Robbie Painter wrote: Martin Gray basically he said he has two investors lined up. They want 51%+ of club. If this doesn't happen & his budget is cut then himself & his management team (& no doubt a lot of the players) will be off at the end of season. 7 days time.
My take on MG's words were that the management team would be gone at the end of the season along with players such as Beck, Ferguson, Syers & Turnbull who he named. But that is the problem - so many different interpretations of what we all heard at the same time.theoriginalfatcat wrote:Robbie Painter wrote: Martin Gray basically he said he has two investors lined up. They want 51%+ of club. If this doesn't happen & his budget is cut then himself & his management team (& no doubt a lot of the players) will be off at the end of season. 7 days time.
That's not how I remember his words. I think you're wrong.
I thought he said that him and his management team would have no choice but to reconsider their positions after about 18 months, if Darlo were caught up in a downward spiral.
Well really why are we bothering then? Basically what that is saying is we can never sustain a club. That isn't exactly an inspiring investment pitch is it?Darlogramps wrote:This is too simplistic. Cut the budget, you cut the quality of the football. We're less competitive meaning attendances drop. Meaning less revenue and another budget loss.
But isn't moving to a new ground that required an outlay to bring it up to standard an exceptional year? Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not party to the accounts - but isn't it fair to assume that expenditure in Year 2 at BW will be less than this year?Its not like we're in a rosy position at the moment, another year of huge operating losses despite hugely increased attendance figures is really tough to stomach.
Obviously I could be mistaken - but - firstly (to paraphrase) I thought he said that if Darlo couldn't push on in the way that he seems fit and he was left struggling and stagnating, then he and his management team would probably split in about 18 months time. As for the players, I took it that they would probably go on a faster time scale. He also mentioned about Blyth/Spenny/H'gate etc all competing for players, and how difficult things for us are about to get.DarloBear wrote:My take on MG's words were that the management team would be gone at the end of the season along with players such as Beck, Ferguson, Syers & Turnbull who he named. But that is the problem - so many different interpretations of what we all heard at the same time.theoriginalfatcat wrote:Robbie Painter wrote: Martin Gray basically he said he has two investors lined up. They want 51%+ of club. If this doesn't happen & his budget is cut then himself & his management team (& no doubt a lot of the players) will be off at the end of season. 7 days time.
That's not how I remember his words. I think you're wrong.
I thought he said that him and his management team would have no choice but to reconsider their positions after about 18 months, if Darlo were caught up in a downward spiral.
Operational losses usually exclude one off expenses and capital expenditure though.boorman wrote:But isn't moving to a new ground that required an outlay to bring it up to standard an exceptional year? Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not party to the accounts - but isn't it fair to assume that expenditure in Year 2 at BW will be less than this year?Its not like we're in a rosy position at the moment, another year of huge operating losses despite hugely increased attendance figures is really tough to stomach.
If that is a fair assumption, then isn't it a bit quick to assume the whole thing's unsustainable?
To me in simple terms we haven't budgeted sensibly at any point since 2012 and up until this point we have got away with it...just in many cases! Yes ambition was always to climb the pyramid but I feel at times this has been at an almost reckless cost. When you budget there is a fine line between investing to continue growth and sustainability (I.e. promotions and squad improvements) but there should always be an element of caution on uncertain factors (I.e. what if attendances don't improve, alongside the added costs of success).Darlogramps wrote:This is incorrect. 30k was because of reduced income (BM gates being lower than anticipated), 35k was because of additional costs (in particular, having to have employed safety officers on matchdays), with a 15k carry over.lo36789 wrote: The loss was made up of £30k lower revenues, £35k overspend on playing budget, £15k carried forward from previous season.
In the actual return home to Darlo year (not a full season) we lost £65k.
£35k of that was because of an overspend on budget.
And you can't magic away the 15k, as you've tried to do. It still needs to be dealt with.
You stated the overspend was down to MG. This is again incorrect. There are several factors which made it up, the board stated as much.
If anything, it seems the overspend was down more to the board setting the playing budget too high.
This is too simplistic. Cut the budget, you cut the quality of the football. We're less competitive meaning attendances drop. Meaning less revenue and another budget loss.lo36789 wrote: If we reduce that out we are instantly down to £30k in terms of where revenues were budgeted at and where they ended up.
It was stated that 500 fans would be £100k per year. 150 fans would be extra £30k.
And what about any additional costs? Every year something seems to have cropped up.
And another factor. We've got a high number of concessions, especially younger people. This is great but obviously doesn't pay as much as a full adult ticket.
That's why saying 150 extra fans = £30k is far too simplistic, and I hate it when anybody throws figures around like this.
Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
Spot on VicVodka_Vic wrote:My worry is BM. No guarantees of it being OK for EFL.
Basically, yes.lo36789 wrote:Well really why are we bothering then? Basically what that is saying is we can never sustain a club. That isn't exactly an inspiring investment pitch is it?Darlogramps wrote:This is too simplistic. Cut the budget, you cut the quality of the football. We're less competitive meaning attendances drop. Meaning less revenue and another budget loss.
If you spend and performances improve you still can't generate the revenue to meet it.
If you cut your cloth your performances decline and your revenue reduces.
This seems to be the key thing. Previously the fans had no say in the selection of dodgy charlatans who came in and held power over the club.Darlogramps wrote: If the investors are sensible, and there are safeguards + fan oversight, I don't see why changing ownership structure is necessarily negative.
But until we know who the investors are and what their plan is, no one can say either way.
To be quite honest that spenny fan wants a smacklo36789 wrote:Yes as said at the forum we own the stands etc. we own the parts of the ground. Don't know why I am wasting time on a spennymoor fan on a permanent wind up - if there is one benefit of an investor and a return to the FL you will become completely irrelevant once again.
If the worst happened again, then we are done it's over they will be no coming back a 2nd time.dfc4me wrote:At the moment we have a board of ONE. If he goes we are completely scuppered because, after the past week and last night in particular, the chances of anyone else stepping forward are about zero. The cost of being in this league, both in money and time required, is higher than most of us realised. IF we let investors in it should allow the DFCSG to retain all the monies it currently hands over to the club ( membership fees, lottery money and repayment of the £100K loan ) which would give us a substantial fund to fall back on if the worst did happen.
I agree. Actually the DFCSG are the corporate director of the football club so if JT did step down then the DFCSG would be left holding the reins but, that aside, I was wondering if there would be any way to build in an asset lock into any agreement which allows new investors to come in.super_les_mcjannet wrote:If the worst happened again, then we are done it's over they will be no coming back a 2nd time.dfc4me wrote:At the moment we have a board of ONE. If he goes we are completely scuppered because, after the past week and last night in particular, the chances of anyone else stepping forward are about zero. The cost of being in this league, both in money and time required, is higher than most of us realised. IF we let investors in it should allow the DFCSG to retain all the monies it currently hands over to the club ( membership fees, lottery money and repayment of the £100K loan ) which would give us a substantial fund to fall back on if the worst did happen.
This next decision is that serious and both options have no guarantee whatever anyone says.
It would be interesting to see the financial projections / assumptions that have been made for the coming 12 months.MG refers to his budget being cut by £85000 so they must be out there.m62exile wrote:Operational losses usually exclude one off expenses and capital expenditure though.boorman wrote:But isn't moving to a new ground that required an outlay to bring it up to standard an exceptional year? Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not party to the accounts - but isn't it fair to assume that expenditure in Year 2 at BW will be less than this year?Its not like we're in a rosy position at the moment, another year of huge operating losses despite hugely increased attendance figures is really tough to stomach.
If that is a fair assumption, then isn't it a bit quick to assume the whole thing's unsustainable?
Unfortunately you are right.super_les_mcjannet wrote:If the worst happened again, then we are done it's over they will be no coming back a 2nd time.dfc4me wrote:At the moment we have a board of ONE. If he goes we are completely scuppered because, after the past week and last night in particular, the chances of anyone else stepping forward are about zero. The cost of being in this league, both in money and time required, is higher than most of us realised. IF we let investors in it should allow the DFCSG to retain all the monies it currently hands over to the club ( membership fees, lottery money and repayment of the £100K loan ) which would give us a substantial fund to fall back on if the worst did happen.
This next decision is that serious and both options have no guarantee whatever anyone says.
Sorry but thats crap. Spenny rely on Groves to bail them out, he is their benefactor. They can't afford what they are doing on their crowds. FFS they can't even raise £7k to replace some seats on their own.dickdarlington wrote:Look at Spenny. Took their time at NL and appear to be structured correctly. Provided that there is a long term plan, and it's implemented in a constructed way, a couple of seasons or so at this level may be beneficial to the next step.
How is mid table obscurity and relegation because we spent within our means not sustainability?grimsbyquaker wrote:From following tonight's events prior to MG's rousing speech it seems clear that the club is knackered. This season sees us in a false position and next year the proposed budget cut (£85k) would see us unable to compete with Blyth, Spennymoor and Harrogate let alone the bigger clubs from the north west. As MG said, it'd be mid table obscurity followed by relegation pretty soon after...a big price to pay for sticking to principles. That is not sustainability
He also has his reputation to lose too, what would people think of him if his investor did the dirty on us?lo36789 wrote:MG has no risk attached though. There is only gain for him. You do realise if he gets us to the FL if the investor goes he will get another job. All the while an investor will pay his salary. The higher we go the bigger his pay packet gets and he continues to have his business operating in the background.
Yep, fair point re: the meaning of "operational". But now it just moves me onto a similar point, i.e. shouldn't we see how the team does when it costs £85,000-per year less to put together?MCFCDarlo3 wrote:It would be interesting to see the financial projections / assumptions that have been made for the coming 12 months.MG refers to his budget being cut by £85000 so they must be out there.m62exile wrote:Operational losses usually exclude one off expenses and capital expenditure though.boorman wrote:But isn't moving to a new ground that required an outlay to bring it up to standard an exceptional year? Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not party to the accounts - but isn't it fair to assume that expenditure in Year 2 at BW will be less than this year?Its not like we're in a rosy position at the moment, another year of huge operating losses despite hugely increased attendance figures is really tough to stomach.
If that is a fair assumption, then isn't it a bit quick to assume the whole thing's unsustainable?
Did DFCSG have access and input into them? I think based on the fact directors are leaving we need to be involved in how they were put together as part of the process in deciding ownership.A starting point surely.
There are a few people on here who have had previous experience in budget setting to run the rule over these assumptions and resultant figures.
The trouble is that we've had investors three times in the last 20 years and it's always ended in tears.Darlogramps wrote: To say investment = inevitable implosion is patronising and wrong. Who's to say the investors won't be more like Graham Wood/the Bennetts at Gateshead, or Brad Groves at Spennymoor?
The only time we have had an investor with money to burn was Reynolds. However he was a fruitcake and wasted the money on something that was never going to work. Houghton was only interested in the land around the arena, and as for Singh, who knows what his motivation was?Quakerz wrote:The trouble is that we've had investors three times in the last 20 years and it's always ended in tears.Darlogramps wrote: To say investment = inevitable implosion is patronising and wrong. Who's to say the investors won't be more like Graham Wood/the Bennetts at Gateshead, or Brad Groves at Spennymoor?
Where are the rich people who just want to waste a load of their money just for the fuck of it?
At other clubs, we will never be that lucky.
Coming in to Darlo to propel us up to the league would cost millions.
As long as it can be developed to Conf National standard then that will be good enough for the next decade.HarrytheQuaker wrote:Spot on VicVodka_Vic wrote:My worry is BM. No guarantees of it being OK for EFL.
