Trust Resignations

Hilly - 19th May 2010 21:50:04

Viva La Revolución!

A kick in the Jacobs - 19th May 2010 21:56:58

I'll check back in the morning when, hopefully, names of those additions to the board who are as popular a ginger-haired step-son have been released.

loan_star - 19th May 2010 21:57:38

So who are the trust board members who seem to be causing the problems for those that resigned? If the statement is true then they shouldnt be involved if their support is questionable.

we_8_poolie - 19th May 2010 22:11:31

The Chairman of the Trust, always speaks well when interviewed on the Radio....but I never see him at games. How can the comments he expresses be those of the fans ...he never speaks to them ? Time for a change I say.

Hopefully our savings are still safe in the bank ?

Biff Hitler - 19th May 2010 22:12:19

Come on, let's have names then. Mind with such a small board I think I can guess who it is. The comments are worrying though that the people concerned don't support the football club. Sounds like self-interest to me.

AndyPark - 19th May 2010 22:14:16

Maybe Darlo Cockney can share some light on this subject?

we_8_poolie - 19th May 2010 22:16:52

We all see Hodgy, Ralph and Pete have resigned and Kev Stonehouse works for the club. That narrows it down. I know Steve Duffy lives in Wales ...so 5 left ...most of them called Taylor.

Paul Hodgson, Vice chairman
Ralph Naden, Co-opted member
Peter Plant, Secretary
Kevin Stonehouse, Co-opted member

Walter Lucas, Elected member
Claire Stone, Co-opted member
David Taylor, Membership secretary
Maureen Taylor, Treasurer
Tony Taylor, Chairman
Steve Duffy, Co-opted member

Darlo_Pete - 19th May 2010 22:28:38

There seem to be an aweful lot of Taylor's on the board of the Trust!! I wonder if anybody could shed any light as to how many games each of those board members have attended? Because I can't see how if they don't attend, they can remain on the board or am I missing something?

we_8_poolie - 19th May 2010 22:35:46

How many members does the Trust have ?

Surely they should be working closely with both the supporters club & the Club to build on the positivity around at the mo.

The Trust AGM is soon I'm sure ...www.darlotrust.co.uk should have the info on but has just gone offline !!

Quakerz - 19th May 2010 22:38:25

I hear that NONE of the Taylors attended a single match last season? That is even less than my armchairs attendance.

Seriously though, if this is true, then their position on the Trust board becomes untenable, for how could you hold that position if you do not support the club at all, or very much?

Any of the Taylors reading, can you put me straight regarding your non attendance? I'm happy to be proven wrong.

I hear that Tony Taylor (who doesn't appear to go to Darlo matches) is also vice chairman of Supporters Direct, and gets perks such as free tickets to the Johnsons Paint Trophy etc.

Darlo_Pete - 19th May 2010 22:40:42

If that's true Quakerz then it sounds to me like the wrong people resigned tonight. Surely the Trust can't be ran by so called fans who never attend Darlo games.

Quakerz - 19th May 2010 22:43:27

Well lets hear what the Taylors have to say first. Attendance can easily be proven by ticket stubs, people seeing them etc.

If they are attending matches then fair enough.

m62exile - 19th May 2010 22:43:46

The AGM is on the 20th June at the Coachman I believe - the web also tells me that he deadline for nominations for the board must be received in writing by May 20th, making this deliberate timing it would seem.

TBH I'm not really that sure who they are or what they do; all a bit mysterious really...

strangetown - 19th May 2010 22:47:22

From what I am reading on the message board tonight, I think a vote of confidence in the present board should be asked at the AGM.

Quakerz - 19th May 2010 22:50:29

The Taylors need to make a statement outlining what they do at the Trust, and show their support of the club (tell us the truth about how many matches they attended last season). Without positive, believable reinforcement from them, then I must say "no confidence".

ShrewsX - 19th May 2010 22:57:23

m62exile wrote:The AGM is on the 20th June at the Coachman I believe - the web also tells me that he deadline for nominations for the board must be received in writing by May 20th, making this deliberate timing it would seem.

Although I love a conspiracy theory, in the case of Mr Plant, i consider him a close friend, and a bloke who has principles, and the club at heart. i would be very very surprised of any deliberate timing.

My guess is that, in the run up to the AGM, things have been said, proposed and he (and presumably the others who have resigned) have decided they can no longer be associated with this. Either this or they have simply chosen not to re-stand.

The truth will come out. Why, oh why cant anything at this club go without contraversy!

ShrewsX

Quakerz - 19th May 2010 23:03:54

It's not the club, it's the Trust. Keep them seperated. The club have enough problems thanks to the Echo making them look like kuntz in the awfully negative write up of the car boot sale.

1Superlidds - 20th May 2010 08:47:18

Having been a Trust Board member previously and served with Peter & Ralph I just want to make a comment re this issue

Firstly having witnessed the unproffessional behaviour adopted by Ralph and Peter as Board members it is no surprise to me that they chose to print their resignation letter simultaniously to handing it to the Board for their consideration, nor that they chose to provide a joint letter.

The Board put in a lot of time and effort to provide a Trust that has a good reputation nationally and has worked tirelessly to support the club from its grass roots. Unfortunately on any Board personalities clash, but thats not to say there isn't right and wrong on both sides of the table.

To address a couple of points:
we8poolie - the savings are more than safe, thanks to the prudent behaviour of the Board all accounts are maintained and fully audited by independant auditors in Leeds each year and returned in time for members scrutiny at the AGM, every penny is accountable and every receipt is noted - something I hope for Pete and Ralphs sake I don't have to comment further on.

Re the Chairman attending games - Tony's health hasn't been great but I hazard a guess he still has more appearances this season than Quakerz (you heard wrong Q!) I agree supporting the club is much to do with attending the matches but if you are unable to attend the matches then surely contributing to the supporters benefit through working on the Trust Board is better than nothing?

The Trust already work closely, and looks at working even closer with the club, see comments from Craig Liddle both in the media and at forums, also look at how much funds the Trust contributed to the club, all raised through the hard work and free time of the Board members.

Biff - regarding 'self interest' I think thats something you might want to address to Ralph and Peter am afraid.

Quakerz - the SD position Tony holds has nothing to do with this but regardless its a position anybody can apply for providing they are willing to give up incredible quantities of their free time and believe me the perks do not outweigh the time. Also re perks just incase anybody has misconceptions - the Trust Board do not claim anything, not even expenses to attend meetings all those costs are met out of their own pocket, also where events are held ie the Talk In nights, Board members each provide a raffle prize at their own cost, pay for a ticket to attend the Trust events and buy raffle tickets knowing that should they win they won't claim the prize - just something to bear in mind if anybody is considering standing.

m62exile - the AGM takes place the same time every year as for the deliberate timing of the 2 members thats for them to answer I guess.

Strangetown - a vote of confidence is effectively held every AGM (June 20th). If you feel that to be the case then go to the AGM and vote accordingly, my personal worry is that there are individuals who are simply conspiring at ways to waste the ring fenced money.

Shrewsx - I also like Pete and Ralph, but having worked on the Board while I agree they both have the club at heart and I know both are principled, both have during my time serving with them shown themselves to be incredibly unprofessional - releasing a media statement regarding their resignation typifies this I guess but there were far more worrying things for me that could have made the Trust accountable in more important matters. Basically they did things for best intention but in a hapless and shoddy manner. The Trust must be accountable in every department and sadly the two were found lacking in this area.

I don't see a message board as the place that the Trust should address this. Clearly the wording and timing of the joint resignation has been done to stir up support from the more short sighted members among ground force supporters, of that I have no doubt. Having shared the Board with all parties I have to say that I can see all sides of the argument, the Trust is an independant association and not a cashcow to the club, however it has proven its support to DFC time and again year on year. It works with the club but not for it, that is the remit of the Supporters Club which is ultimately controlled by the club.

Sadly Ralph and Peter failed to see this and while I had areas of sympathy and support for some things they tried to do I also found it difficult to defend some of their actions. I totally understand with supporters at first hand siding with Pete and Ralph but sometimes you have to look behind whats written.

The Trust is something I believe in strongly, while I have agreements and differences with individuals over the years, I maintain that the current incumbents of the Board are the right people to ensure its safe keeping and stability.

m62exile - 20th May 2010 11:17:37

Thanks Superlidds for the response above - my point above by the way didn't in any way suggest a point of view either way - merely pointed out that the resignations had been tendered the evening before the deadline for new nominations which didn't seem to be by chance.

I've supported Darlo for nearly thirty years yet I'm still not sure I know who any of the board members are. Good luck to them though.

Quakerz - 20th May 2010 11:23:08

Thanks for clearing those matters up 1SL, although I'd just like to take issue with your comment "he's probably attended more matches than you Quakerz", I'm not running the trust mate so my attendance is irrelevant, his is. Other than that, thanks.

1Superlidds - 20th May 2010 11:43:21

no probs m62, am much the same as you in that I found it strange that they timed their resignations in such a way but thats their prerogative I guess - I also agree that for all the Trust do they don't promote themselves enough so its little surprise some supporters don't know much about those that sit on the Board and put the hardwork in.

Ha Q thats ok! - I just wanted to put whoever suggested that to you right, in that health aside he has attended games, over the years been a regular supporter and also now in less than good health continues to provide a service to the benefit of the club and our supporters!

There are issues with the Trust I feel can be done better and to be fair I believe Pete and Ralph genuinely feel that as Board members they acted in what they felt were the best interests of Trust and club, however the Trust is regulated and has to work within constraints of the constitution both morally and legally.

That said it still does a great deal of good for supporters, community and club and would encourage anybody who genuinely wants to continue that ethos and take it further to stand for election. I only wish that the 2 resigning members had worked in the correct manner and used their great enthusiasm in a more focussed manner as they had so much to offer the Board

Markodarlo - 20th May 2010 12:29:37

[quote="1Superlidds"]Having been a Trust Board member previously and served with Peter & Ralph I just want to make a comment re this issue

To address a couple of points:
we8poolie - the savings are more than safe, thanks to the prudent behaviour of the Board all accounts are maintained and fully audited by independant auditors in Leeds each year and returned in time for members scrutiny at the AGM, every penny is accountable and every receipt is noted - something I hope for Pete and Ralphs sake I don't have to comment further on.quote]

Care to elaberate on this comment Lidds?

1Superlidds - 20th May 2010 12:36:11

Care to elaberate on this comment Lidds?

No, less to say it isn't anything ominous or illegal!! but that it pays for people to remember that the group is regulated and subject to fully auditable accounts and as such all paperwork must be maintained

A kick in the Jacobs - 20th May 2010 12:38:27

1Superlidds wrote:Care to elaberate on this comment Lidds?

No, less to say it isn't anything ominous or illegal!! but that it pays for people to remember that the group is regulated and subject to fully auditable accounts and as such all paperwork must be maintained

Under what legislation does the trust have to provide fully audited accounts?

1Superlidds - 20th May 2010 12:58:15

'Under what legislation does the trust have to provide fully audited accounts?'

as a Society under section 9 of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968

http://www.darlotrust.co.uk/

Spyman - 20th May 2010 13:03:13

AndyPark wrote:Maybe Darlo Cockney can share some light on this subject?

You'd get a more thought out response from Wylam.

BishopQuaker - 20th May 2010 14:52:57

Darlo_Pete wrote:There seem to be an aweful lot of Taylor's on the board of the Trust!!

It's a stitch up!

BOOM BOOM!

grytters - 20th May 2010 16:39:17

BishopQuaker wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:There seem to be an aweful lot of Taylor's on the board of the Trust!!

It's a stitch up!

BOOM BOOM!

Jack it in, with the awful puns, will you.

A kick in the Jacobs - 20th May 2010 16:58:22

1Superlidds wrote:'Under what legislation does the trust have to provide fully audited accounts?'

as a Society under section 9 of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968

http://www.darlotrust.co.uk/

So it's a society not a trust. The name is a bit of a misnomer in that case, as it's not a trust in the conventional meaning of a trust.

There's no statutory requirement for a trust to produce accounts.

1Superlidds - 20th May 2010 17:08:08

Well then thats that sorted we have established that there are various forms of Trusts though I don't really see your point, whether 'Trusts' in one format don't have to be audited or Trusts within the Supporters Direct format do is irrelivant.

The fact is that Football Supporters' Trusts are audited and surely you agree it is far better that they are rather than they be left unnaccountable and unnanswerable to their actions?

rj50 - 20th May 2010 17:38:31

How do supporters know what work the trust does if it dosnt go on the messageboard to explain and prehaps to gain new members for the trust.useing this messageboard and directing to the trust messageboard for imfo is not a bad thing,sometinmes the trust thinks its some kind od secret society.

grytters - 20th May 2010 17:41:17

rj50 wrote:How do supporters know what work the trust does.

Here you go.


www.darlotrust.co.uk



http://www.btinternet.com/~duffnort/DST ... tution.pdf

AndyPark - 20th May 2010 18:22:33

Spyman wrote:

AndyPark wrote:Maybe Darlo Cockney can share some light on this subject?

You'd get a more thought out response from Wylam.

I wasn't sure Wylam's first name was Ralph, I presumed it would of been but on the other, I still wasn't sure.

A kick in the Jacobs - 20th May 2010 19:08:33

1Superlidds wrote:Well then thats that sorted we have established that there are various forms of Trusts though I don't really see your point, whether 'Trusts' in one format don't have to be audited or Trusts within the Supporters Direct format do is irrelivant.

The fact is that Football Supporters' Trusts are audited and surely you agree it is far better that they are rather than they be left unnaccountable and unnanswerable to their actions?

I was questioning why the accounts were audited because trustees don't have to produce accounts. It's not a trust, it's a society. A trust does not have members. It has trustees and beneficiaries, neither of which the Darlo 'Trust' has.

strangetown - 20th May 2010 20:21:53

The only two people I have seen this season at the games promoting and encouraging people to join the Trust are Peter & Ralph and I find it disappointing to hear people saying that there behaviour has been unproffessional.
The trust this season should have been doing everything it could to help the club but have done nothing. There has been plenty of times this season when they could have helped with match sponsorship.matchball and sportsmans evenings, and no I am not asking them to dig into the £ 55000, but surely they could have done something. If they wanted to do anything all the constraints and regulations could have very easily been overcome but these people decided to do nothing to help our club.
Looking from the outside the trusts relationship with the club does not look good, surely this can not be right and who is to blame, things like this do very little to encourage people to join the trust.
I hope that Ralph and Peter reconsider there decision and come back.

hodgie1 - 20th May 2010 21:00:44

ive tried to stay out of this thread but strangetown you are blantantly wrong, a hell of a lot of work has been done promoting disability by ian , claire and myself, an example of this was the level playing field event, and the disability awareness conference, plus weve promoted YD - youth development - craig liddle has acknowledged this. i aint gonna get into the whys and wherefors of ralphs and peters departures on here as it isnt right to do that. but to say they are the only 2 promoting the trust is wrong. weve held talkins, sponsored FITC coaching sessions, if this isnt promoting the trust then i dont know what is! one other thing, our relationship with the club is fine, no problems at all.

strangetown wrote:The only two people I have seen this season at the games promoting and encouraging people to join the Trust are Peter & Ralph and I find it disappointing to hear people saying that there behaviour has been unproffessional.
The trust this season should have been doing everything it could to help the club but have done nothing. There has been plenty of times this season when they could have helped with match sponsorship.matchball and sportsmans evenings, and no I am not asking them to dig into the £ 55000, but surely they could have done something. If they wanted to do anything all the constraints and regulations could have very easily been overcome but these people decided to do nothing to help our club.
Looking from the outside the trusts relationship with the club does not look good, surely this can not be right and who is to blame, things like this do very little to encourage people to join the trust.
I hope that Ralph and Peter reconsider there decision and come back.

strangetown - 20th May 2010 21:30:45

Sorry Hodgie,Claire,Ian I was under the impression that this was something that was done on your own not under the trust banner and I would never underestimated the work that you and the others have done in regards to promoting disability awareness.

In regards to youth development, I try to do my best to help Craig and Maddo in my own way.

The why's and wherefor's on Ralphs and Peters departures do need at sometime to made public , to clear the air.
I will still stand by my statement that they are the only two people who I have seen at games, selling raffle tickets for the trust or enrolling new members for the trust because I have seen knowone else doing this, either in the corner bar or the RG.

If the relationship with the club is fine why not have the AGM there and maybe that would encourage more people to attend and help the club.

1Superlidds - 21st May 2010 08:37:12

Strangetown, I wouldn't argue that Pete and Ralph have put themselves out to promote the Trust, and when I used the term 'unprofessional' it was regarding to the way things were done within the Trust rather than their enthusiasm to promote the Trust and the club (which can't be faulted). That said am sure you would not consider the actions of releasing a resignation letter to a messageboard at the same time as they handed it to the Trust Board as 'professional behaviour'.

The Trust, and any supporters group, needs people like Pete and Ralph that do the groundwork, but there should also be respect for the penpushers behind the scenes who keep things right and for the boundaries you work within.

The Trust has made great strides with the club, most of the Board at some stage of the season have met with various club officials from the owner downwards so the contact is all in place.

Also in place are the commitments of support to the club, its right that the Trust should support the good things that the club do but at the same time it needs to retain the autonomy to also comment when the club does things wrong, its no good the club being surrounded by associated groups that just nod and doff the cap to everything it does. This is a much healthier relationship for the club.

The Trust have pushed funds into the club through a variety of ways but it was not created as an additional form of funding to the club, regardless of which it is reliant on fundraising initiatives and it does not have a bottomless pit of funds.

The Trust has helped the club in various ways other than simply giving cash - for instance all the season tickets/reminders etc last season were sent out with the Trusts support which included covering the substantial postage costs.

I do agree that the Trust can and should do better, it should be more visible both in what they do and in promoting what they have done and also accept that they (including me during my time on the Board) have made mistakes or handled some issues badly, but they are there because they genuinely care, not for what they get out of it....which is less than nothing.

Personally speaking I think its a pity that Ralph and Pete have resigned, I would have preferred they stayed on the Board and sorted their differences out in the correct manner face to face as they had much to offer.

onewayup - 25th May 2010 16:43:09

i would never give any monies to the trust as i've said before ,they were setup by default on monies raised when the club were in great difficulties,this was as far as i was concerned to baleout the club at that time ,not to save it and start another darlo club up should this one fail,i gave generously at that time of need and was dismayed to find
it was not going directly to the players for help with there daily family expence's. so no i won't and never will give to the said trust,but i will give and do to darlington football club in many other way's.and allways will do so. they are my club.

1Superlidds - 25th May 2010 17:13:18

The cash was raised all over Britain by supporters of other clubs, by other supporters' trusts and supporters associations, by residents in the town that while not following the team still realised the importance of the town retaining a professional football club and also by Darlo supporters themselves, so many varied contributors to that fund and so many different opinions of what to do with it, as such yours is just one opinion and as time has shown it has been proved to be wrong but its your view and should be respected.
In my opinion it is a very short sighted point of view. If you honestly think handing money to an Administrator would have payed wages then you really are extremely naive, once the club is in Administration the spending of every penny coming in to the club is controlled by the Administrator to spend on what he sees fit, having such a pot would have allowed him to stall any potential buy out and enlarging their bill to the club - proof if needed was with RS's attempts to buy the club see how the Administrator dragged out a pretty routine buy out, we all know how annoyed Raj was over the way it dragged on by the Administrator, but he dragged it out because he knew the cash was there and it allowed him to bump his bill up. The 50k would not have paid anybodies wages less the man controlling the show.

hodgie1 - 25th May 2010 17:26:37

in other words, the money wouldve disappeared into a black hole, gone forever

walshys_wingman_11 - 25th May 2010 22:51:30

1Superlidds wrote:The cash was raised all over Britain by supporters of other clubs, by other supporters' trusts and supporters associations, by residents in the town that while not following the team still realised the importance of the town retaining a professional football club and also by Darlo supporters themselves, so many varied contributors to that fund and so many different opinions of what to do with it, as such yours is just one opinion and as time has shown it has been proved to be wrong but its your view and should be respected.
In my opinion it is a very short sighted point of view. If you honestly think handing money to an Administrator would have payed wages then you really are extremely naive, once the club is in Administration the spending of every penny coming in to the club is controlled by the Administrator to spend on what he sees fit, having such a pot would have allowed him to stall any potential buy out and enlarging their bill to the club - proof if needed was with RS's attempts to buy the club see how the Administrator dragged out a pretty routine buy out, we all know how annoyed Raj was over the way it dragged on by the Administrator, but he dragged it out because he knew the cash was there and it allowed him to bump his bill up. The 50k would not have paid anybodies wages less the man controlling the show.