DFCRG Statement 14th Jan
by Scott Thornberry - 14th January 2012
DFC Rescue Group was formed on 1st January 2012.
From the outset, this hastily formed Group has been clear that its role was to try to find a solution to DFC’s problems which culminated in multiple, Community based ownership to be operated in a sustainable manner. The Group also made it clear that entering Administration would make this outcome far more difficult to achieve.
DFC Rescue Group was formed on 1st January 2012.
From the outset, this hastily formed Group has been clear that its role was to try to find a solution to DFC’s problems which culminated in multiple, Community based ownership to be operated in a sustainable manner. The Group also made it clear that entering Administration would make this outcome far more difficult to achieve.
Further meetings and discussions were held to raise funds to offer to the Administrator in order to persuade him to continue with operations until 31st January. These funds (which, contrary to speculation, were not a loan) were duly secured. On Friday 13th January, the Group presented its proposal to the Administrator. The discussions were positive, and the Group felt that an agreement could have been reached. However, there was a stumbling block with the funds which we had secured. The precise nature of the problem cannot be discussed at this point in time, but could have had a serious negative impact. This rendered our proposal unworkable. With no further time to find benefactors to provide these funds, the option was to accept defeat or to allow the Trust to have the final say in this matter by allocating some of its funds for this purpose. The Group felt that it had to adopt the latter route in order that no stone had been left unturned to try to resolve matters.
Our vision for the future ownership of the Club has consistently included the Supporters Trust. The Trust were approached and agreed to be part of the Group at its inception. Unfortunately, even before the first Group meeting on 3rd January, the Trust objected to the release of a Statement and the appointment of Doug Embleton as media spokesperson. Although these actions had been agreed by the majority of the Group, the Trust did not approve and consequently declined to attend. Since this time, Doug Embleton, for the Group, has telephoned and emailed the Trust on countless occasions to try to persuade them to actively participate in what we are doing, and to resolve any disagreements in
procedures. Many attempts at contacting them have gone unanswered. Any answers received have indicated that they did not wish to accept our offer. Throughout this period of time the Group has steadfastly resisted pressure to ask the Trust for funds, until yesterday when it seemed that there was no other option. Multiple attempts were again made, during the afternoon, to contact the Trust to discuss this last-ditch suggestion. These all failed, and the Group was left with no alternative but to appeal via the media. Nevertheless, the Group still firmly believes that the Supporters Trust should be at the core of a Community owned Club and wish it every success with setting up a Phoenix, should DFC fold.
The Group hopes that this statement clears up any misunderstandings. In the, seemingly, unlikely event of an extension to Administration, the Group will concentrate on establishing the sustainability of the Club and try to devise a means of funding an exit from Administration.
We would like to thank all those who have given us support and encouragement so far, in particular Jenny Chapman (MP), Peter Barron, Andrew Wilkinson, Harvey Madden of Taylor Rowland, Craig Liddle, Blackwell Grange Hotel, Scott Thornberry, the thoughtful posters on Uncovered, and many others.
At no stage has the Group ever suggested that it could, or would, use personal funds to this end. At no stage has the Group ever insisted that it wanted to be part of a new, rescued organisation.
In order to prove if the Club could be operated in a sustainable manner, access to financial data was required. This was requested at our first meeting with the Administrator on Friday 6th January. The Group was provided with the information late on Tuesday 10th January. It was immediately clear that the sustainability of the operation could not be determined by the weekend, which the Administrator had suggested was the deadline. The priority was then to negotiate an extension to this.
Further meetings and discussions were held to raise funds to offer to the Administrator in order to persuade him to continue with operations until 31st January. These funds (which, contrary to speculation, were not a loan) were duly secured. On Friday 13th January, the Group presented its proposal to the Administrator. The discussions were positive, and the Group felt that an agreement could have been reached. However, there was a stumbling block with the funds which we had secured. The precise nature of the problem cannot be discussed at this point in time, but could have had a serious negative impact. This rendered our proposal unworkable. With no further time to find benefactors to provide these funds, the option was to accept defeat or to allow the Trust to have the final say in this matter by allocating some of its funds for this purpose. The Group felt that it had to adopt the latter route in order that no stone had been left unturned to try to resolve matters.
Our vision for the future ownership of the Club has consistently included the Supporters Trust. The Trust were approached and agreed to be part of the Group at its inception. Unfortunately, even before the first Group meeting on 3rd January, the Trust objected to the release of a Statement and the appointment of Doug Embleton as media spokesperson. Although these actions had been agreed by the majority of the Group, the Trust did not approve and consequently declined to attend. Since this time, Doug Embleton, for the Group, has telephoned and emailed the Trust on countless occasions to try to persuade them to actively participate in what we are doing, and to resolve any disagreements in
procedures. Many attempts at contacting them have gone unanswered. Any answers received have indicated that they did not wish to accept our offer. Throughout this period of time the Group has steadfastly resisted pressure to ask the Trust for funds, until yesterday when it seemed that there was no other option. Multiple attempts were again made, during the afternoon, to contact the Trust to discuss this last-ditch suggestion. These all failed, and the Group was left with no alternative but to appeal via the media. Nevertheless, the Group still firmly believes that the Supporters Trust should be at the core of a Community owned Club and wish it every success with setting up a Phoenix, should DFC fold.
The Group hopes that this statement clears up any misunderstandings. In the, seemingly, unlikely event of an extension to Administration, the Group will concentrate on establishing the sustainability of the Club and try to devise a means of funding an exit from Administration.
We would like to thank all those who have given us support and encouragement so far, in particular Jenny Chapman (MP), Peter Barron, Andrew Wilkinson, Harvey Madden of Taylor Rowland, Craig Liddle, Blackwell Grange Hotel, Scott Thornberry, the thoughtful posters on Uncovered, and many others.
Comments
Bizza - 14th January 2012 11:56:42
Edit : Seems to be getting garbled somewhere between copying and pasting.Anyway, link HERE
Quakerz - 14th January 2012 12:02:25
"At no point has the group suggested that is wishes to be part of any new, rescued organisation"HUH? Can we have this clarified? Do they mean that they do not want to be part of a rescued (by someone else?) or new club?
Some of the things said against the Trust in that staement are staggering and suggest that the Trust didn't become part of the group because they didn't like someone. Surely personal grievances haven't got in the way? Nor should they be allowed to.
I'm VERY interested to hear the Trust's response to this.
MikeinBlack - 14th January 2012 12:03:35
Quakerz wrote:
"At no point has the group suggested that is wishes to be part of any new, rescued organisation"
HUH? Can we have this clarified? Do they mean that they do not want to be part of a rescued (by someone else?) or new club?
Some of the things said against the Trust in that staement are staggering and suggest that the Trust didn't become part of the group because they didn't like someone. Surely personal grievances haven't got in the way? Nor should they be allowed to.
I'm VERY interested to hear the Trust's response to this.
HUH? Can we have this clarified? Do they mean that they do not want to be part of a rescued (by someone else?) or new club?
Some of the things said against the Trust in that staement are staggering and suggest that the Trust didn't become part of the group because they didn't like someone. Surely personal grievances haven't got in the way? Nor should they be allowed to.
I'm VERY interested to hear the Trust's response to this.
I expect you will wait a long time Quakerz!
Hilly - 14th January 2012 12:07:40
Again agreed. I couldn't give a crap whether people at The Trust don't like Doug Embleton as a spokesman - they NEED to speak to the DFCRG.If all this is true then this is very petty from The Trust and certainly isn't what the majority of members want, and the board are elected to do a job on behalf of those members.
Truly shocked. Like Divas says, if there is a meeting at the Dolphin Centre on Thursday - I suggest people become members pronto and make sure they're there. I certainly will be.
carlodarlo - 14th January 2012 12:08:00
The biggest problem we have is everyone has differing opinions in what they want to happen, Even it seems in the people that can make a difference in saving this club. For gods sake, its now or never people. Put personal differences aside and come to a decision one way or the other. Dragging this out is becoming unbearable.AIDO - 14th January 2012 12:11:40
carlodarlo wrote:
The biggest problem we have is everyone has differing opinions in what they want to happen, Even it seems in the people that can make a difference in saving this club. For gods sake, its now or never people. Put personal differences aside and come to a decision one way or the other. Dragging this out is becoming unbearable.
Unfortunately carlodarlo ... the group you are talking to or need to get your (above) message across to do not frequent this board. Indeed, I doubt they'd be moved if they did.
Darloloyal - 14th January 2012 12:15:57
The trusts silence is deafening.Are any of their members happy with the way things have transpired?
PierremontQuaker03 - 14th January 2012 12:21:20
Darloloyal wrote:
The trusts silence is deafening.
Are any of their members happy with the way things have transpired?
Are any of their members happy with the way things have transpired?
Now that the Taylor's have gone - who's lap does this decision land on at the Trust?
Maybe this person doesn't have an agenda against the DFCRG but doesn't want to make a decision as they will be damned if they do and damned if they dont.
It sounds as though things became personal between the Taylors and people on the DFCRG and that's the real reason why they left - maybe this went back to previous take over attempts.
Either way the Trust needs to be involved so it can actively participate - what can it do from the outside other than moan? If DFC does fold that its going to create a split between the fans as many fans will blame the trust for not releasing the 50k
wellindarlo - 14th January 2012 12:22:49
Hilly wrote:
Again agreed. I couldn't give a crap whether people at The Trust don't like Doug Embleton as a spokesman - they NEED to speak to the DFCRG.
If all this is true then this is very petty from The Trust and certainly isn't what the majority of members want, and the board are elected to do a job on behalf of those members.
Truly shocked. Like Divas says, if there is a meeting at the Dolphin Centre on Thursday - I suggest people become members pronto and make sure they're there. I certainly will be.
If all this is true then this is very petty from The Trust and certainly isn't what the majority of members want, and the board are elected to do a job on behalf of those members.
Truly shocked. Like Divas says, if there is a meeting at the Dolphin Centre on Thursday - I suggest people become members pronto and make sure they're there. I certainly will be.
The DFCRG statement did not say the Trust did not like Doug Embleton, it said "the Trust objected to the release of a Statement and the appointment of Doug Embleton as media spokesperson" - they objected to going public, would not have mattered who was the proposed media spokesperson.
marskequaker - 14th January 2012 12:23:05
It's obvious the Trust don't want anything to do with the Rescue Group. For the sake of the future of the football club personal grievances should be cast aside. Many years ago it was Doug Embleton who set up the Supporters Trust, did all the ground work and kept everyone informed. Perer Ashmore, and as far as I know Ted Blair were part of this initial group. Then at one AGM for the Trust Doug and Peter were voted off. I don't know the background to it but at the time it was suggested some skulduggery had taken place and that there had been a deliberate attempt to oust them, no idea why as they were Darlington FC through and through.I don't want to condemn those that took their place as that won't achieve anything in the present circumstances. If money was collected under the last Admin. and was for the sole purpose to help DFC and people gave for that purpose then the Trust should be more forthcoming and issue a statement themselves - their silence is deafening and baffling and has caused people to criticise and slate them causing the resignation of its two main members.
It's wrong of people to take money for a cause (fraudulent) and then keep hold of the money that was collected and then say nothing.
Over to you - Darlington Supporters Trust.
AIDO - 14th January 2012 12:25:59
... agreed PierremontQuaker03 ... but now you'll have the Taylor sympathisers at the Trust no doubt, who will follow suit (as if by tradition and loyalty to their "cause"). So it's same old same old ....
Quakerz - 14th January 2012 12:29:47
Bottom line is that the club WILL die on Monday, and in the last 10 days the Trust has refused to join the DFCRG because of personal differences - according to the DFCRG statement.
Shieldsy - 14th January 2012 12:39:30
What a fucking shambles. The DFCRG is doing everything they can to keep the club surviving and the trust is just blatantly ignoring them! A new Trust run club will face serious backlash and be doomed before it begins - if they could even arrange a meeting before March to check everyone wanted to use the money to form a new club! Absolute and utter joke. We are doomed.MKDarlo - 14th January 2012 12:52:19
whatever the problem, whatever the issue ALL parties need to get around the table TODAY and sort things out. Someone has to offer the hand of friendship. Whatever the issue is, set it aside for the good and future of the club.darlotoon - 14th January 2012 12:53:06
well said MKDarlom62exile - 14th January 2012 12:55:30
Have had to re- read it a few times to understand it, but the outcome is that unless something huge comes out of left field we are finished on Monday. And the RG will leave the Trust to set up a Phoenix club.I'm not sure which of those two makes me more sick.
Darlo Cockney - 14th January 2012 12:58:17
darlotoon wrote:
well said MKDarlo
Agreed - the time for politics and all the old resentments are well over.
Anyone not working together now has no place in any future DFC.
DC
Hilly - 14th January 2012 13:01:26
wellindarlo wrote:
Hilly wrote:
Again agreed. I couldn't give a crap whether people at The Trust don't like Doug Embleton as a spokesman - they NEED to speak to the DFCRG.
If all this is true then this is very petty from The Trust and certainly isn't what the majority of members want, and the board are elected to do a job on behalf of those members.
Truly shocked. Like Divas says, if there is a meeting at the Dolphin Centre on Thursday - I suggest people become members pronto and make sure they're there. I certainly will be.
If all this is true then this is very petty from The Trust and certainly isn't what the majority of members want, and the board are elected to do a job on behalf of those members.
Truly shocked. Like Divas says, if there is a meeting at the Dolphin Centre on Thursday - I suggest people become members pronto and make sure they're there. I certainly will be.
The DFCRG statement did not say the Trust did not like Doug Embleton, it said "the Trust objected to the release of a Statement and the appointment of Doug Embleton as media spokesperson" - they objected to going public, would not have mattered who was the proposed media spokesperson.
You've answered your own point surely?
Quote:
...the Trust objected to the release of a Statement and the appointment of Doug Embleton as media spokesperson...
Why did The Trust object to Doug Embleton being the media spokesperson?
Wainy247 - 14th January 2012 13:07:13
We are so going the way of Scarborough.bigrichiet - 14th January 2012 13:09:49
am i fook supporting a trust led 'new' club. They couldn't lead a fooking game of darts v Ray Charles. I've had it with em.TFDM - 14th January 2012 13:11:11
Wainy247 wrote:
We are so going the way of Scarborough.
Can't help but fell that as well. There just seems to be recrimination, scambling and no unity in places where it is needed. It seems people need their heads banging together. The thing if the club folds and there is still no unity going forward then how the hell will a new club be formed?
wellindarlo - 14th January 2012 13:11:21
I don't read it that way Hilly, they objected to the release of a statement, statements are made by the media spokesperson, so whether Doug was the nominated spokesperson or not becomes irrelevant. They would object to having a media spokesperson full-stop.Darloloyal - 14th January 2012 13:12:50
bigrichiet wrote:
am i fook supporting a trust led 'new' club. They couldn't lead a fooking game of darts v Ray Charles. I've had it with em.
I'll second that
AIDO - 14th January 2012 13:25:01
Sadly .... when this war ends. A new one begins ....
There will be no phoenix from these ashes!
TinShedDarloFan - 14th January 2012 13:26:26
We better hope this investor comes good, it looks to be the only chance we have left, the trust have failed the club they were set up to try save, dfcrg for all there hardwork dont have time on their side, this investor fails and we'll be left with a supportrrs trust thats been silent, distanced itself from everyone and has caused a divide amongst fansthis investor has to come good
eek - 14th January 2012 13:35:09
Well that statement does not really help matters does it. The statement reads to me as:-Look at us who have time but no money complaining about people who have ended up with some money and little time who have been rightfully upset by personal attacks and walked away. Granted the trust isn't talking to anyone at the moment but isn't the trust currently in virtual limbo due to the impact of the personal attacks.
However the trust is a mess but its not an issue because we can easily fix that. If 200 of us find the forms, join and vote together we will have a committee to work with even if its a proxy committee for six months before an emergency EGM was called and the old board cleared out. It is not the course of the infighting because the trust is FIXABLE.
Darlo Cockney - 14th January 2012 13:35:57
Trying to think through this logically...............what if part of the ongoing discussions between the administrator and others is that there is some sort of confidentiality agreement between them ?.Certainly would not surprise me if there was and it would explain lack of information coming out.
DC
Charlie_Darlo - 14th January 2012 13:54:24
The statement has done nothing but highlight the divisions between the fans and these divisions render any phoenix club(s) doomed from the outset.I'm vey surprised that the rescue group members hadn't put up some of their own funds. That speaks volumes for the confidence they have in their business plan which, incidently, they still haven't revealed. If I had been involved in the group, I would have expected to contribute significant cash. All seems very odd to me.
The funds they "had" must have belonged to someone else and must have still had strings attached even if they weren't an outright loan.
eddierowlesbeard - 14th January 2012 14:08:02
marskequaker wrote:
It's obvious the Trust don't want anything to do with the Rescue Group. For the sake of the future of the football club personal grievances should be cast aside. Many years ago it was Doug Embleton who set up the Supporters Trust, did all the ground work and kept everyone informed. Perer Ashmore, and as far as I know Ted Blair were part of this initial group. Then at one AGM for the Trust Doug and Peter were voted off. I don't know the background to it but at the time it was suggested some skulduggery had taken place and that there had been a deliberate attempt to oust them, no idea why as they were Darlington FC through and through.
I'm sure this wasn't the case - I think they didn't put themselves forward for re-election at the 2006 AGM.
hodgie1 - 14th January 2012 14:19:41
eddierowlesbeard wrote:
marskequaker wrote:
It's obvious the Trust don't want anything to do with the Rescue Group. For the sake of the future of the football club personal grievances should be cast aside. Many years ago it was Doug Embleton who set up the Supporters Trust, did all the ground work and kept everyone informed. Perer Ashmore, and as far as I know Ted Blair were part of this initial group. Then at one AGM for the Trust Doug and Peter were voted off. I don't know the background to it but at the time it was suggested some skulduggery had taken place and that there had been a deliberate attempt to oust them, no idea why as they were Darlington FC through and through.
I'm sure this wasn't the case - I think they didn't put themselves forward for re-election at the 2006 AGM.
i was on the board at the time, doug and pete simply decided to stand down, pete continued to do the prediction league, so there wasnt any bad feeling there, so nothing underhand happened, they simply decided not to stand, i did the same thing last may, ian did the same thing the yr before, these things happen
Biff Hitler - 14th January 2012 14:24:42
Perhaps they walked because they were fighting a losing battle with the other board members?Darlo_North - 14th January 2012 14:29:58
I find the statements from the 'Rescue Group' very puzzling and there's a something in the tone and the angle of their messages thats troubling/disconcerting.Fair Play to the 'Rescue Group' for engaging in dialogue (or trying to engage in dialogue) with the various interested parties.... and note I am not questioning or disputing your good intentions but it seems the 'The Trust' have conveniently become the Rescue groups and S&S's perfect fall guys.
‘Don't blame us - blame the trust' is the mantra developing here.... and a majority of readers on this site are joining the chant.
‘We tried to rescue the CLUB but the TRUST wouldn’t answer our phone calls’ – says (spins) the RG.
This 'Group' have stepped forward to Rescue the club armed with expertise and passion, but NO money, (even if they had money it would just delay the inevitable) and precious little time -just days- to research and explore their plan for a sustainable club.
This whole premise is unrealistic. Again fair play to the RG for stepping up to research potential opportunities, but when the administrators give you such a miniscule timeframe to work in, to get all parties on board, research every opportunity available and carry out feasibility studies on each, to oil every nut and bolt of the whole sorry asthmatic machine.... it was surely obvious from the outset -to astute business people- this could not be done.
So the plan was to literally negotiate or 'buy' enough time to carry out this research (£50,000 for a couple of weeks window seems to be the going rate) However (and i am still confused about this so correct me if i'm wrong) it later transpires the money the RG originally didn't have available -but now do- was not suitable so they want the TRUST to stump up FIFTY THOUSND POUNDS (against all rules and regulations) to enable the 'RG' to valiantly continue researching a rescue -with no guarantee of success.
This £50k has become millstone round EVERYONES necks. Its making the Trust look bad. Its making the RG look bad. This £50K won’t buy sufficient time to research a rescue and seek a sustainable solution for the club. It may buy enough time so that continued extensions may be found... but to what end? The club in its current situation, in its current home, is fucked beyond repair!!! -you don’t need £50K and a 2 weeks window to discover that.
In case anyone mistakenly views this as an anti ‘RG’ / pro-Trust post its not. The trust on the surface- has been shabby throughout. The lack of communication and apparent unwillingness to engage with the RG and the fans has brought nothing but rightful criticism.
eddierowlesbeard - 14th January 2012 14:39:46
Biff Hitler wrote:
Perhaps they walked because they were fighting a losing battle with the other board members?
I think you're trying to read far too much into this - sometimes people have other things to do and sometimes you have to let others have a go.
hodgie1 - 14th January 2012 14:42:52
Darlo_North wrote:
I find the statements from the 'Rescue Group' very puzzling and there's a something in the tone and the angle of their messages thats troubling/disconcerting.
Fair Play to the 'Rescue Group' for engaging in dialogue (or trying to engage in dialogue) with the various interested parties.... and note I am not questioning or disputing your good intentions but it seems the 'The Trust' have become the RG's and S&S's perfect fall guys.
‘Don't blame us - blame the trust' is the mantra developing here.... and a majority of readers on this site are joining the chant.
‘We tried to rescue the CLUB but the TRUST wouldn’t answer our phone calls’ – says (spins) the RG.
This 'Group' have stepped forward to Rescue the club armed with expertise and passion, but NO money, (even if they had money it would just delay the inevitable) and precious little time -just days- to research and explore their plan for a sustainable club.
This whole premise is unrealistic. Again fair play to the RG for stepping up to research potential opportunities, but when the administrators give you such a miniscule timeframe to work in, to get all parties on board, research every opportunity available and carry out feasibility studies on each, to oil every nut and bolt of the whole sorry asthmatic machine.... it surely was obvious from the outset to astute business people this could be done.
So the plan was to literally negotiate or 'buy' enough time to carry out this research (£50,000 for a couple of weeks window seems to be the going rate) However (and i am still confused about this so correct me if i'm wrong) it later transpires the money the RG originally didn't have available -but now do- was not suitable so they want the TRUST to stump up FIFTY THOUSND POUNDS (against all rules and regulations) to enable the 'RG' to valiantly continue researching a rescue -with no guarantee of success.
This £50k has become millstone round EVERYONES necks. Its making the Trust look bad. Its making the RG look bad. This £50K won’t buy sufficient time to research a rescue and seek a sustainable solution for the club. It may buy enough time so that continued extensions may be found... but to what end? The club in its current situation, in its current home, is fucked beyond repair!!! -you don’t need £50K and a 2 weeks window to discover that.
In case anyone mistakenly views this as an anti ‘RG’ / pro-Trust post its not. The trust on the surface- has been shabby throughout. The lack of communication and apparent unwillingness to engage with the RG and the fans has brought nothing but rightful criticism.
Fair Play to the 'Rescue Group' for engaging in dialogue (or trying to engage in dialogue) with the various interested parties.... and note I am not questioning or disputing your good intentions but it seems the 'The Trust' have become the RG's and S&S's perfect fall guys.
‘Don't blame us - blame the trust' is the mantra developing here.... and a majority of readers on this site are joining the chant.
‘We tried to rescue the CLUB but the TRUST wouldn’t answer our phone calls’ – says (spins) the RG.
This 'Group' have stepped forward to Rescue the club armed with expertise and passion, but NO money, (even if they had money it would just delay the inevitable) and precious little time -just days- to research and explore their plan for a sustainable club.
This whole premise is unrealistic. Again fair play to the RG for stepping up to research potential opportunities, but when the administrators give you such a miniscule timeframe to work in, to get all parties on board, research every opportunity available and carry out feasibility studies on each, to oil every nut and bolt of the whole sorry asthmatic machine.... it surely was obvious from the outset to astute business people this could be done.
So the plan was to literally negotiate or 'buy' enough time to carry out this research (£50,000 for a couple of weeks window seems to be the going rate) However (and i am still confused about this so correct me if i'm wrong) it later transpires the money the RG originally didn't have available -but now do- was not suitable so they want the TRUST to stump up FIFTY THOUSND POUNDS (against all rules and regulations) to enable the 'RG' to valiantly continue researching a rescue -with no guarantee of success.
This £50k has become millstone round EVERYONES necks. Its making the Trust look bad. Its making the RG look bad. This £50K won’t buy sufficient time to research a rescue and seek a sustainable solution for the club. It may buy enough time so that continued extensions may be found... but to what end? The club in its current situation, in its current home, is fucked beyond repair!!! -you don’t need £50K and a 2 weeks window to discover that.
In case anyone mistakenly views this as an anti ‘RG’ / pro-Trust post its not. The trust on the surface- has been shabby throughout. The lack of communication and apparent unwillingness to engage with the RG and the fans has brought nothing but rightful criticism.
fair post - no-one doubts the RG good intentions - but theyve made the trust look bad when they knew its impossible to hand the money over in 2 days- legally they cant - end of - doug and pete knew that, also releasing the statement, without letting the trust know - i know the say they tried to ring board members, but the 2 board members for reasons out of their control, cant be available 24/7 - sometimes theres more to life, a. looking after a disabled child as well as working full-time, and b. looking after an old man who is ill, than a football club, families must come first, anyone in the same situation would do the same of that i'm certain
Biff Hitler - 14th January 2012 14:59:37
eddierowlesbeard wrote:
Biff Hitler wrote:
Perhaps they walked because they were fighting a losing battle with the other board members?
I think you're trying to read far too much into this - sometimes people have other things to do and sometimes you have to let others have a go.
But Eddie hasn't it been well documented on this board that some individuals were difficult to work with on the Trust board?
shawry - 14th January 2012 15:00:14
hodgie1 wrote:
Darlo_North wrote:
I find the statements from the 'Rescue Group' very puzzling and there's a something in the tone and the angle of their messages thats troubling/disconcerting.
Fair Play to the 'Rescue Group' for engaging in dialogue (or trying to engage in dialogue) with the various interested parties.... and note I am not questioning or disputing your good intentions but it seems the 'The Trust' have become the RG's and S&S's perfect fall guys.
‘Don't blame us - blame the trust' is the mantra developing here.... and a majority of readers on this site are joining the chant.
‘We tried to rescue the CLUB but the TRUST wouldn’t answer our phone calls’ – says (spins) the RG.
This 'Group' have stepped forward to Rescue the club armed with expertise and passion, but NO money, (even if they had money it would just delay the inevitable) and precious little time -just days- to research and explore their plan for a sustainable club.
This whole premise is unrealistic. Again fair play to the RG for stepping up to research potential opportunities, but when the administrators give you such a miniscule timeframe to work in, to get all parties on board, research every opportunity available and carry out feasibility studies on each, to oil every nut and bolt of the whole sorry asthmatic machine.... it surely was obvious from the outset to astute business people this could be done.
So the plan was to literally negotiate or 'buy' enough time to carry out this research (£50,000 for a couple of weeks window seems to be the going rate) However (and i am still confused about this so correct me if i'm wrong) it later transpires the money the RG originally didn't have available -but now do- was not suitable so they want the TRUST to stump up FIFTY THOUSND POUNDS (against all rules and regulations) to enable the 'RG' to valiantly continue researching a rescue -with no guarantee of success.
This £50k has become millstone round EVERYONES necks. Its making the Trust look bad. Its making the RG look bad. This £50K won’t buy sufficient time to research a rescue and seek a sustainable solution for the club. It may buy enough time so that continued extensions may be found... but to what end? The club in its current situation, in its current home, is fucked beyond repair!!! -you don’t need £50K and a 2 weeks window to discover that.
In case anyone mistakenly views this as an anti ‘RG’ / pro-Trust post its not. The trust on the surface- has been shabby throughout. The lack of communication and apparent unwillingness to engage with the RG and the fans has brought nothing but rightful criticism.
Fair Play to the 'Rescue Group' for engaging in dialogue (or trying to engage in dialogue) with the various interested parties.... and note I am not questioning or disputing your good intentions but it seems the 'The Trust' have become the RG's and S&S's perfect fall guys.
‘Don't blame us - blame the trust' is the mantra developing here.... and a majority of readers on this site are joining the chant.
‘We tried to rescue the CLUB but the TRUST wouldn’t answer our phone calls’ – says (spins) the RG.
This 'Group' have stepped forward to Rescue the club armed with expertise and passion, but NO money, (even if they had money it would just delay the inevitable) and precious little time -just days- to research and explore their plan for a sustainable club.
This whole premise is unrealistic. Again fair play to the RG for stepping up to research potential opportunities, but when the administrators give you such a miniscule timeframe to work in, to get all parties on board, research every opportunity available and carry out feasibility studies on each, to oil every nut and bolt of the whole sorry asthmatic machine.... it surely was obvious from the outset to astute business people this could be done.
So the plan was to literally negotiate or 'buy' enough time to carry out this research (£50,000 for a couple of weeks window seems to be the going rate) However (and i am still confused about this so correct me if i'm wrong) it later transpires the money the RG originally didn't have available -but now do- was not suitable so they want the TRUST to stump up FIFTY THOUSND POUNDS (against all rules and regulations) to enable the 'RG' to valiantly continue researching a rescue -with no guarantee of success.
This £50k has become millstone round EVERYONES necks. Its making the Trust look bad. Its making the RG look bad. This £50K won’t buy sufficient time to research a rescue and seek a sustainable solution for the club. It may buy enough time so that continued extensions may be found... but to what end? The club in its current situation, in its current home, is fucked beyond repair!!! -you don’t need £50K and a 2 weeks window to discover that.
In case anyone mistakenly views this as an anti ‘RG’ / pro-Trust post its not. The trust on the surface- has been shabby throughout. The lack of communication and apparent unwillingness to engage with the RG and the fans has brought nothing but rightful criticism.
fair post - no-one doubts the RG good intentions - but theyve made the trust look bad when they knew its impossible to hand the money over in 2 days- legally they cant - end of - doug and pete knew that, also releasing the statement, without letting the trust know - i know the say they tried to ring board members, but the 2 board members for reasons out of their control, cant be available 24/7 - sometimes theres more to life, a. looking after a disabled child as well as working full-time, and b. looking after an old man who is ill, than a football club, families must come first, anyone in the same situation would do the same of that i'm certain
Sorry flip, while I understand the turmoil the trust is in, to say the RG made them look bad is way off, the trust have looked bad for a very long time, there's nothing can be done about that, but they need to get new board members quickly and start engaging not only the trust members, but the wider community as they do need to major players in this
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
ShotleyLodger - 14th January 2012 15:40:26
Don't forget that despite the apparent huge efforts of DFCRG, they have no money to offer. The trust is as bad burnt as blistered here. If it hands over the money, and Darlo still go under, trust members will be furious. By not handing the money over now, they are getting slated. I don't see how DFCRG can plead for the trust fund to be released to keep the club going until the end of the month. It's a massive gamble, and if it doesnt come off, the fund raising has to start all over again.shawry - 14th January 2012 16:10:42
ShotleyLodger wrote:
Don't forget that despite the apparent huge efforts of DFCRG, they have no money to offer. The trust is as bad burnt as blistered here. If it hands over the money, and Darlo still go under, trust members will be furious. By not handing the money over now, they are getting slated. I don't see how DFCRG can plead for the trust fund to be released to keep the club going until the end of the month. It's a massive gamble, and if it doesnt come off, the fund raising has to start all over again.
I don't think anyone is slating the trust for not handing over the cash, it's more because it seems to be unapproachable, something that should be fairly easy to fix
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
wishmaster3211 - 14th January 2012 16:11:11
Wainy247 wrote:
We are so going the way of Scarborough.
there was another thread saying a new club would start up in the Wearside League. Its looking more likely now that that was a bit prescient. A "Phoenix" club in the NPL and a splitter club in the Wearside League. just..........like..............Scarborough
MikeinBlack - 14th January 2012 16:15:52
wishmaster3211 wrote:
Wainy247 wrote:
We are so going the way of Scarborough.
there was another thread saying a new club would start up in the Wearside League. Its looking more likely now that that was a bit prescient. A "Phoenix" club in the NPL and a splitter club in the Wearside League. just..........like..............Scarborough
Making Darlo RA the biggest club in Darlington. Better to give them the £50k to improve their standing and future and give up on the pheonix club idea.
loan_star - 14th January 2012 16:37:02
To be honest I wish the £50k had been used years ago then we woudnt have this stupid argument every time we were in trouble. At least without the £50k we would know exactly where we are and what we need to be doing.MKDarlo - 14th January 2012 17:26:36
Darlo_North wrote:
I find the statements from the 'Rescue Group' very puzzling and there's a something in the tone and the angle of their messages thats troubling/disconcerting.
Fair Play to the 'Rescue Group' for engaging in dialogue (or trying to engage in dialogue) with the various interested parties.... and note I am not questioning or disputing your good intentions but it seems the 'The Trust' have conveniently become the Rescue groups and S&S's perfect fall guys.
‘Don't blame us - blame the trust' is the mantra developing here.... and a majority of readers on this site are joining the chant.
‘We tried to rescue the CLUB but the TRUST wouldn’t answer our phone calls’ – says (spins) the RG.
This 'Group' have stepped forward to Rescue the club armed with expertise and passion, but NO money, (even if they had money it would just delay the inevitable) and precious little time -just days- to research and explore their plan for a sustainable club.
This whole premise is unrealistic. Again fair play to the RG for stepping up to research potential opportunities, but when the administrators give you such a miniscule timeframe to work in, to get all parties on board, research every opportunity available and carry out feasibility studies on each, to oil every nut and bolt of the whole sorry asthmatic machine.... it was surely obvious from the outset -to astute business people- this could not be done.
So the plan was to literally negotiate or 'buy' enough time to carry out this research (£50,000 for a couple of weeks window seems to be the going rate) However (and i am still confused about this so correct me if i'm wrong) it later transpires the money the RG originally didn't have available -but now do- was not suitable so they want the TRUST to stump up FIFTY THOUSND POUNDS (against all rules and regulations) to enable the 'RG' to valiantly continue researching a rescue -with no guarantee of success.
This £50k has become millstone round EVERYONES necks. Its making the Trust look bad. Its making the RG look bad. This £50K won’t buy sufficient time to research a rescue and seek a sustainable solution for the club. It may buy enough time so that continued extensions may be found... but to what end? The club in its current situation, in its current home, is fucked beyond repair!!! -you don’t need £50K and a 2 weeks window to discover that.
In case anyone mistakenly views this as an anti ‘RG’ / pro-Trust post its not. The trust on the surface- has been shabby throughout. The lack of communication and apparent unwillingness to engage with the RG and the fans has brought nothing but rightful criticism.
Fair Play to the 'Rescue Group' for engaging in dialogue (or trying to engage in dialogue) with the various interested parties.... and note I am not questioning or disputing your good intentions but it seems the 'The Trust' have conveniently become the Rescue groups and S&S's perfect fall guys.
‘Don't blame us - blame the trust' is the mantra developing here.... and a majority of readers on this site are joining the chant.
‘We tried to rescue the CLUB but the TRUST wouldn’t answer our phone calls’ – says (spins) the RG.
This 'Group' have stepped forward to Rescue the club armed with expertise and passion, but NO money, (even if they had money it would just delay the inevitable) and precious little time -just days- to research and explore their plan for a sustainable club.
This whole premise is unrealistic. Again fair play to the RG for stepping up to research potential opportunities, but when the administrators give you such a miniscule timeframe to work in, to get all parties on board, research every opportunity available and carry out feasibility studies on each, to oil every nut and bolt of the whole sorry asthmatic machine.... it was surely obvious from the outset -to astute business people- this could not be done.
So the plan was to literally negotiate or 'buy' enough time to carry out this research (£50,000 for a couple of weeks window seems to be the going rate) However (and i am still confused about this so correct me if i'm wrong) it later transpires the money the RG originally didn't have available -but now do- was not suitable so they want the TRUST to stump up FIFTY THOUSND POUNDS (against all rules and regulations) to enable the 'RG' to valiantly continue researching a rescue -with no guarantee of success.
This £50k has become millstone round EVERYONES necks. Its making the Trust look bad. Its making the RG look bad. This £50K won’t buy sufficient time to research a rescue and seek a sustainable solution for the club. It may buy enough time so that continued extensions may be found... but to what end? The club in its current situation, in its current home, is fucked beyond repair!!! -you don’t need £50K and a 2 weeks window to discover that.
In case anyone mistakenly views this as an anti ‘RG’ / pro-Trust post its not. The trust on the surface- has been shabby throughout. The lack of communication and apparent unwillingness to engage with the RG and the fans has brought nothing but rightful criticism.
A very good post - both sides have questions to answer
Darlo Devil - 14th January 2012 11:55:28
HelloDarlo Till I Die. . . . !