One Member One Vote

fergies50yarder · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 3:44 pm

uncovered wrote:

and to comment on laura and craig.

laura has provided alot of knowledge on the legal and finance side and has invested heavily financially and massively time wise. Her experience and input has been invaluable.

Craig came on board more recently to provide some direction to 1883. He is the project manager, he doesn't work for crowdcube, his business is the growth academy and I think he normally charges £600 a day consultancy giving out advice on how to build up businesses. He works as an advisor to crowdcube I think.

we will all get our chance to vote on a board, here's hoping there are people out there willing to give up their own time to help us out and take us forward. for those who have helped out so far then we must be grateful.

I thought Craig was involved with Crowd Cube, Scott you are saying different?

loan_star · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 3:48 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

The fact remains that decent creditors have lost money, avoiding the CVA was wrong - before a penny was raised a written agreement should have been got from Raj, a deadline given, then if no such agreement was got then the club should have been liquidated. That would have left 3 months to sort a new club, get in the Evostik North for next season, instead, it was allowed to drag on, leaving us where we are now,

Singh would never have signed an agreement. 1883 did their best to raise the funds to do the CVA but failed, probably due to Singh and his unreasonable demands, so its back to the beginning.
Doing it your way, your friends still wouldnt have got anything. Its not nice for them but hopefully the new club can do their bit to help these people who lost out get some money back somehow.

fergies50yarder · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 3:50 pm

al_quaker wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

The fact remains that decent creditors have lost money, avoiding the CVA was wrong - before a penny was raised a written agreement should have been got from Raj, a deadline given, then if no such agreement was got then the club should have been liquidated. That would have left 3 months to sort a new club, get in the Evostik North for next season, instead, it was allowed to drag on, leaving us where we are now,

To be fair, I'm frustrated at the prospect of play in the Northern League, this could easily happen, i have read Scott's account but have read different ones on here - I believe that Scott, etc have done a great job, but I have reservations about McKenna. Thinking about it it wouldn't be easy to have elections now, I appreciate that

Whose fault is it that decent creditors have lost money?! Not 1883

It's terrible that creditors have lost money. Hopefully they can be sorted out. If the club had been liquidated they would have got next to nothing. At least this way there's a chance of getting something back. However, the CVA would have been agreed if somebody had stuck to their word!

Yes, I take your point

Darlogramps · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 3:52 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

Darlogramps wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

olrad wrote:

so the people who are to stand for "your election" threw themselves into the fray in our hour of need and where overlooked where they ? probably not...i can assume you where not a major player in 1883 for what reason?

I'm a fan, I go to games, have raised money for the club in the past, would Craig McKenna have got onboard but for Crowd Cube and the thought of getting his percentage? probably not, Mckenna wouldn't have come any where near, but for the thought of ling his pockets with his percentage, I don't trust him and I never will, my choice

Olrad, you didn't respond to my reply re the 'Dings' not surprised though

And are you going to respond to the point raised that the DSU would have been too late for our club? No, not surprised though.

I can't as I don't know the fact, but the current plan and the DSU plan look similar - I wasn't involved so can't comment on timescales

You don't know the ins and outs of the DSU plan, but you're certain it was the right thing to do anyway?

fergies50yarder · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:06 pm

i read the DSU web site, and yes they do look the same to me

m62exile · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:06 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

Darlogramps wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

olrad wrote:

so the people who are to stand for "your election" threw themselves into the fray in our hour of need and where overlooked where they ? probably not...i can assume you where not a major player in 1883 for what reason?

I'm a fan, I go to games, have raised money for the club in the past, would Craig McKenna have got onboard but for Crowd Cube and the thought of getting his percentage? probably not, Mckenna wouldn't have come any where near, but for the thought of ling his pockets with his percentage, I don't trust him and I never will, my choice

Olrad, you didn't respond to my reply re the 'Dings' not surprised though

And are you going to respond to the point raised that the DSU would have been too late for our club? No, not surprised though.

I can't as I don't know the fact, but the current plan and the DSU plan look similar - I wasn't involved so can't comment on timescales

Simple solution old boy. Put your name forward and step up to the plate. Any coward can sit behind their keyboard and criticise. Scott's account above is bang on accurate and I've now heard it identically told by two others who were involved too.

Spyman · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:09 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

but I have reservations about McKenna.

I bet you're one of those who didn't like Penney because he wasn't Darlo through and through.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2

Darlogramps · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:10 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

i read the DSU web site, and yes they do look the same to me

But you refuse to comment on the point raised by several people, both on and off this forum, that Darlington FC would have folded had the we gone with the DSU plan.

The DSU plan wasn't viable. And it is unacceptable of you to be accusing the 1883 of planning to cling on when you have no evidence to suggest so.

As said previously, some people are never happy.

fergies50yarder · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:14 pm

I'm not a coward, but I'll admit I haven't the time to spend, I buy a season ticket, donated a lot of cash in the buckets, bought shares, signed those shirts for the players, donated to DUFF so I have done more than my bit, therefore I have the right to comment, just because people don't agree with me, that doesn't mean I'm a coward like I said, fair play to Scott and co for giving their time, just because I have doubts about certain aspects of 1883 also doesn't make me a coward.

m62exile · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:15 pm

The DSU plan may well have been viable if it had been designed earlier. Don't think anyone is too critical of the thinking, but it was too late. Harvey Madden didn't have time to wait and see, he needed cash flow in the next day or two or else it was liquidation.

m62exile · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:19 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

I'm not a coward, but I'll admit I haven't the time to spend, I buy a season ticket, donated a lot of cash in the buckets, bought shares, signed those shirts for the players, donated to DUFF so I have done more than my bit, therefore I have the right to comment, just because people don't agree with me, that doesn't mean I'm a coward like I said, fair play to Scott and co for giving their time, just because I have doubts about certain aspects of 1883 also doesn't make me a coward.

Look, things have changed around here. In the past it's been good sport to have a pop at the rich bloke in charge, we've all done it. Now when we spout off we are criticising ordinary blokes and girls like us, in it for love, putting huge efforts in on our behalf.

So, when you have a pop at them, especially when it's inaccurate, you have a pop at all of us and you can expect to be put right.

loan_star · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:20 pm

m62exile wrote:

The DSU plan may well have been viable if it had been designed earlier. Don't think anyone is too critical of the thinking, but it was too late. Harvey Madden didn't have time to wait and see, he needed cash flow in the next day or two or else it was liquidation.

Thats where the trust have let the side down badly. It took Ian and Pauls return to the committee to get their fingers out of their backsides and heads out of the sand. The trust should have had all of this planned as soon as it became apparent that administration was a possibility, but didnt. 1883 was the only option because of this.

fergies50yarder · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:21 pm

Darlogramps wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

i read the DSU web site, and yes they do look the same to me

But you refuse to comment on the point raised by several people, both on and off this forum, that Darlington FC would have folded had the we gone with the DSU plan.

The DSU plan wasn't viable. And it is unacceptable of you to be accusing the 1883 of planning to cling on when you have no evidence to suggest so.

As said previously, some people are never happy.

We'll never know because, the DSU model was ditched, it worked for Wrexham, didn't it? Do you have evidence they don't want to cling on? Mckenna said the other night on the radio he wanted to stay on the board, he won't get my vote that's for sure

m62exile · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:25 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

Darlogramps wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

i read the DSU web site, and yes they do look the same to me

But you refuse to comment on the point raised by several people, both on and off this forum, that Darlington FC would have folded had the we gone with the DSU plan.

The DSU plan wasn't viable. And it is unacceptable of you to be accusing the 1883 of planning to cling on when you have no evidence to suggest so.

As said previously, some people are never happy.

We'll never know because, the DSU model was ditched, it worked for Wrexham, didn't it? Do you have evidence they don't want to cling on? Mckenna said the other night on the radio he wanted to stay on the board, he won't get my vote that's for sure

What bit of "it was too late" do you not understand?

loan_star · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:26 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

We'll never know because, the DSU model was ditched, it worked for Wrexham, didn't it? Do you have evidence they don't want to cling on? Mckenna said the other night on the radio he wanted to stay on the board, he won't get my vote that's for sure

Wrexham had a proactive trust whereas our was comatose.
And what is your problem with Craig McKenna?

Quakerz · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:29 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

Do you have evidence they don't want to cling on? Mckenna said the other night on the radio he wanted to stay on the board, he won't get my vote that's for sure

"Cling on"?

Yes one or two of them will want to "cling on" after the huge work put in (though not all). I fucking doubt I'd just walk away having given 4 months of my life to save the club for everybody, I'd want to see it through for a while, and damn right too!

"Cling on" what an awful negative term, you make it sound like they want to hang on for egos and perks. What bloody perks are there? Fuck all, that's what. Only satisfaction if they succeed. And you should NEVER deny any member of 1883 that.

fergies50yarder · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:30 pm

m62exile wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

I'm not a coward, but I'll admit I haven't the time to spend, I buy a season ticket, donated a lot of cash in the buckets, bought shares, signed those shirts for the players, donated to DUFF so I have done more than my bit, therefore I have the right to comment, just because people don't agree with me, that doesn't mean I'm a coward like I said, fair play to Scott and co for giving their time, just because I have doubts about certain aspects of 1883 also doesn't make me a coward.

Look, things have changed around here. In the past it's been good sport to have a pop at the rich bloke in charge, we've all done it. Now when we spout off we are criticising ordinary blokes and girls like us, in it for love, putting huge efforts in on our behalf.

So, when you have a pop at them, especially when it's inaccurate, you have a pop at all of us and you can expect to be put right.

OK then Craig McKenna is great, lets make a statue and put it outside Shildon, W Auckland or Bp Auckland to mark his time at the club

This board is all about opinions, people should be free to give those opinions without been called 'dings' and 'cowards'. This site is getting like Yemen!

fergies50yarder · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:35 pm

loan_star wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

We'll never know because, the DSU model was ditched, it worked for Wrexham, didn't it? Do you have evidence they don't want to cling on? Mckenna said the other night on the radio he wanted to stay on the board, he won't get my vote that's for sure

Wrexham had a proactive trust whereas our was comatose.
And what is your problem with Craig McKenna?

Fair comment re the trust, re McKenna, I'm no sure yet, 1st impressions and all that, remember people loved Raj when he first came on the scene, if people said said anything against him, they were shouted down, time will tell if I'm right

loan_star · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:37 pm

Do you think McKenna is picking up £600 a day like he could if he just stuck to his normal day job? Do you think that slagging him off is justified when he doesnt even need to bother with what hes doing for us?
I for one, thank Craig and all of those involved in 1883 for doing what they have done. I know I wouldnt have had the time to put in like they have so I am glad that these people have stepped up to the plate and given their time freely to save our club.

Darlogramps · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:38 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

m62exile wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

I'm not a coward, but I'll admit I haven't the time to spend, I buy a season ticket, donated a lot of cash in the buckets, bought shares, signed those shirts for the players, donated to DUFF so I have done more than my bit, therefore I have the right to comment, just because people don't agree with me, that doesn't mean I'm a coward like I said, fair play to Scott and co for giving their time, just because I have doubts about certain aspects of 1883 also doesn't make me a coward.

Look, things have changed around here. In the past it's been good sport to have a pop at the rich bloke in charge, we've all done it. Now when we spout off we are criticising ordinary blokes and girls like us, in it for love, putting huge efforts in on our behalf.

So, when you have a pop at them, especially when it's inaccurate, you have a pop at all of us and you can expect to be put right.

OK then Craig McKenna is great, lets make a statue and put it outside Shildon, W Auckland or Bp Auckland to mark his time at the club

This board is all about opinions, people should be free to give those opinions without been called 'dings' and 'cowards'. This site is getting like Yemen!

Stop playing the "woe is me" card and get a grip. You've made factually incorrect points and controversial accusations towards people who've spent the last 4 months working their backsides off to save the club.

Yes you can express your opinion, but me and everyone else has the right to challenge your opinion, particularly when your opinion is based on conspiracy and inaccuracy.

If you don't like that, then you shouldn't be posting on this forum.

Darlogramps · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:45 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

Darlogramps wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

i read the DSU web site, and yes they do look the same to me

But you refuse to comment on the point raised by several people, both on and off this forum, that Darlington FC would have folded had the we gone with the DSU plan.

The DSU plan wasn't viable. And it is unacceptable of you to be accusing the 1883 of planning to cling on when you have no evidence to suggest so.

As said previously, some people are never happy.

We'll never know because, the DSU model was ditched, it worked for Wrexham, didn't it? Do you have evidence they don't want to cling on? Mckenna said the other night on the radio he wanted to stay on the board, he won't get my vote that's for sure

It was "ditched" because there wasn't enough time to get it off the ground - a point that's been made by people who were there. Why don't you understand this?

Hilly · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:49 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

Darlogramps wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

i read the DSU web site, and yes they do look the same to me

But you refuse to comment on the point raised by several people, both on and off this forum, that Darlington FC would have folded had the we gone with the DSU plan.

The DSU plan wasn't viable. And it is unacceptable of you to be accusing the 1883 of planning to cling on when you have no evidence to suggest so.

As said previously, some people are never happy.

We'll never know because, the DSU model was ditched, it worked for Wrexham, didn't it? Do you have evidence they don't want to cling on? Mckenna said the other night on the radio he wanted to stay on the board, he won't get my vote that's for sure

Nobody is saying it couldn't have possibly worked.

There. Wasn't. Enough. Time.

How many times does it need to be said. I think the fact that DFC1883 are reworking things slightly to make it similar to the DSU way of doing things speaks volumes. Your criticism of certain fans whose intentions are merely to help save the club angers me. Only Darlington fans could have a go at the only people who have tried to save the club.

loan_star · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 4:55 pm

THERE WASNT ENOUGH TIME

Does that make it any clearer??

quakersam · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 5:34 pm

I despair at some people, I really do. What the hell is your problem really. Another numpty off the Echo site

fergies50yarder · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 6:03 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

Darlogramps wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

olrad wrote:

so the people who are to stand for "your election" threw themselves into the fray in our hour of need and where overlooked where they ? probably not...i can assume you where not a major player in 1883 for what reason?

I'm a fan, I go to games, have raised money for the club in the past, would Craig McKenna have got onboard but for Crowd Cube and the thought of getting his percentage? probably not, Mckenna wouldn't have come any where near, but for the thought of ling his pockets with his percentage, I don't trust him and I never will, my choice

Olrad, you didn't respond to my reply re the 'Dings' not surprised though

And are you going to respond to the point raised that the DSU would have been too late for our club? No, not surprised though.

I can't as I don't know the fact, but the current plan and the DSU plan look similar - I wasn't involved so can't comment on timescales

like I said, I couldn't comment on timescales, as I wasn't there.

Re having a go at 1883, what about Ian Peacock's comments, he was involved and has commented on 'a lack of leadership' and 'Personal agendas' that is from someone who WAS heavily involved, that worries me as a fan. or shall we simply wall paper over those comments as well - Shaun Campbell has also expressed his concerns, he WAS heavily involved as well, personally I think SOME Of 1883 do have their own agendas. I have no doubt that some people like Scott, Karen, Tony, etc have worked hard and credit to them, where some of the others are concerned, I'll reserve judgement.

I really hope this works, but there are still obstacles to overcome (none bigger than the FA).

I'm not a numpty from the Echo site, I have been a fan for over 30 years, I can remember the 5-0 win over Doncaster in 80-81 with 5 second half goals, and many other games, I have seen people rape and pillage this club, friends have lost a fortune through been creditors, I still think it was wrong to simply transfer the assets from one company to another to avoid the CVA. That's my opinion and all the opinion of many other people I have spoken to. But it's done now, like I say, hopefully it works and we still have a club come next season

Santino · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 6:14 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

like I said, I couldn't comment on timescales, as I wasn't there.

But you can comment on everything else, despite being not there?

You're just avoiding the subject because you know you've got no answer.

Now fuck off, bellend.

quakersam · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 6:25 pm

To avoid the CVA? And what else do you propose we did? Raj blocked the CVA, we did not avoid it. Get your facts right and people might entertain your opinions

fergies50yarder · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 7:00 pm

Santino wrote:

fergies50yarder wrote:

like I said, I couldn't comment on timescales, as I wasn't there.

But you can comment on everything else, despite being not there?

You're just avoiding the subject because you know you've got no answer.

Now fuck off, bellend.

Of course I can comment on what Ive read, Peacock must be concerned to express those comments in the Echo, Shaun Campbell was concerned enough to comment on here.

I'll reiterate, I CAN'T comment on whether it was too late to implement DSU as I wasn't privvy to the meeting.

I don't need 'to be there' to comment on newspaper articles are stuff I have read on here do I.

Finally it's surprising how many posters on here resort to abuse, rather than respond to comments. not one person has commented on Peacock's remarks., I'm not surprised by that as people on here only see what they want to see, you were the same with GH/Raj when they first came on the scene, just because I express doubts about SOME of the 1883 board, some of which have been echoed by Ian Peacock (hidden agendas) I get slated. Unfortunately, guys, Uncovered isn't the real world, what the FA thinks of what has happened is!

Quakerz · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 7:04 pm

How do you know Ian Peacock hasn't got an agenda?

Darlogramps · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 7:13 pm

fergies50yarder wrote:

I still think it was wrong to simply transfer the assets from one company to another to avoid the CVA. That's my opinion and all the opinion of many other people I have spoken to. But it's done now, like I say, hopefully it works and we still have a club come next season

Had 1883 not done that, we'd have been liquidated on Thursday, simple as that.

We couldn't submit to Raj's conditions because the FA wouldn't allow us.

Therefore Raj would have blocked the CVA, so your friends would have got no money back anyway.

Transferring the assets was the only avenue that could have been taken in order to save the club in its current form. If you're against this, then it indicates you would have rather seen the club liquidated on Thursday.

Yes, it's awful that creditors have lost out, but believe it or not, given the position the club was in on Thursday, this is the best outcome. This way, there's still the possibility of the outstanding creditors being helped by the club.

You go on about the FA needing to approve the asset transfer to a new company, but had we just carried on with a CVA that included Raj's conditions, the consequences would have been more severe.

The situation we've ended up in isn't ideal, but given the situation on Thursday, it's lesser of two evils. Now we have to make the best of it, start again and make sure 2012 is the last time we're in administration.

fergies50yarder wrote:

I'll reiterate, I CAN'T comment on whether it was too late to implement DSU as I wasn't privvy to the meeting.

But Scott was there, he has commented and what he's said earlier in this thread has been backed up by what others have heard, also from people who were there.

One Member One Vote

Who is online