Potential new investors

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

User avatar
Geordie Quaker
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:32 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: See Username

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Geordie Quaker » Thu May 04, 2017 12:58 pm

The mega geek in me wondered to what extent the parachute payments actually help teams in getting promoted back to the football league or if just eases them into a life of fifth tier mediocrity. I don't even know how long the parachute payments have been in place, but the below lists (I think!) all clubs that have dropped out of the league since 2005 and since come back up.

2005: Cambridge (promoted (2014)
2006: Oxford (promoted 2010)
2007: Torquay (promoted 2009, relegated again 2014)
2008: Mansfield (promoted 2013)
2009: Luton (promoted 2014)
2010: Grimsby (promoted 2016)
2011: Lincoln (promoted 2017)
2013: Barnet (promoted 2015)
2014: Bristol Rovers (promoted 2015)
2016: Dagenham (possible playoff promotion 2017)

So, Dagenham aside, only Bristol Rovers, Barnet and Torquay have returned within the two year parachute window. On average it takes 4 1/2 years to get promoted after relegation.

Tell you what, the amount of teams who have made it back up does slightly question the cliche about how hard it is to get promoted, doesn't it?

H1987
Posts: 1523
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by H1987 » Thu May 04, 2017 1:18 pm

Geordie Quaker wrote:The mega geek in me wondered to what extent the parachute payments actually help teams in getting promoted back to the football league or if just eases them into a life of fifth tier mediocrity. I don't even know how long the parachute payments have been in place, but the below lists (I think!) all clubs that have dropped out of the league since 2005 and since come back up.

2005: Cambridge (promoted (2014)
2006: Oxford (promoted 2010)
2007: Torquay (promoted 2009, relegated again 2014)
2008: Mansfield (promoted 2013)
2009: Luton (promoted 2014)
2010: Grimsby (promoted 2016)
2011: Lincoln (promoted 2017)
2013: Barnet (promoted 2015)
2014: Bristol Rovers (promoted 2015)
2016: Dagenham (possible playoff promotion 2017)

So, Dagenham aside, only Bristol Rovers, Barnet and Torquay have returned within the two year parachute window. On average it takes 4 1/2 years to get promoted after relegation.

Tell you what, the amount of teams who have made it back up does slightly question the cliche about how hard it is to get promoted, doesn't it?
Well yeah, but two teams are relegated and promoted. You're only covering one a year there.

You're missing the likes of Tranmere, York, Chester, Wrexham, Macclesfield, Kiddy, Stockport, Halifax, Boston.... and of course ourselves, who have all dropped from the Football League in that time frame.

lo36789
Posts: 8426
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Potential new investors

Post by lo36789 » Thu May 04, 2017 1:33 pm

H1987 wrote:
Geordie Quaker wrote:Tell you what, the amount of teams who have made it back up does slightly question the cliche about how hard it is to get promoted, doesn't it?
Well yeah, but two teams are relegated and promoted. You're only covering one a year there.

You're missing the likes of Tranmere, York, Chester, Wrexham, Macclesfield, Kiddy, Stockport, Halifax, Boston.... and of course ourselves, who have all dropped from the Football League in that time frame.
None of those have made it back up - which is his whole point.

shawry
Posts: 2596
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by shawry » Thu May 04, 2017 1:45 pm

lo36789 wrote:
H1987 wrote:
Geordie Quaker wrote:Tell you what, the amount of teams who have made it back up does slightly question the cliche about how hard it is to get promoted, doesn't it?
Well yeah, but two teams are relegated and promoted. You're only covering one a year there.

You're missing the likes of Tranmere, York, Chester, Wrexham, Macclesfield, Kiddy, Stockport, Halifax, Boston.... and of course ourselves, who have all dropped from the Football League in that time frame.
None of those have made it back up - which is his whole point.
That's not how I read it. It looked like he was saying it's maybe not as difficult as people say it is

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5655
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Thu May 04, 2017 1:49 pm

This was the key
Geordie Quaker wrote:I don't even know how long the parachute payments have been in place, but the below lists (I think!) all clubs that have dropped out of the league since 2005 and since come back up.

What we may need to look at is how many fan owned part time teams have made it back into the league. Which is more likely to indicate our future if we stay on the fan owned path.

User avatar
Geordie Quaker
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:32 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: See Username

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Geordie Quaker » Thu May 04, 2017 1:50 pm

It clearly says it is a list of teams who "dropped out of the league since 2005 and since come back up".

Two teams up aside, I think that nine teams achieving this since 2005 does suggest it is not the impossible task we sometimes assume it to be. You're looking at a decent re-promotion rate (and I know that is not a word):

- Of 22 teams relegated from 2005-16, 9 (41%) have since been promoted.
- A far smaller percentage (3, 13.6%) achieved it in the two-year parachute time-frame.

Les has this turning into a sizeable research project :D
Last edited by Geordie Quaker on Thu May 04, 2017 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 11798
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Spyman » Thu May 04, 2017 1:54 pm

I'm not sure it tells us a great deal either way - you'd expect the teams going down to generally be among the better teams in the division below and this is probably reflected in about 50% of them getting promoted back up at some point.

I think the point of the exercise was to show that actually, of those that have gone back up, Barnet, Bristol Rovers and Dagenham are the only ones who would still have been receiving parachute payments. Three teams out of twenty - so what is actually shown is that perhaps parachute payments aren't the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to having an advantage over others in that league.

85% of the teams promoted from the National League/Conference over the last decade have done so without receiving parachute payments. Of course, you've got a number of sides who have had significant subsidy like Crawley and Fleetwood, and Luton who would've had a significantly larger fan-base than others at that level.

Probably more interesting to look at the finishing positions in the Conference of clubs receiving parachute payments.
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

H1987
Posts: 1523
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by H1987 » Thu May 04, 2017 4:10 pm

lo36789 wrote:
H1987 wrote:
Geordie Quaker wrote:Tell you what, the amount of teams who have made it back up does slightly question the cliche about how hard it is to get promoted, doesn't it?
Well yeah, but two teams are relegated and promoted. You're only covering one a year there.

You're missing the likes of Tranmere, York, Chester, Wrexham, Macclesfield, Kiddy, Stockport, Halifax, Boston.... and of course ourselves, who have all dropped from the Football League in that time frame.
None of those have made it back up - which is his whole point.
The point was that it isn't so difficult to get back up... those teams seem to illustrate it's a mixed bag to me

H1987
Posts: 1523
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by H1987 » Thu May 04, 2017 4:12 pm

Geordie Quaker wrote:It clearly says it is a list of teams who "dropped out of the league since 2005 and since come back up".

Two teams up aside, I think that nine teams achieving this since 2005 does suggest it is not the impossible task we sometimes assume it to be. You're looking at a decent re-promotion rate (and I know that is not a word):

- Of 22 teams relegated from 2005-16, 9 (41%) have since been promoted.
- A far smaller percentage (3, 13.6%) achieved it in the two-year parachute time-frame.

Les has this turning into a sizeable research project :D
So, what you're saying, is that Poolie are fucked for a few years? :mrgreen:

lo36789
Posts: 8426
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Potential new investors

Post by lo36789 » Thu May 04, 2017 4:19 pm

What it suggest to me is it is less about the access to parachute payments and more about the size and stature of the club.

So whilst you are busy researching GQ. How do things stack up when you compare those who were successfully promoted v those who weren't in terms of historic cumulative years spent in the FL (I'm joking...)

biccynana
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:38 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by biccynana » Thu May 04, 2017 6:24 pm

Spyman wrote:you'd expect the teams going down to generally be among the better teams in the division below
We can expect the Hangers to buck that trend :D

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 » Thu May 04, 2017 6:40 pm

I would have to support any initiative that offered the best chance of a return to the FL. Investment in a club by businesses/consortia is perfectly normal and is our only hope as all the brave souls volunteering their time and expertise can only work with a much bigger fan base. We have to grasp any opportunities we get to play at the highest level

QUAKERMAN2
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:43 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by QUAKERMAN2 » Thu May 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Totally agree Nick, 100% in agreement.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

banktopp
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:59 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Hereford

Re: Potential new investors

Post by banktopp » Thu May 04, 2017 7:36 pm

grimsbyquaker wrote:I would have to support any initiative that offered the best chance of a return to the FL. Investment in a club by businesses/consortia is perfectly normal and is our only hope as all the brave souls volunteering their time and expertise can only work with a much bigger fan base. We have to grasp any opportunities we get to play at the highest level
At the expense of being shafted again ?
We do not have to grasp any, or even the first opportunity to possibly play at the highest level. Can promotion to the football league be guaranteed by selling out to a consortium with dubious motives ?

darlo reborn
Posts: 1359
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by darlo reborn » Thu May 04, 2017 7:42 pm

We can`t get shafted as we have no assets only the team and if that goes pear shaped then the investor will gain nothing

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

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Undercovered » Thu May 04, 2017 8:00 pm

darlo reborn wrote:We can`t get shafted as we have no assets only the team and if that goes pear shaped then the investor will gain nothing
And we will be left with nothing
Image

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6187
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by loan_star » Thu May 04, 2017 8:05 pm

banktopp wrote: Can promotion to the football league be guaranteed by selling out to a consortium with dubious motives ?
Dubious motives? Care to share?

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5655
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Thu May 04, 2017 8:13 pm

darlo reborn wrote:We can`t get shafted as we have no assets only the team and if that goes pear shaped then the investor will gain nothing
Wrong owner and you could lose the club again, which won't come back a 2nd time.

It will be a tough choice.

shawry
Posts: 2596
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by shawry » Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

So, if we assume that a vote for an investor goes through, and also say we've completes the 1st 2 funding goals, will the investor match that by fulfilling the next 2? (Ignoring the budget)

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5655
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Thu May 04, 2017 8:40 pm

shawry wrote:So, if we assume that a vote for an investor goes through, and also say we've completes the 1st 2 funding goals, will the investor match that by fulfilling the next 2? (Ignoring the budget)

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I think the investor(s) will be expecting the fans (DFCSG) to continue raising money, time will tell I guess.

shawry
Posts: 2596
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by shawry » Thu May 04, 2017 8:45 pm

super_les_mcjannet wrote:
shawry wrote:So, if we assume that a vote for an investor goes through, and also say we've completes the 1st 2 funding goals, will the investor match that by fulfilling the next 2? (Ignoring the budget)

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
I think the investor(s) will be expecting the fans (DFCSG) to continue raising money, time will tell I guess.
So at that point the investor isn't actually needed then :)

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 » Thu May 04, 2017 9:30 pm

banktopp wrote:
grimsbyquaker wrote:I would have to support any initiative that offered the best chance of a return to the FL. Investment in a club by businesses/consortia is perfectly normal and is our only hope as all the brave souls volunteering their time and expertise can only work with a much bigger fan base. We have to grasp any opportunities we get to play at the highest level
At the expense of being shafted again ?
We do not have to grasp any, or even the first opportunity to possibly play at the highest level. Can promotion to the football league be guaranteed by selling out to a consortium with dubious motives ?
Yes we've had our fingers burnt but much of that is because we had something that the dubious motive brigade thought could net them big bucks. Nothing to say that any of this lot's motives are dubious. We're right to be sceptical after last time but this might be much more benign. If so we have to look seriously at it or else accept the fact that 2016-17 was as good as it'll ever get before we're consumed by politics, infighting and a downward spiral back to New Mills et al

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 11798
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Spyman » Thu May 04, 2017 9:56 pm

shawry wrote:So, if we assume that a vote for an investor goes through, and also say we've completes the 1st 2 funding goals, will the investor match that by fulfilling the next 2? (Ignoring the budget)

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
If the current fundraising is in the form of a share issue, which I believe it is, then surely the more that is invested by the supporters group, the stronger their (our) financial hold is and the more any individual/consortium would need to pay for 51%?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
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

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5655
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Thu May 04, 2017 9:58 pm

Spyman wrote:
shawry wrote:So, if we assume that a vote for an investor goes through, and also say we've completes the 1st 2 funding goals, will the investor match that by fulfilling the next 2? (Ignoring the budget)

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
If the current fundraising is in the form of a share issue, which I believe it is, then surely the more that is invested by the supporters group, the stronger their (our) financial hold is and the more any individual/consortium would need to pay for 51%?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
DFCSG only loan the club money for the fundraising, they do not become any stronger and no more shares are given in the club.

lo36789
Posts: 8426
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Potential new investors

Post by lo36789 » Thu May 04, 2017 11:08 pm

grimsbyquaker wrote:If so we have to look seriously at it or else accept the fact that 2016-17 was as good as it'll ever get before we're consumed by politics, infighting and a downward spiral back to New Mills et al
Do people seriously believe that just because we don't get promoted that we will actually decline back to the Northern League? I don't get that theory - what are people thinking when they look at the rest of the teams in Conference North/Prem.

There isn't a single precedent for this ever as far as I am aware.

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

Re: Potential new investors

Post by princes town » Fri May 05, 2017 7:50 am

lo36789 wrote:
grimsbyquaker wrote:If so we have to look seriously at it or else accept the fact that 2016-17 was as good as it'll ever get before we're consumed by politics, infighting and a downward spiral back to New Mills et al
Do people seriously believe that just because we don't get promoted that we will actually decline back to the Northern League? I don't get that theory - what are people thinking when they look at the rest of the teams in Conference North/Prem.

There isn't a single precedent for this ever as far as I am aware.
.

It's s myth. Look at curzon Ashton. Small budget but hold their own.

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

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Undercovered » Fri May 05, 2017 8:15 am

The problem is that the playing budget has always been £50K higher than it should have been since day 1. If it had been set correctly and gradually increased there would have been no need to now get it under control with a fairly decent chunk taken off. I'd imagine that when all said and done it'll be more like a £40-50K reduction than £80K - I'm sure we'll not turn into whipping boys as a result. We've often had a bench full of talent - we might just need to re-align to having some younger, cheaper lads on the bench like Saunders who can be developed
Image

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 » Fri May 05, 2017 9:32 am

shawry wrote:
super_les_mcjannet wrote:
shawry wrote:So, if we assume that a vote for an investor goes through, and also say we've completes the 1st 2 funding goals, will the investor match that by fulfilling the next 2? (Ignoring the budget)
I think the investor(s) will be expecting the fans (DFCSG) to continue raising money, time will tell I guess.
So at that point the investor isn't actually needed then :)
I think the right type of investors are needed and would be welcomed with open arms if one or more come along with imaginative ideas to invest in some aspect of the club which is allowed within the rules - the DFCSG can use its assets if it can be demonstrated to be of benefit to the community but if we start thinking in terms of assets that don't yet exist then we're free to explore this area.

I'm not certain, but I think a simple poll of the members (similar to the one we did for the name change) would be enough for the board to act under the mandate we gave them at the AGM, in this case.

So it's certainly possible to get an investor or two on board which will strengthen the club without affecting the current ownership model of the DFCSG, so long as the only downside is that they don't make as much money as they'd hoped but it'd be in everyone's best interests for their investment to be a tremendous success.

I think any ideas about us selling out to a single large investor are dead in the water. Our rules are designed and written to prevent that from happening except in cases where practically every member wants it to happen, and I've heard enough dissenting voices to suggest that isn't the case.

Keep fundraising everyone :thumbup:

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 11798
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by Spyman » Fri May 05, 2017 9:46 am

Undercovered wrote:The problem is that the playing budget has always been £50K higher than it should have been since day 1. If it had been set correctly and gradually increased there would have been no need to now get it under control with a fairly decent chunk taken off. I'd imagine that when all said and done it'll be more like a £40-50K reduction than £80K - I'm sure we'll not turn into whipping boys as a result. We've often had a bench full of talent - we might just need to re-align to having some younger, cheaper lads on the bench like Saunders who can be developed
Spot on. Like I said on the WOW thread last night, the manager shouldn't dictate the playing budget. If Gray wants to prove himself then he should work within the budget set and blood youngsters into the team rather than rely on spending beyond what the club can afford.
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

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4308
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Potential new investors

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Fri May 05, 2017 10:10 am

It's a little tricky with M.G. at present.

I gave lo a hard time re his "blind ambition' post a while back, and while I still think a lot of what he wrote back then was daft - I can now see where he was coming from.
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

Post Reply