Gateshead

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

EDJOHNS
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by EDJOHNS » Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:36 pm

loan_star wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:01 pm
EDJOHNS wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:33 pm

I was more on about being able to stop a person from buying a club with the threat of expulsion but,


Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.
I would think that if a potential owner didn't pass the test the FA cant really do anything to stop a sale going through but they are within their right to stop a team from participating in any competition or league.
I know teams are banned from playing at sunday level if they don't pay what they owe in fines for bookings etc, whilst leagues themselves can ban teams for owing money to the league, or not allow a team to enter if the people running it have previous for bad debts or failing to complete a season under another team name.
My problem with the system is when you get the likes of the Vaughan's at Chester, Peter Ridsdale in particular, at various clubs and of course our own Mr Brearley and Morgon.

How on earth do the likes of Ridsdale keep on passing the "fit and proper" test. To say there is little the FA can do is plain wrong, it is a simple fact the criteria needs to be raised and must certainly include some form of 1 hit and you are out and no way back. Then quite simply stand firm and say if that person gets involved the club will be banned as long as he is there.
That may sound draconian but we know they have that ability in full measure.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:06 pm

EDJOHNS wrote:Jesus Christ you really are 1 arrogant prig.

I’ve checked it out and nowhere in the FA’s standardised rules does it say that. You’ve literally made it up to suit your argument.

The FA holds sway over the FA Cup, Trophy and Vase. Other league-related punishments are dished out by the individual leagues. Banning someone from the FA Trophy isn’t going to bring their ownership tumbling down.

Can you not remember 2012 or are you really that thick?

The FA are overlords of the game in England, Not just the specific competitions they run under their banner. If the FA take away any clubs "Golden share" said club may not take part in any match which is under their jurisdiction.

LIke it or not, you are WRONG.

Now, to paraphrase another members comment Fuck off Gramps.
Aww bless, the little man knows a naughty word. Pat on the head for you young chap. Doesn’t do much for your credibility I’m afraid, not that you had much anyway.

First you said you were never going to speak to me again. You broke that. Then you said you’d finished on this thread, then commented multiple times. Not much consistency here if I’m honest.

Your only solution to bad owners seems to be shutting clubs down (for if a football club can’t play football, it serves very little purpose). Quite how you think that resolves anything, I don’t know. Your solution is to make loads of people redundant and to strip communities of their clubs, while handing unchecked power to the FA. Nice one fella, you’ve come up with the most stupid solution ever.

Your solution would also INCREASE the situations we saw at Gateshead. If someone who would fail the Fit and Proper Person’s Test, wanted to take over a club, they’d just find a “clean” frontman to do it for them (see Cala and Varghese at Gateshead). You’d see an increase in shadow directorships, which exacerbates the problem.

So the FA don’t have that power because it would make things worse, or destroy football clubs. The FPP Test needs to change, I agree. But kicking clubs out because you don’t like the way they are run is the epitome of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, with massive consequences for players and staff. Plus it’s a dangerous precedent to give the FA that level of power, and would be subject to legal challenges, obviously.

As for us and 2012, the FA didn’t strip us of our golden share. Raj Singh had it, refused to hand it over so we had to apply for a new one.
And we directly broke rules regarding coming out of administration with a CVA. Decisions regarding kicking clubs out of leagues doesn’t come from the FA,it comes from the leagues themselves. It says so right there on the Standardised Rules (which you’re now ignoring because it’s inconvenient to you).

So us in 2012 was nothing to do with the FA stripping us of our share. Indeed they actually gave us one instead! Suggest you do your homework properly or you end up looking like a fool. Stick to droning on about Rugby League.


If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1556
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by don'tbuythesun » Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:52 pm

Bet your dad's bigger than my dad!

LoidLucan
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by LoidLucan » Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:05 pm

Gateshead's appeal is in but it's thought unlikely to be upheld by the FA. There's no getting around the fact that the multiple breaches of league rules did occur. Who knows where they'll end up.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by EDJOHNS » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:21 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:06 pm
EDJOHNS wrote:Jesus Christ you really are 1 arrogant prig.

I’ve checked it out and nowhere in the FA’s standardised rules does it say that. You’ve literally made it up to suit your argument.

The FA holds sway over the FA Cup, Trophy and Vase. Other league-related punishments are dished out by the individual leagues. Banning someone from the FA Trophy isn’t going to bring their ownership tumbling down.

Can you not remember 2012 or are you really that thick?

The FA are overlords of the game in England, Not just the specific competitions they run under their banner. If the FA take away any clubs "Golden share" said club may not take part in any match which is under their jurisdiction.

LIke it or not, you are WRONG.

Now, to paraphrase another members comment Fuck off Gramps.
Aww bless, the little man knows a naughty word. Pat on the head for you young chap. Doesn’t do much for your credibility I’m afraid, not that you had much anyway.

First you said you were never going to speak to me again. You broke that. Then you said you’d finished on this thread, then commented multiple times. Not much consistency here if I’m honest.

Your only solution to bad owners seems to be shutting clubs down (for if a football club can’t play football, it serves very little purpose). Quite how you think that resolves anything, I don’t know. Your solution is to make loads of people redundant and to strip communities of their clubs, while handing unchecked power to the FA. Nice one fella, you’ve come up with the most stupid solution ever.

Your solution would also INCREASE the situations we saw at Gateshead. If someone who would fail the Fit and Proper Person’s Test, wanted to take over a club, they’d just find a “clean” frontman to do it for them (see Cala and Varghese at Gateshead). You’d see an increase in shadow directorships, which exacerbates the problem.

So the FA don’t have that power because it would make things worse, or destroy football clubs. The FPP Test needs to change, I agree. But kicking clubs out because you don’t like the way they are run is the epitome of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, with massive consequences for players and staff. Plus it’s a dangerous precedent to give the FA that level of power, and would be subject to legal challenges, obviously.

As for us and 2012, the FA didn’t strip us of our golden share. Raj Singh had it, refused to hand it over so we had to apply for a new one.
And we directly broke rules regarding coming out of administration with a CVA. Decisions regarding kicking clubs out of leagues doesn’t come from the FA,it comes from the leagues themselves. It says so right there on the Standardised Rules (which you’re now ignoring because it’s inconvenient to you).

So us in 2012 was nothing to do with the FA stripping us of our share. Indeed they actually gave us one instead! Suggest you do your homework properly or you end up looking like a fool. Stick to droning on about Rugby League.

Take another dose of your loony pop and go bury your head in your idiotic rambling.
I said I had finished with you. Not the Conversation with others.
Nowhere did I ever say I want the FA to close clubs down you raving fruit loop. YOU said the FA can do nothing and I said you are wrong because they can. Just how in that warped mind of yours is that me saying I want that to happen ?

The golden share. Again you show your total bloody ignorance. Raj Singh did not own "The golden share" the club did. NO owner owns the share it is issued to clubs but remains the property of the FA who can rescind it if they so wish.
The FA had no need whatever to issue another share to the club. They could simply have re-issued a copy of the original one.
They chose not to because in their wisdom they decided they could use us to show haw much authority they have.

Again, your entire diatribe is both incorrect and self opinionated garbage. As per your norm, so again, Fuck off Gramps.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:59 pm

EDJOHNS wrote: Take another dose of your loony pop and go bury your head in your idiotic rambling.
I said I had finished with you. Not the Conversation with others.
Yep and you’ve now replied to my twice in this thread. So much for “being finished with me”. If you say one thing, but do another, it undermines what little credibility you had.
EDJOHNS wrote: Nowhere did I ever say I want the FA to close clubs down you raving fruit loop. YOU said the FA can do nothing and I said you are wrong because they can. Just how in that warped mind of yours is that me saying I want that to happen ?
Can’t you read? I’ve explained it in the previous post. It perfectly stands to reason that if the FA bans a football club from playing football, the club has no reason to exist. What is the purpose of a football club that can’t play football? It’s a consequence that you haven’t thought through.

Come on do keep up. You’ve also ignored my point on shadow directorships too, so we can presume you lack the wit to think up a reply to that too.
EDJOHNS wrote: The golden share. Again you show your total bloody ignorance. Raj Singh did not own "The golden share" the club did. NO owner owns the share it is issued to clubs but remains the property of the FA who can rescind it if they so wish.
Take it up with Raj Singh and the people who spent a good deal of time trying to buy it off him. Singh is on record as saying he had hold of it. We all remember his “I’ve signed it over” interview.
EDJOHNS wrote: The FA had no need whatever to issue another share to the club. They could simply have re-issued a copy of the original one.
They chose not to because in their wisdom they decided they could use us to show haw much authority they have.
Wrong again. The FA had to relegate us because by their own rules, they had to treat us as a new club. You’re making it sound like they arbitrarily chose to do so to make an example. They didn’t, as they’d be breaking their own rules.

It’s all there in the Standardised Rules. We came out of administration without a CVA (because we stuck two fingers up at Raj) and were needing to reapply for a share. As such, we were treated like a new club and placed at the highest level a new club could be placed (Step 5).

It’s all there in the FA’s own rules. Nothing to do with them “showing how much authority they had”. Do your homework sweetheart.
EDJOHNS wrote: Again, your entire diatribe is both incorrect and self opinionated garbage. As per your norm, so again, Fuck off Gramps.
Oh dear, and you say you don’t have temper tantrums. You lack the intelligence to think up anything else so resort to abuse. Tsk, tsk young man. Keep on with the meltdown though. I’m loving the fact I drive you mad.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

EDJOHNS
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by EDJOHNS » Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:54 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:59 pm
EDJOHNS wrote: Take another dose of your loony pop and go bury your head in your idiotic rambling.
I said I had finished with you. Not the Conversation with others.
Yep and you’ve now replied to my twice in this thread. So much for “being finished with me”. If you say one thing, but do another, it undermines what little credibility you had.
EDJOHNS wrote: Nowhere did I ever say I want the FA to close clubs down you raving fruit loop. YOU said the FA can do nothing and I said you are wrong because they can. Just how in that warped mind of yours is that me saying I want that to happen ?
Can’t you read? I’ve explained it in the previous post. It perfectly stands to reason that if the FA bans a football club from playing football, the club has no reason to exist. What is the purpose of a football club that can’t play football? It’s a consequence that you haven’t thought through.

Come on do keep up. You’ve also ignored my point on shadow directorships too, so we can presume you lack the wit to think up a reply to that too.
EDJOHNS wrote: The golden share. Again you show your total bloody ignorance. Raj Singh did not own "The golden share" the club did. NO owner owns the share it is issued to clubs but remains the property of the FA who can rescind it if they so wish.
Take it up with Raj Singh and the people who spent a good deal of time trying to buy it off him. Singh is on record as saying he had hold of it. We all remember his “I’ve signed it over” interview.
EDJOHNS wrote: The FA had no need whatever to issue another share to the club. They could simply have re-issued a copy of the original one.
They chose not to because in their wisdom they decided they could use us to show haw much authority they have.
Wrong again. The FA had to relegate us because by their own rules, they had to treat us as a new club. You’re making it sound like they arbitrarily chose to do so to make an example. They didn’t, as they’d be breaking their own rules.

It’s all there in the Standardised Rules. We came out of administration without a CVA (because we stuck two fingers up at Raj) and were needing to reapply for a share. As such, we were treated like a new club and placed at the highest level a new club could be placed (Step 5).

It’s all there in the FA’s own rules. Nothing to do with them “showing how much authority they had”. Do your homework sweetheart.
EDJOHNS wrote: Again, your entire diatribe is both incorrect and self opinionated garbage. As per your norm, so again, Fuck off Gramps.
Oh dear, and you say you don’t have temper tantrums. You lack the intelligence to think up anything else so resort to abuse. Tsk, tsk young man. Keep on with the meltdown though. I’m loving the fact I drive you mad.
I do thank you you arrogant prick for repeatedly calling me young man. As a 69 year old great grand father not many have the right to do that.
Maybe explains why you are such an arrogant self deluded prick.

Enjoy your fruit loop world where everyone else is wrong and you are the only person correct on all counts.

Oh yes, Fuck off Gramps.

shildonlad
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:29 am

Talk about a thread going off track. What was a debate about gateshead fc is now a slagging match between 2 posters. Cans yous not create your own thread so you can have your debate with each other ha ha. Back on track it appears the fa has one rule for one club and one for another. Ebbsfleet who’ve paid wages late several times along with various other irregularities, i know this as i spoke to there fans at the game have got zero punishment from the league
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1556
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by don'tbuythesun » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:50 am

As you must have seen shildonlad threads quite often go off track when Gramps is involved and he's had major fallouts with many posters and even had threats made against him. Sadly his comments are often well thought out and reasonable but there's a tendency for them to become endless and tedious. As he's said on here he loves (lives?) to wind people up. Personally I'd never want to see any club go under, I'm fond of and go to watch a number of clubs over here, Marine, Southport, Preston, Tranmere, Bootle, South Liverpool (back in the day would have been National league), and on occasion Liverpool and yes, Everton. Give me lower on non-league any day!

H1987
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by H1987 » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:57 am

They're expecting to hear about their appeal today, aren't they?

Here's hoping the FA actually take a sensible view of the situation... ( :lol: yeah, i know)

Darlogramps
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:16 am

EDJOHNS wrote: I do thank you you arrogant prick for repeatedly calling me young man. As a 69 year old great grand father not many have the right to do that.
Maybe explains why you are such an arrogant self deluded prick.

Enjoy your fruit loop world where everyone else is wrong and you are the only person correct on all counts.

Oh yes, Fuck off Gramps.
The rantings of a madman. I hope your grandchildren and great-grandchildren grow up with more decorum and a thicker skin than yourself.

Ta ta for now young man.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

Darlogramps
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:23 am

don'tbuythesun wrote:As you must have seen shildonlad threads quite often go off track when Gramps is involved and he's had major fallouts with many posters and even had threats made against him. Sadly his comments are often well thought out and reasonable but there's a tendency for them to become endless and tedious. As he's said on here he loves (lives?) to wind people up. Personally I'd never want to see any club go under, I'm fond of and go to watch a number of clubs over here, Marine, Southport, Preston, Tranmere, Bootle, South Liverpool (back in the day would have been National league), and on occasion Liverpool and yes, Everton. Give me lower on non-league any day!
I like winding up people who take themselves too seriously, and don’t like being questioned or challenged. There are loads on here I like discussing with, even if they disagree with me.

But I don’t see why I should respect anyone who’s response to me criticising their argument is to repeatedly hurl profanities. Moreover, it just isn’t going to work.

Happy to get this thread back on topic. I don’t think anyone wants to see a club go under, and I’m glad Gateshead are seemingly at least going to continue, albeit most likely with a severe punishment.

Be interesting to see how they resolve the situation with their manager, who claims to have a three-year deal.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

shildonlad
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:39 am

Darlogramps wrote:
don'tbuythesun wrote:As you must have seen shildonlad threads quite often go off track when Gramps is involved and he's had major fallouts with many posters and even had threats made against him. Sadly his comments are often well thought out and reasonable but there's a tendency for them to become endless and tedious. As he's said on here he loves (lives?) to wind people up. Personally I'd never want to see any club go under, I'm fond of and go to watch a number of clubs over here, Marine, Southport, Preston, Tranmere, Bootle, South Liverpool (back in the day would have been National league), and on occasion Liverpool and yes, Everton. Give me lower on non-league any day!
I like winding up people who take themselves too seriously, and don’t like being questioned or challenged. There are loads on here I like discussing with, even if they disagree with me.

But I don’t see why I should respect anyone who’s response to me criticising their argument is to repeatedly hurl profanities. Moreover, it just isn’t going to work.

Happy to get this thread back on topic. I don’t think anyone wants to see a club go under, and I’m glad Gateshead are seemingly at least going to continue, albeit most likely with a severe punishment.

Be interesting to see how they resolve the situation with their manager, who claims to have a three-year deal.
Gateshead have already had a punishment, point deduction and the fine but yeah its the fa who could well make an example of them and demote them further than evostick premier. The attention had been on the appeal and getting control back of the club. Once the league situation is resolved then manager and players next. I hope to lord the deluded wannabe manager is not on a legitimate 3 year contract which likes of gary mills, bogie and aspin never even had! Would take some paying off. Only reason for such a long contract would have been to pre off the fans and make it hard for new owners
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

AndyPark
Posts: 11464
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by AndyPark » Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:57 am

You need to be made an example of, they did it with us.

Why shouldn’t it happen with Gateshead? Lived beyond their means for years and years, now Heed fans think the world is against them.

Not waving ya £20 notes about now.
18/19 Season:
LDWDLDLWDLLWWWDDDDLLLLWDWWLWDLLDWDLDLLWLLWWWLD

*includes all cup games*

shildonlad
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:35 pm

AndyPark wrote:You need to be made an example of, they did it with us.

Why shouldn’t it happen with Gateshead? Lived beyond their means for years and years, now Heed fans think the world is against them.

Not waving ya £20 notes about now.
I never waved 20 pound notes at anyone and i guess the mature regular fans never either. Not the current regimes fault and those will be the ones paying off the debt
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

H1987
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by H1987 » Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:55 pm

AndyPark wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:57 am
You need to be made an example of, they did it with us.

Why shouldn’t it happen with Gateshead? Lived beyond their means for years and years, now Heed fans think the world is against them.

Not waving ya £20 notes about now.
I'd like to see the FA draw a line under 'making an example' of clubs for having lousy owners. It's crap. I don't want to see it happen to anyone. Even Pools.

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5414
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:03 pm

Unfortunately it doesn't matter if it is the current regimes fault or not when the League and FA make decisions.

How much debt have they been left with?
Do they need a £200k bond?
What funds do they have to guarantee making it through next season?

Sadly for Gateshead after hitting issues then they have to now ensure that they have a long term future and won't be back in the same place in 6 months time. I see the ex Rochdale guys are involved which should help but unless they are very convincing with a lot of money then I can see why the National League may want to move Gateshead to be someone else problem.

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5414
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:04 pm

H1987 wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:55 pm
AndyPark wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:57 am
You need to be made an example of, they did it with us.

Why shouldn’t it happen with Gateshead? Lived beyond their means for years and years, now Heed fans think the world is against them.

Not waving ya £20 notes about now.
I'd like to see the FA draw a line under 'making an example' of clubs for having lousy owners. It's crap. I don't want to see it happen to anyone. Even Pools.
Depends what you mean by lousy though, letting clubs offer just gives more reason for "take the risk and worry about it later type ownership".

User avatar
OHDFC
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:22 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by OHDFC » Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:56 pm


Darlogramps wrote: The rantings of a madman.
Says the poster who frequently complained about posters who commented on his mental health...



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


Darlogramps
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:30 pm

OHDFC wrote:
Darlogramps wrote: The rantings of a madman.
Says the poster who frequently complained about posters who commented on his mental health...



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Interesting.

Things not acceptable to OHDFC: Saying EDJOHN’s abusive rant sounded like a madman.

Things acceptable to OHDFC: Telling someone to fuck off, calling someone a prick, calling someone mentally ill repeatedly, calling someone thick, an idiot, a twat and a c***.

You clearly find these things (all said to me in recent months) acceptable, as you’ve called me out for saying madman, yet kept quiet on all of these.

Seems more like you’ve got a personal vendetta than anything else, hence your hypocrisy. (P.S. to prevent this thread being further hijacked, I suggest any further replies come via DM - otherwise we’ll assume you’re more interested in pointscoring and furthering your little vendetta).

If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

User avatar
OHDFC
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:22 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by OHDFC » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:55 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
OHDFC wrote:
Darlogramps wrote: The rantings of a madman.
Says the poster who frequently complained about posters who commented on his mental health...



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Interesting.

Things not acceptable to OHDFC: Saying EDJOHN’s abusive rant sounded like a madman.

Things acceptable to OHDFC: Telling someone to fuck off, calling someone a prick, calling someone mentally ill repeatedly, calling someone thick, an idiot, a twat and a c***.

You clearly find these things (all said to me in recent months) acceptable, as you’ve called me out for saying madman, yet kept quiet on all of these.

Seems more like you’ve got a personal vendetta than anything else, hence your hypocrisy. (P.S. to prevent this thread being further hijacked, I suggest any further replies come via DM - otherwise we’ll assume you’re more interested in pointscoring and furthering your little vendetta).
I made no comment about what I find acceptable or not, merely that you complained about comments about your mental health, but then called another poster a madman

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1556
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by don'tbuythesun » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:59 pm

From previous experience I suggest that on no account you enter a DM discussion. Be warned! There are double standards at work here.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:29 pm

OK - a pointscoring vendetta it is. Glad that’s all you can worry about OHDFC.

If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

User avatar
OHDFC
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:22 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by OHDFC » Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:21 pm

Darlogramps wrote:OK - a pointscoring vendetta it is. Glad that’s all you can worry about OHDFC.
Vendetta? I just found your statements incongruous and maybe a little hypocritical. As for worries, well I am a little concerned about my home town club, being from The Felling (Leam Lane for those who know the area) which is why I'm interested in this thread.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


AndyPark
Posts: 11464
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by AndyPark » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:14 pm

OHDFC wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:21 pm
Darlogramps wrote:OK - a pointscoring vendetta it is. Glad that’s all you can worry about OHDFC.
Vendetta? I just found your statements incongruous and maybe a little hypocritical. As for worries, well I am a little concerned about my home town club, being from The Felling (Leam Lane for those who know the area) which is why I'm interested in this thread.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Spent 6 months living in Low Fell, never again :lol:
18/19 Season:
LDWDLDLWDLLWWWDDDDLLLLWDWWLWDLLDWDLDLLWLLWWWLD

*includes all cup games*

User avatar
OHDFC
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:22 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by OHDFC » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:18 pm

AndyPark wrote:
OHDFC wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:21 pm
Darlogramps wrote:OK - a pointscoring vendetta it is. Glad that’s all you can worry about OHDFC.
Vendetta? I just found your statements incongruous and maybe a little hypocritical. As for worries, well I am a little concerned about my home town club, being from The Felling (Leam Lane for those who know the area) which is why I'm interested in this thread.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Spent 6 months living in Low Fell, never again Image
Low Fell? Posh b******

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


karlo-cardiff
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:16 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by karlo-cardiff » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:32 pm

Gramps give it a rest please..... You really are the most boring person I've never met


Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk


Darlogramps
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Gateshead

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:39 pm

karlo-cardiff wrote:Gramps give it a rest please..... You really are the most boring person I've never met


Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk
Genuinely I’d love to. But if people keep popping up to have a go, then I’m entitled to respond.

Hint - if you want people to give it a rest, don’t make a personal attack on them in a public forum.

So I’d kindly ask you to give it a rest as well, then we can all have some peace.

If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

shildonlad
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Gateshead

Post by shildonlad » Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:51 am

super_les_mcjannet wrote:Unfortunately it doesn't matter if it is the current regimes fault or not when the League and FA make decisions.

How much debt have they been left with?
Do they need a £200k bond?
What funds do they have to guarantee making it through next season?

Sadly for Gateshead after hitting issues then they have to now ensure that they have a long term future and won't be back in the same place in 6 months time. I see the ex Rochdale guys are involved which should help but unless they are very convincing with a lot of money then I can see why the National League may want to move Gateshead to be someone else problem.
Sad but true yeah. I believe theres circa 100k debt, not sure about bond situation. The so called manager is claiming he wont leave until he is paid off (apparantly on 3 year deal and put money into the club). Would pity the new lot having to pay that deluded basted a 6 figure sum who has not managed a game
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

H1987
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Gateshead

Post by H1987 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:24 pm

super_les_mcjannet wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:04 pm
H1987 wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:55 pm
AndyPark wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:57 am
You need to be made an example of, they did it with us.

Why shouldn’t it happen with Gateshead? Lived beyond their means for years and years, now Heed fans think the world is against them.

Not waving ya £20 notes about now.
I'd like to see the FA draw a line under 'making an example' of clubs for having lousy owners. It's crap. I don't want to see it happen to anyone. Even Pools.
Depends what you mean by lousy though, letting clubs offer just gives more reason for "take the risk and worry about it later type ownership".
I mean handing down arbitrary punishments down to the successors of lunatics. While our demotion was within the letter of the law, it was unnecessary to drop us so far. They didn't kick Chester as far down.

I'd like the FA to be empowered to show reason and common sense, on a case by case basis. If fans take over a club, phoenix or otherwise, because a spiteful former owner wouldn't release shares or the like, back the damned fans as a successor.

Post Reply