Ground share

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Post Reply
quaker4life
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Ground share

Post by quaker4life » Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:07 pm

Is this a bad time to mention it was opened illegally? :silent:

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... lds-arena/
love it! wrote:Considering we are Darlington 1883 I'm happy that we are named correctly

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

Re: Ground share

Post by Darlofan97 » Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:23 pm

I vaguely remember we had a promotion chasing squad in 2008/2009 laden with good quality prior to going in to administration in the February. That can’t have been cheap to run and I dare say the running costs of the Arena were significantly smaller than what the playing & other staff budgets were at the time. Didn’t we chuck six figures about to sign Joachim a couple of years prior?

Not forgetting that the £270k figure are running costs, and can be partly off-set by bringing in revenue not even related to football activities (functions & events etc).

If the £270k figure is correct, I just can’t see how it put us at increased risk in the FL, other than if we were over-spending on the staff side & had inefficiencies elsewhere. I honestly think that the 2012 admin (and possibly 2009) was caused by poor management and - on the face of it - not directly related to the Arena.

Going back to H1987’s point about the Arena almost killing the club, I think it’s unfounded.

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

Re: Ground share

Post by Yarblockos » Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:59 pm

It's a good job we aren't going to be paying the running costs of the Arena then isn't it? I'm sure Wembley is expensie to run but we aren't running that either. Not sure what this has got to do with the idea of playing games at someone's elses ground, i.e. DMPRC.

shildonlad
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gateshead
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Ground share

Post by shildonlad » Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:27 pm

quaker4life wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:07 pm
Is this a bad time to mention it was opened illegally? :silent:

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... lds-arena/
It should never have got planning permission. I spoke with a guy who worked on the infrastructure design. Plans/recommendations for access roads were presented to reynolds during the planning which would have enabled the club to be allowed 25k ish in the stadium. Reynolds choose the cheaper option Thus meaning the capacity was cappped at 10k for football. The council should have refused the ground full stop unless it was built to 10k ish capacity
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

quaker4life
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Ground share

Post by quaker4life » Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:03 am

Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:23 pm
Going back to H1987’s point about the Arena almost killing the club, I think it’s unfounded.
No it isn't.

If you look at the link I posted further up it very nearly killed the club at the very beginning, the council claimed had they not allowed it to open (despite being in breach of planning conditions) the club would have gone out of existence. Regardless it still ended up in administration by Christmas in the first season there and at one point the administrators had considered taking us back to Feethams despite it being "condemned". If I remember rightly the CVA which eventually saved the club wasn't worth a fraction of what was owed and some businesses involved in the construction lost substantial amounts of money.

The way George Houghton pulled the plug on us in 2009 was unforgivable at the end of February we were just outside the top 3 in League 2 with games in hand, had he held on a little longer he could well have left us a decent prospect in League 1 for any potential owner, instead he left Raj Singh with a team of cast offs assembled on gentleman's agreements and despite what some may have thought of Colin Todd he worked a miracle getting a squad together in time for the 2009/10 season and we all know what happened next. Houghton claimed at the time we were losing £50k a week, the recession hit and crowds dipped below 3,000 he had also hoped to develop the land around the arena and build a sports complex along with a pub and hotel but couldn't get it off the ground.

It was then repossessed in 2011 when Houghton had apparently defaulted on a loan from Phillip Scott & Graham Sizer (who DMP bought it from) Singh had tried and failed to buy it back for a knockdown price and eventually put the club back into administration himself in 2012 despite claiming there was no debt. He had already invested over £1m into the club shortly before it went into administration in 2009 so presumably lost the lot, he certainly lost the plot in the end I remember him saying that Sainsbury's should move from Victoria Road and replace the Arena with a new store while we built a ground there! Again we all know what happened next.

To me it is cancerous and always will be.
love it! wrote:Considering we are Darlington 1883 I'm happy that we are named correctly

quaker4life
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Ground share

Post by quaker4life » Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:08 am

shildonlad wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:27 pm
quaker4life wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:07 pm
Is this a bad time to mention it was opened illegally? :silent:

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... lds-arena/
It should never have got planning permission. I spoke with a guy who worked on the infrastructure design. Plans/recommendations for access roads were presented to reynolds during the planning which would have enabled the club to be allowed 25k ish in the stadium. Reynolds choose the cheaper option Thus meaning the capacity was cappped at 10k for football. The council should have refused the ground full stop unless it was built to 10k ish capacity
I thought it was capped at 6k for Saturday games and 4k for midweek games unless we had special dispensation to allow a larger attendance, effectively we ended up with a £20mil stadium which due to capacity restrictions was smaller than Feethams it was farcical.
love it! wrote:Considering we are Darlington 1883 I'm happy that we are named correctly

Piggy_
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 9:55 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by Piggy_ » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:21 am

Without trawling through the thread, IF we were to temporarily move back to the Arena does anyone know what the capacity would be capped at ? Might actually benefit us financially- particularly if we do get off to a good start and we are allowed 2,000 plus in.

Could see it putting a few other clubs noses out of joint though.

lo36789
Posts: 10928
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by lo36789 » Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:00 am

quaker4life wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:03 am
The way George Houghton pulled the plug on us in 2009 was unforgivable at the end of February we were just outside the top 3 in League 2 with games in hand, had he held on a little longer he could well have left us a decent prospect in League 1 for any potential owner, instead he left Raj Singh with a team of cast offs assembled on gentleman's agreements and despite what some may have thought of Colin Todd he worked a miracle getting a squad together in time for the 2009/10 season and we all know what happened next. Houghton claimed at the time we were losing £50k a week, the recession hit and crowds dipped below 3,000 he had also hoped to develop the land around the arena and build a sports complex along with a pub and hotel but couldn't get it off the ground.

It was then repossessed in 2011 when Houghton had apparently defaulted on a loan from Phillip Scott & Graham Sizer (who DMP bought it from) Singh had tried and failed to buy it back for a knockdown price and eventually put the club back into administration himself in 2012 despite claiming there was no debt. He had already invested over £1m into the club shortly before it went into administration in 2009 so presumably lost the lot, he certainly lost the plot in the end I remember him saying that Sainsbury's should move from Victoria Road and replace the Arena with a new store while we built a ground there! Again we all know what happened next.
I think the Arena was a part of the problem for our problems with Houghton / Singh.

Felt like the club and the threat of not getting promotion, going into administration was a ploy to twist the arm of the council to relax planning on the site.

"I'll save the football club if you let me build..."

We know that running the arena in the EFL wasn't a problem. The Starling consortium (think that is right) were absolutely fine and the costs were more than covered by TV money which cascaded down.

Once we lost EFL status it became problematic. It's telling from the figures bandied about around salary caps if the salary cap proposed in NL is £900k (and that is 10 years on from when we were last there) £270k becomes a very high cost relative to others.

Would we have been as prone to the same type of owners at Feethams, possibly. Is the Arena the only reason for our decline, no. Do I think it was the common denominator, absolutely.
Last edited by lo36789 on Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

shildonlad
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gateshead
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Ground share

Post by shildonlad » Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:01 am

quaker4life wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:08 am
shildonlad wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:27 pm
quaker4life wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:07 pm
Is this a bad time to mention it was opened illegally? :silent:

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... lds-arena/
It should never have got planning permission. I spoke with a guy who worked on the infrastructure design. Plans/recommendations for access roads were presented to reynolds during the planning which would have enabled the club to be allowed 25k ish in the stadium. Reynolds choose the cheaper option Thus meaning the capacity was cappped at 10k for football. The council should have refused the ground full stop unless it was built to 10k ish capacity
I thought it was capped at 6k for Saturday games and 4k for midweek games unless we had special dispensation to allow a larger attendance, effectively we ended up with a £20mil stadium which due to capacity restrictions was smaller than Feethams it was farcical.
Is that it, honestly thought it was 10k
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

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

Re: Ground share

Post by jjljks » Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:52 am

Anyone know what happened at the DMP EGM last night? Who is the benefactor who took on their liabilities??

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:40 am

shildonlad wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:01 am
quaker4life wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:08 am
shildonlad wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:27 pm
quaker4life wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:07 pm
Is this a bad time to mention it was opened illegally? :silent:

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... lds-arena/
It should never have got planning permission. I spoke with a guy who worked on the infrastructure design. Plans/recommendations for access roads were presented to reynolds during the planning which would have enabled the club to be allowed 25k ish in the stadium. Reynolds choose the cheaper option Thus meaning the capacity was cappped at 10k for football. The council should have refused the ground full stop unless it was built to 10k ish capacity
I thought it was capped at 6k for Saturday games and 4k for midweek games unless we had special dispensation to allow a larger attendance, effectively we ended up with a £20mil stadium which due to capacity restrictions was smaller than Feethams it was farcical.
Is that it, honestly thought it was 10k
It was 10k but then changed to 6k/4k and only 10k with permission, after a while. I don't know if it reverted back to 10k or if it stayed at 6k/4k.

In any case, we're not going to be troubling 4k any time soon but the Arena will easily allow our usual 1,500 crowds in - hopefully they will be a bit higher at first.

Of course this could all be a moot point as the league may refuse us dispensation if they think it's not fair on other clubs.

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

Ground share

Post by Darlogramps » Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:48 am

Darlofan97 wrote:I vaguely remember we had a promotion chasing squad in 2008/2009 laden with good quality prior to going in to administration in the February. That can’t have been cheap to run and I dare say the running costs of the Arena were significantly smaller than what the playing & other staff budgets were at the time. Didn’t we chuck six figures about to sign Joachim a couple of years prior?

Not forgetting that the £270k figure are running costs, and can be partly off-set by bringing in revenue not even related to football activities (functions & events etc).

If the £270k figure is correct, I just can’t see how it put us at increased risk in the FL, other than if we were over-spending on the staff side & had inefficiencies elsewhere. I honestly think that the 2012 admin (and possibly 2009) was caused by poor management and - on the face of it - not directly related to the Arena.

Going back to H1987’s point about the Arena almost killing the club, I think it’s unfounded.
With all due respect, you’re basing all that on a £270k figure that you don’t even know is correct. Where have you got that figure from?

You’ve also said we had £2m turnover in our first non-league season (10/11). That can’t be right. Our attendances were averaging around 2,000 at that point. A 1,500 average attendance last season was enough for approximately a 350k playing budget last year. £2m seems nonsense.

Personally, focusing on the excessive spending is too simplistic. You also have to look at why we were doing that. Why would we so desperately on multiple occasions need to spend to get promotion? Well the one big variable for us is we had a massive stadium to service.

Moreover in 2012, Singh had lost control of the stadium and the land to Scott and Sizer. We know he wanted a cut of the development (he made a condition during administration negotiations). Clearly therefore his lack of ownership of the stadium and land was part of the reason for us going into administration in 2012.

Rarely is an insolvency event down to one single factor. There’s usually an accumulation of reasons. The Arena was undoubtedly part of those reasons in 2012.

To say it’s unfounded is nonsense, particularly when you’re basing that on unfounded figures. Was the Arena the sole reason for our problems? No, of course not. But it’s a common thread running through that decade.

Three administrations in less than a decade after moving to the Arena. What’s the one common denominator there?
Last edited by Darlogramps on Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6717
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:51 am

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:40 am
Of course this could all be a moot point as the league may refuse us dispensation if they think it's not fair on other clubs.
Ha the Elephant in the room!

Let's see. In a severe pandemic you would think that people's health and safety would trump any kind of pettiness from the league. Is this why D.J has gone about this in a more public way than he normally does things?

Yarblockos wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:59 pm
It's a good job we aren't going to be paying the running costs of the Arena then isn't it? I'm sure Wembley is expensie to run but we aren't running that either. Not sure what this has got to do with the idea of playing games at someone's elses ground, i.e. DMPRC.
My thoughts too. All this talk about running costs and previous bad times are irrelevant to this proposed, temporary move.
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

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

Ground share

Post by Darlogramps » Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:56 am

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:40 am
Of course this could all be a moot point as the league may refuse us dispensation if they think it's not fair on other clubs.
Ha the Elephant in the room!

Let's see. In a severe pandemic you would think that people's health and safety would trump any kind of pettiness from the league. Is this why D.J has gone about this in a more public way than he normally does things?

Yarblockos wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:59 pm
It's a good job we aren't going to be paying the running costs of the Arena then isn't it? I'm sure Wembley is expensie to run but we aren't running that either. Not sure what this has got to do with the idea of playing games at someone's elses ground, i.e. DMPRC.
My thoughts too. All this talk about running costs and previous bad times are irrelevant to this proposed, temporary move.
Here’s a thought - actually read the thread properly and you’ll understand why it’s come up.

Hardly irrelevant when read in context, given the bad memories will put some off going, thereby reducing our potential income. Go on, I’m sure reading isn’t beyond you.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:06 am

lo36789 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:00 am
quaker4life wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:03 am
The way George Houghton pulled the plug on us in 2009 was unforgivable at the end of February we were just outside the top 3 in League 2 with games in hand, had he held on a little longer he could well have left us a decent prospect in League 1 for any potential owner, instead he left Raj Singh with a team of cast offs assembled on gentleman's agreements and despite what some may have thought of Colin Todd he worked a miracle getting a squad together in time for the 2009/10 season and we all know what happened next. Houghton claimed at the time we were losing £50k a week, the recession hit and crowds dipped below 3,000 he had also hoped to develop the land around the arena and build a sports complex along with a pub and hotel but couldn't get it off the ground.

It was then repossessed in 2011 when Houghton had apparently defaulted on a loan from Phillip Scott & Graham Sizer (who DMP bought it from) Singh had tried and failed to buy it back for a knockdown price and eventually put the club back into administration himself in 2012 despite claiming there was no debt. He had already invested over £1m into the club shortly before it went into administration in 2009 so presumably lost the lot, he certainly lost the plot in the end I remember him saying that Sainsbury's should move from Victoria Road and replace the Arena with a new store while we built a ground there! Again we all know what happened next.
I think the Arena was a part of the problem for our problems with Houghton / Singh.

Felt like the club and the threat of not getting promotion, going into administration was a ploy to twist the arm of the council to relax planning on the site.

"I'll save the football club if you let me build..."

We know that running the arena in the EFL wasn't a problem. The Starling consortium (think that is right) were absolutely fine and the costs were more than covered by TV money which cascaded down.

Once we lost EFL status it became problematic. It's telling from the figures bandied about around salary caps if the salary cap proposed in NL is £900k (and that is 10 years on from when we were last there) £270k becomes a very high cost relative to others.

Would we have been as prone to the same type of owners at Feethams, possibly. Is the Arena the only reason for our decline, no. Do I think it was the common denominator, absolutely.
It was The Sterling Consortium, and they ran a tight ship - although they couldn't sell up quick enough. I wonder what Stewart Davies is doing these days? He actually seemed to quite enjoy his short time at Darlo.

I think we need to be realistic and look at the (white) elephant in the room - it's the Arena isn't it.

Administrations 1883-2003 = 0
Administrations 2004-2011 = 3
Administrations 2012-present = 0

Yes we've sailed close to the wind a few times before and after the Arena but 3 administrations in less than a decade? Hmmm. 3 bad owners sure, but of course there is no way of knowing if good owners would have fared any better.

Then you look at Mowden. They walked into the Arena with a few million in the bank, they've probably got better use out of it than we did, now the rumours are that they are in trouble. It's the Arena again, isn't it.

I think owners consistently get caught out by costs. I remember Radged saying that it was 10k a month just for the gas.

I always liked the Arena to be fair, and always said that if we were just renting and not responsible for the overall cost, then we should go back. Dial A for the Arena I said in every conversation. However I drove past it a couple of weeks ago and was shocked at the state of it. It's an absolute rust bucket. It might fall down with more than 2,000 people in it.

As for going there temporarily, I think we'd be mad not to, as it's a different situation altogether. It's about ensuring enough room for ST ticket holders, it's about ensuring enough room for pay on the day fans. Not sure how advertising boards would work mind?

I'd assume we'd pay DRFC what we normally pay as it's not their fault we asked to play somewhere else, and we'd have to pay MP as well, so we'd be doubling our rental costs for the length of the period, but in reality what's it going to cost, an extra 25k per season pro rata? 50k pro rata maybe? It's not going to be an utterly crippling amount unless crowds turn out to be lower than projected.

The alternative doesn't bare thinking about. Zero on the day gate income, a fraction of parking, a fraction of the 50/50, a fraction of whatever we make from hospitality and bar takings. We'd be relying on hundreds and hundreds of people to consistently pay full gate price to watch the match streamed if we're allowed to do that.

al_quaker
Posts: 5942
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by al_quaker » Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:13 am

The running closts clearly would be a huge issue if we had to take them on. Maybe they were OK for a football league club with gates of 4 or 5k, but certainly not when gates dropped and we lost the FL money. But in a way it is irrelevant to this current situation, as we wouldn't be taking the running costs on. It'd be a rent to Mowden Park. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be financial risks to a temporary move there - we'd be paying 2 sets of rent, and who knows how many people will refuse to come because they dont like the Arena (and whether that will be more or less than those who refuse to go to BM becuase they don't like it). Maybe we've managed to get a decent deal with MP, or even agreed something with DRFC. Some money is better than none in both cases (and there must be a risk of none if we have to stay at BM with crowds of 550).

What's not irrelevant is people's feelings on the Arena as a venue. People can choose whether to go and watch a football club, and if they don't enjoy watching football in a particular venue then they are entitled to not go. It doesn't make them any less of a fan - it's just a 'why would I spend money on an experience I don't enjoy'. I'd hope the majority of fans would be able to get behind a temporary move, recognising that needs must.

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

Re: Ground share

Post by Darlofan97 » Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:17 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:48 am
Darlofan97 wrote:I vaguely remember we had a promotion chasing squad in 2008/2009 laden with good quality prior to going in to administration in the February. That can’t have been cheap to run and I dare say the running costs of the Arena were significantly smaller than what the playing & other staff budgets were at the time. Didn’t we chuck six figures about to sign Joachim a couple of years prior?

Not forgetting that the £270k figure are running costs, and can be partly off-set by bringing in revenue not even related to football activities (functions & events etc).

If the £270k figure is correct, I just can’t see how it put us at increased risk in the FL, other than if we were over-spending on the staff side & had inefficiencies elsewhere. I honestly think that the 2012 admin (and possibly 2009) was caused by poor management and - on the face of it - not directly related to the Arena.

Going back to H1987’s point about the Arena almost killing the club, I think it’s unfounded.
With all due respect, you’re basing all that on a £270k figure that you don’t even know is correct. Where have you got that figure from?

You’ve also said we had £2m turnover in our first non-league season (10/11). That can’t be right. Our attendances were averaging around 2,000 at that point. A 1,500 average attendance last season was enough for approximately a 350k playing budget last year. £2m seems nonsense.

Personally, focusing on the excessive spending is too simplistic. You also have to look at why we were doing that. Why would we so desperately on multiple occasions need to spend to get promotion? Well the one big variable for us is we had a massive stadium to service.

Moreover in 2012, Singh had lost control of the stadium and the land to Scott and Sizer. We know he wanted a cut of the development (he made a condition during administration negotiations). Clearly therefore his lack of ownership of the stadium and land was part of the reason for us going into administration in 2012.

Rarely is an insolvency event down to one single factor. There’s usually an accumulation of reasons. The Arena was undoubtedly part of those reasons in 2012.

To say it’s unfounded is nonsense, particularly when you’re basing that on unfounded figures. Was the Arena the sole reason for our problems? No, of course not. But it’s a common thread running through that decade.

Three administrations in less than a decade after moving to the Arena. What’s the one common denominator there?
The £270k figure was posted on here by the '1883 Board' back in 2012, with a break-down of the costs.

We turned over £2,304,347 in 2010/2011 & £1,903,120 in 2009/2010.

The running costs of £270k should have been manageable on that figure.

Of course the Arena was a common theme throughout our administrations, but people are ignoring the amount we spent on players, management & back-office staff which will have been way higher than the costs of running the Arena in terms of % of our turnover/expenditure.

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:19 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:48 am
Darlofan97 wrote:I vaguely remember we had a promotion chasing squad in 2008/2009 laden with good quality prior to going in to administration in the February. That can’t have been cheap to run and I dare say the running costs of the Arena were significantly smaller than what the playing & other staff budgets were at the time. Didn’t we chuck six figures about to sign Joachim a couple of years prior?

Not forgetting that the £270k figure are running costs, and can be partly off-set by bringing in revenue not even related to football activities (functions & events etc).

If the £270k figure is correct, I just can’t see how it put us at increased risk in the FL, other than if we were over-spending on the staff side & had inefficiencies elsewhere. I honestly think that the 2012 admin (and possibly 2009) was caused by poor management and - on the face of it - not directly related to the Arena.

Going back to H1987’s point about the Arena almost killing the club, I think it’s unfounded.
With all due respect, you’re basing all that on a £270k figure that you don’t even know is correct. Where have you got that figure from?

You’ve also said we had £2m turnover in our first non-league season (10/11). That can’t be right. Our attendances were averaging around 2,000 at that point. A 1,500 average attendance last season was enough for approximately a 350k playing budget last year. £2m seems nonsense.

Personally, focusing on the excessive spending is too simplistic. You also have to look at why we were doing that. Why would we so desperately on multiple occasions need to spend to get promotion? Well the one big variable for us is we had a massive stadium to service.

Moreover in 2012, Singh had lost control of the stadium and the land to Scott and Sizer. We know he wanted a cut of the development (he made a condition during administration negotiations). Clearly therefore his lack of ownership of the stadium and land was part of the reason for us going into administration in 2012.

Rarely is an insolvency event down to one single factor. There’s usually an accumulation of reasons. The Arena was undoubtedly part of those reasons in 2012.

To say it’s unfounded is nonsense, particularly when you’re basing that on unfounded figures. Was the Arena the sole reason for our problems? No, of course not. But it’s a common thread running through that decade.

Three administrations in less than a decade after moving to the Arena. What’s the one common denominator there?
Just to mention figures, I remember our turnover being reported as £2.5m one year in the late 00s - though at that time gates were more like 4,000 than 2,000. It wouldn't surprise me it turnover was still near £2m in 2009-11 - as you get a lot of tv and league money in L2 (which we then lost). Plus we were paying £18 in, plus more people parking, a better profit on hospitality etc etc. And we had full time paid commercial people so it's not unlikely that commercial income was significantly higher as well. Though obviously on the flip side costs will have been much higher in all areas.

The main reason that we can't afford a bigger budget than 350k (is it even that high?) is that we don't get the big wedge of money that you get just for being in the EFL. And obviously, commercial income isn't as high, and neither is hospitality, or gate income itself.

lo36789
Posts: 10928
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by lo36789 » Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:27 am

Wasn't a substantial amount of that revenue still parachute money from the EFL?

I thought we used to get £1m+ from solidarity when in the league. I don't know what parachute payments were 10 years ago mind.

Wasn't £250k of the 2011 turnover from the sale of Dan Burn also?

It's not being ignored. It's being rightly called out as a common denominator. Nobody is saying we couldn't have overspent and gone into administration in another venue.

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

Re: Ground share

Post by Darlofan97 » Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:29 am

quaker4life wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:03 am
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:23 pm
Going back to H1987’s point about the Arena almost killing the club, I think it’s unfounded.
No it isn't.

If you look at the link I posted further up it very nearly killed the club at the very beginning, the council claimed had they not allowed it to open (despite being in breach of planning conditions) the club would have gone out of existence. Regardless it still ended up in administration by Christmas in the first season there and at one point the administrators had considered taking us back to Feethams despite it being "condemned". If I remember rightly the CVA which eventually saved the club wasn't worth a fraction of what was owed and some businesses involved in the construction lost substantial amounts of money.

The way George Houghton pulled the plug on us in 2009 was unforgivable at the end of February we were just outside the top 3 in League 2 with games in hand, had he held on a little longer he could well have left us a decent prospect in League 1 for any potential owner, instead he left Raj Singh with a team of cast offs assembled on gentleman's agreements and despite what some may have thought of Colin Todd he worked a miracle getting a squad together in time for the 2009/10 season and we all know what happened next. Houghton claimed at the time we were losing £50k a week, the recession hit and crowds dipped below 3,000 he had also hoped to develop the land around the arena and build a sports complex along with a pub and hotel but couldn't get it off the ground.

It was then repossessed in 2011 when Houghton had apparently defaulted on a loan from Phillip Scott & Graham Sizer (who DMP bought it from) Singh had tried and failed to buy it back for a knockdown price and eventually put the club back into administration himself in 2012 despite claiming there was no debt. He had already invested over £1m into the club shortly before it went into administration in 2009 so presumably lost the lot, he certainly lost the plot in the end I remember him saying that Sainsbury's should move from Victoria Road and replace the Arena with a new store while we built a ground there! Again we all know what happened next.

To me it is cancerous and always will be.
See my post to DarloGramps.

Footifanreturns
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 4:46 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by Footifanreturns » Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:44 am

How come whatever the subject on here ends up as a pointless point scoring from the same pedantic few. Trying to prove they are right about whatever the subject, usually spouting off figures that they probably have no real actual knowledge of ... but of course they are right. Jeez it's friggin boring.
All that futile debate is totally irrelevant, we are not buying the Arena, we will not be having to pay for the maintenance... It will not be a millstone around our necks.
We MAY be using it for some games IF the football authorities allow us to, which is not nailed on, plus IF it is viable to do so.

Everyone knows it was a crazy idea to open such a large stadium ( with or without permission ) when a smaller option was more realistic, that subject has been debated to death over the years.

Well here is a NEWSFLASH: It did get built, it is there, if it suits our needs in the short term let's use it.

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

Re: Ground share

Post by Darlofan97 » Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:54 am

lo36789 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:27 am
Wasn't a substantial amount of that revenue still parachute money from the EFL?

I thought we used to get £1m+ from solidarity when in the league. I don't know what parachute payments were 10 years ago mind.

Wasn't £250k of the 2011 turnover from the sale of Dan Burn also?

It's not being ignored. It's being rightly called out as a common denominator. Nobody is saying we couldn't have overspent and gone into administration in another venue.
Back in 2010/2011, clubs received 50% of the equivalent basic award payment made to League 2 clubs during season 1 in the National League as a parachute payment.

Now, clubs receive 100% in season 1 of the National League & 50% in season 2.

As an example, Notts County received £607k this season (on the basis of the 100% payment in year 1). If you were to half that it would be reasonable to suggest we probably received between £250k-£300k as a parachute payment in 2010/2011.

In terms of the initial Dan Burn fee, I have no idea if that was received all in one instalment that accounting year, or whether it was paid over two accounting years.

bigdavethemaddog
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:52 am

Re: Ground share

Post by bigdavethemaddog » Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:57 am

lo36789 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:27 am
Wasn't a substantial amount of that revenue still parachute money from the EFL?

I thought we used to get £1m+ from solidarity when in the league. I don't know what parachute payments were 10 years ago mind.

Wasn't £250k of the 2011 turnover from the sale of Dan Burn also?

It's not being ignored. It's being rightly called out as a common denominator. Nobody is saying we couldn't have overspent and gone into administration in another venue.
im sure parachute payment for dropping out of the EFL didnt come in until 2015. now a club releagated gets £750k first season down and then halved to £375k the second season out of the EFL

poppyfield
Posts: 1889
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:36 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by poppyfield » Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:59 am

Footifanreturns wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:44 am
How come whatever the subject on here ends up as a pointless point scoring from the same pedantic few. Trying to prove they are right about whatever the subject, usually spouting off figures that they probably have no real actual knowledge of ... but of course they are right. Jeez it's friggin boring.
All that futile debate is totally irrelevant, we are not buying the Arena, we will not be having to pay for the maintenance... It will not be a millstone around our necks.
We MAY be using it for some games IF the football authorities allow us to, which is not nailed on, plus IF it is viable to do so.

Everyone knows it was a crazy idea to open such a large stadium ( with or without permission ) when a smaller option was more realistic, that subject has been debated to death over the years.

Well here is a NEWSFLASH: It did get built, it is there, if it suits our needs in the short term let's use it.
Got to agree, just reams and reams of old news, does my nut in :thumbdown:
Help get the club back to Darlo by helping to spread the word about the "Back to Darlo!" fund. The image on the right will be constantly updated with the latest total so please feel free to use the image link below the thermometer on your own signatures, blogs, websites, etc.Image
Image link: http://www.mydarlo.co.uk/img/BTD-therm-350x100.jpg

onewayup
Posts: 2851
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by onewayup » Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:14 am

Singh never had control of the land around the stadium, Houghton had already split the darlington FC unit into three separate entities,1) the stadium 2) the football club
3,)the land around the stadium, Houghton took a loan on the land and stadium from Scott and sizer, brought singh into the mix by asking him to invest 1,000000 .
Houghton then reneged on the loan the football club became Singh's by default , the cost of maintaining the arenat the time was 170,000, when the sterling consortium had the club ,the playing budget was 640,000
Which David Hodgson managed to assemble a decent squad with. The steel work is rough because it is not galvanised as it should have been, it's coating is of a new at the time type of paint from germany which was supposed to be as good at protecting the steel work as it being galvanised, obviously you can see it appears not to be the case.I think a number was done on singh by Houghton when Houghtons business,s on Americans west coast were taking a hit. However I believe that the decision to play at the arena is the right decision at this time with all that is happening with coronavirus

Quakerlad
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:54 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by Quakerlad » Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:19 am

No brainier on two simple fronts:
1. Increased revenue
2. All true fans can see the game.
Whatever our personal view is on either BM or Arena this has to be put aside on this occasion for the good of the club.

QUAKERMAN2
Posts: 2826
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:43 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by QUAKERMAN2 » Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:58 am

Footifanreturns wrote:How come whatever the subject on here ends up as a pointless point scoring from the same pedantic few. Trying to prove they are right about whatever the subject, usually spouting off figures that they probably have no real actual knowledge of ... but of course they are right. Jeez it's friggin boring.
All that futile debate is totally irrelevant, we are not buying the Arena, we will not be having to pay for the maintenance... It will not be a millstone around our necks.
We MAY be using it for some games IF the football authorities allow us to, which is not nailed on, plus IF it is viable to do so.

Everyone knows it was a crazy idea to open such a large stadium ( with or without permission ) when a smaller option was more realistic, that subject has been debated to death over the years.

Well here is a NEWSFLASH: It did get built, it is there, if it suits our needs in the short term let's use it.
Spot on 100%

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk


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

Re: Ground share

Post by AndyPark » Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:25 am

Not a fan of the arena whatsoever, but if it means we can all watch the home games live in person - Then I am all for it in the short term.

My only worry is that we'll still have to pay the 60k (rumoured fee) yearly fees to Blackwell Meadows despite not playing there & also paying DMP rent too. Just wondering where this money is coming from considering we have fuck all?

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

Ground share

Post by Darlogramps » Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:40 am

Footifanreturns wrote:How come whatever the subject on here ends up as a pointless point scoring from the same pedantic few. Trying to prove they are right about whatever the subject, usually spouting off figures that they probably have no real actual knowledge of ... but of course they are right. Jeez it's friggin boring.
All that futile debate is totally irrelevant, we are not buying the Arena, we will not be having to pay for the maintenance... It will not be a millstone around our necks.
We MAY be using it for some games IF the football authorities allow us to, which is not nailed on, plus IF it is viable to do so.

Everyone knows it was a crazy idea to open such a large stadium ( with or without permission ) when a smaller option was more realistic, that subject has been debated to death over the years.

Well here is a NEWSFLASH: It did get built, it is there, if it suits our needs in the short term let's use it.
Yawn. Faux-outrage from people intimidated by complex debate backed up by figures. Jeez you’re friggin boring.

All of the debate here is justified. Some fans are concerned about moving back to the Arena. Part of that is because of the negative financial history associated with that place. It’s not unsurprising discussion around that springs up.

You might not be interested in it, others are. If you’re interested, comment. If you’re not, don’t. That’s how this place works. Spare me the faux-outrage because you don’t get to regulate what people can and cannot talk about.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

en passant
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:17 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Ground share

Post by en passant » Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:50 am

QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:58 am
Footifanreturns wrote:How come whatever the subject on here ends up as a pointless point scoring from the same pedantic few. Trying to prove they are right about whatever the subject, usually spouting off figures that they probably have no real actual knowledge of ... but of course they are right. Jeez it's friggin boring.
All that futile debate is totally irrelevant, we are not buying the Arena, we will not be having to pay for the maintenance... It will not be a millstone around our necks.
We MAY be using it for some games IF the football authorities allow us to, which is not nailed on, plus IF it is viable to do so.

Everyone knows it was a crazy idea to open such a large stadium ( with or without permission ) when a smaller option was more realistic, that subject has been debated to death over the years.

Well here is a NEWSFLASH: It did get built, it is there, if it suits our needs in the short term let's use it.
Spot on 100%

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk
Totally agree. There are reams of post above that seem to be focussed on a chimera. Let's get some reality back here, and like you say, stop dredging up all this old nonsense about why it was a bad idea to build it and who diddled who. We don't need the negativity. And for those who say that a return there will have bad memories and will put people off attending. Do you really think that this raking over past mistakes is helping to overcome these sentiments?
As I mentioned above, this is just a building in which we have no other interests or commitments other than providing a better prospect for both our finances and honouring a service to the majority of fans who still want to see our team play. Those who say they will not attend seem to want to bring up all the old troubles to justify their decision when in reality none of this is relevant. They also mention it being "souless", but I have seen just as many negative comments about the lack of atmosphere at BM, and that is now seemingly being held up as the better alternative. So I am stumped as to why the Arena, under current conditions and as a very temporary fix, is causing so much heart and jaw ache for a notable few.

Post Reply