:

"In order for the fans to retain a say in how the Club is run in the future we will need to continue to raise money in some way shape or form."

Good that we will hear something within a week
I'm not actually sure what this means. Shareholding rather than fundraising is the only leverage we have in shaping policy, surely?
we need to be in a position to buy more shares as they are issued or our holding will be watered down to such a level that it becomes almost worthless.

User avatar
grimsbyquaker
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:03 pm
Team Supported: Darlington FC
Location: 53°22'N, 0°01'W

Re: Potential new investors

Post by grimsbyquaker » Wed May 03, 2017 5:20 pm

quaker4life wrote:
grimsbyquaker wrote:I think any plan has to involve us having a proper home, not just a license to play. This means either getting hold of BM or the Arena. I envisage this consortium will be split into football and commercial workstreams, arriving at a position where all parties see benefits. The club needs matchday revenue which it would get 100% if it owned its stadium. If land around that stadium could be developed, the developer benefits and the club can too (part of the plan?). Other element of the team can build up the football side of the development inc expanding the MG academy into a revenue stream?? Fan involvement is key though as has been said. If there is a clear markation of roles then it's potentially very exciting, especially if there are people with positive links with the club and area
You are deluded up to the point it is actually infuriating.

Shut up.
Not deluded...intrigued as to how investors can hope to grow their investment out of a ground we don't own. You have to 'follow the money' in cases like this, surely

H1987
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by H1987 » Wed May 03, 2017 5:41 pm

We're not going to be able to buy BM. The rugby club literally has no incentive to sell. They will be happy with the current arrangement and are more than financially stable with us as tenants. If we were to walk away, we would be liable for a bill to the Rugby club also, I would imagine, if we did not see out the deal we've signed. There's no way they would have let us do work to the place if they didn't have a safeguard in case we walked away.

We will have to work with BM, ideally with an investor, to get it up to standard. To reach FL standard, it will involve a lot of money, and probably pulling apart at least some of what has already been put in place (probably to make the seating stand deeper).

User avatar
grimsbyquaker
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:03 pm
Team Supported: Darlington FC
Location: 53°22'N, 0°01'W

Re: Potential new investors

Post by grimsbyquaker » Wed May 03, 2017 5:47 pm

Be interesting to see how many zeros we're talking about and what their ideas are for recouping their initial outlay

User avatar
Mr_Tibbs
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:55 pm
Team Supported: The Almighty Darlo
Location: Gruzia
Contact:

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Mr_Tibbs » Wed May 03, 2017 5:53 pm

princes town wrote:
al_quaker wrote:This is the interesting part for me:

"In order for the fans to retain a say in how the Club is run in the future we will need to continue to raise money in some way shape or form."

Good that we will hear something within a week
I'm not actually sure what this means. Shareholding rather than fundraising is the only leverage we have in shaping policy, surely?
I read that in the context set by the previous sentence. It will take some time to get a detailed proposal so it's crucial that we keep fundraising in the way that we have been doing in order to avoid weakening our own position, i.e. don't let this distract us from our original targets. Control over our own destiny is ours to lose.

I think growing the lottery some more is well worth exploring. We have over 1000 members now and the next target is 1500 and the lottery currently takes around about £2800 a month in entry fees which equates to 560 entries, which is great. If we could get that up to 1000 entries as we grow the membership then we'd be making about £30k/year for the club, but it's open to anyone so we could all ask our friends and workmates if they fancy having a go.

Vodka_Vic
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Vodka_Vic » Wed May 03, 2017 9:02 pm

loan_star wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:Any investor will bring an unsustainable (ultimately) hike in investment, i.e., not covered by income. This may be in a couple of years or much longer, but these investors will eventually run out. The crash for the club will be much more substantial and possibly terminal as I can't see volunteers (from top to bottom) taking up the reins again at whatever level. Fans-run club will also find its own level. Difficult choice to come
An investors money has the potential to get us to a level where its easier to be self sustaining, more league and TV money and what should be higher attendances.
Yes the cash may run out eventually but how long can we rely on volunteers bucket rattling too? We are already short of volunteer directors, we can't go on like we are currently either.
The big problem long term is getting to League 2 and being self-sustainable, then dropping back into the Conference. This is the big weakness in the FL structure and is a financial black hole.
Let's say you need a budget of 400k to be competitive in the NLN. If it weren't for the 5 year Season tickets then we could sustain that budget. MG said then you need a budget on 1 million in the NL. If you go up to League 2, then MG said the budget is 1.4 million, but you get 1 million tv money, so a budget of 400k in real terms, which we could sustain. Once you drop back down to the NL, then immediately there is a shortfall of 600k to plug. Economically, it's ridiculous. The National League system is an anachronism and was supposed to be a part time league, but as we know the landscape has changed, and is just not favourable to community and fan-owned clubs which non-league should be. I'm sure this is why it's littered with ex-League teams. The FA need to sort this out and filter down more money, let's say half a million, which would then just give a shortfall of 100k. 600k is just ridiculous.

Yarblockos
Posts: 685
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:19 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Yarblockos » Wed May 03, 2017 9:14 pm

Vodka_Vic wrote:
loan_star wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:Any investor will bring an unsustainable (ultimately) hike in investment, i.e., not covered by income. This may be in a couple of years or much longer, but these investors will eventually run out. The crash for the club will be much more substantial and possibly terminal as I can't see volunteers (from top to bottom) taking up the reins again at whatever level. Fans-run club will also find its own level. Difficult choice to come
An investors money has the potential to get us to a level where its easier to be self sustaining, more league and TV money and what should be higher attendances.
Yes the cash may run out eventually but how long can we rely on volunteers bucket rattling too? We are already short of volunteer directors, we can't go on like we are currently either.
The big problem long term is getting to League 2 and being self-sustainable, then dropping back into the Conference. This is the big weakness in the FL structure and is a financial black hole.
Let's say you need a budget of 400k to be competitive in the NLN. If it weren't for the 5 year Season tickets then we could sustain that budget. MG said then you need a budget on 1 million in the NL. If you go up to League 2, then MG said the budget is 1.4 million, but you get 1 million tv money, so a budget of 400k in real terms, which we could sustain. Once you drop back down to the NL, then immediately there is a shortfall of 600k to plug. Economically, it's ridiculous. The National League system is an anachronism and was supposed to be a part time league, but as we know the landscape has changed, and is just not favourable to community and fan-owned clubs which non-league should be. I'm sure this is why it's littered with ex-League teams. The FA need to sort this out and filter down more money, let's say half a million, which would then just give a shortfall of 100k. 600k is just ridiculous.
A 600K shortfall would be ridiculous, but lets not get angry over something that isn't true. Relegated clubs actually get parachute payments for the first two years. Last I heard it was 100% in the first year and 50% in the second. So there is no 600K shortfall once relegated.

Quakerz
Posts: 20959
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Quakerz » Wed May 03, 2017 9:28 pm

And if you don't go back up within 2 years then you're either facing a huge shortfall or you go part time.
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

Vodka_Vic
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Vodka_Vic » Thu May 04, 2017 11:35 am

OK, yes, Quakerz articulated it better. After the parachute payments finish, then there's a massive shortfall.

Post Reply