Newest Message: 2,894 at Tadcaster tonight by Stuart Hamill’s silky skills on 21/1/2019, 23:27:12 - View Thread

14

Thread: 91828

Jerome Slew by Mike Sims

Posted: 7/10/2018 at 11:29:19, 264 views.

Noticed in the non league paper that he is playing for Wealdstone in the national league south.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a02:c7d:4126:e000:5

re Slew by runningman

Posted: 7/10/2018 at 12:22:06, 263 views. In reply to 'Jerome Slew'

I liked him I thought he offered something a bit different.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 86.166.123.35

re Slew by Eastbourne Seadog User: Eastbourne Seadog

Posted: 7/10/2018 at 18:09:41, 188 views. In reply to 're Slew'

Think he has recently moved up as was at Northwood or someone similar

Nick Pocknall

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a01:4c8:43e:6fc:c52

Thread: 91827

Video interview after Stafford by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 22:31:15, 221 views.

https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/video-interview-with-scarborough-athletic-boss-steve-kittrick-after-the-win-at-stafford-1-9384658

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 92.30.253.46

Thread: 91826

Full-Time Scores in Evo-Stik Premier Div by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:54:24, 237 views.

Lancaster City 1-1 Basford Utd Att: 216

Matlock Town 0-0 Hyde Utd Att: 448

Nantwich Town 2-1 Farsley Celtic Att: 335

North Ferriby Utd 1-2 Stalybridge Celtic Att: 155

South Shields 5-0 Grantham Town Att: 1,382

Stafford Rangers 1-3 Scarborough Ath Att: 601

Whitby Town 2-1 Bamber Bridge Att: 264

Edited on 06/10/18 at 22:15:39
  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a02:c7f:3827:8300:d

RE: Full-Time Scores in Evo-Stik Premier Div by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 17:02:17, 180 views. In reply to 'Full-Time Scores in Evo-Stik Premier Div'

By my reckoning that puts us level on points and goal difference with Basford at the top of the league. I guess they’ll get top spot on more goals scored.

Warrington won in the FA Cup so hopefully they get distracted by their cup run.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a02:c7f:3827:8300:d

RE: RE: Full-Time Scores in Evo-Stik Premier Div by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 17:07:14, 204 views. In reply to 'RE: Full-Time Scores in Evo-Stik Premier Div'

No Basford drew today with bottom of the table Lancs. We were on level points so we now are 2 points above them and 1 point above Warrington who have 2 games in hand over us. I make us Top.

Also good to see Bamber, Grantham & Farsley all losing. They are all a threat with their games in hand. The playoff places are looking to be so competitive.

Edited on 06/10/18 at 17:12:53
  • Reply
  • IP Address: 95.144.22.154

RE: RE: RE: Full-Time Scores in Evo-Stik Premier Div by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 17:10:53, 177 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Full-Time Scores in Evo-Stik Premier Div'

Yeah, sorry you’re right. My dodgy maths. We’re now top of the league!

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a02:c7f:3827:8300:d

We are top of the league say we are top of the league by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 21:03:09, 200 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Full-Time Scores in Evo-Stik Premier Div'

cracking day out at a breezy Stafford. Nice ground. Tommy made a great save from a free kick but the resulting corner yielded their equaliser. But we bounced straight back to lead at the break, and then with the wind in our favour generally controlled the second half. Having lost to them in the cup in 2006 and the trophy in 2004 I assume this is the first time we’ve beaten Stafford since the famous 1986-87 conference winning season

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.172

Thread: 91825

Any updates from Stafford by Sniffer User: Sniffer

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 15:32:33, 162 views.

Anyone got any update from Stafford?

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 188.29.165.106

1-0 Boro Brooksby 2 mins ago by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 15:33:03, 136 views. In reply to 'Any updates from Stafford'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.249

1-0 Boro Brooksby 2 mins ago by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 15:33:13, 131 views. In reply to 'Any updates from Stafford'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.249

1-1 now by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 15:40:13, 131 views. In reply to '1-0 Boro Brooksby 2 mins ago'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.66.45.82

2-1 Boro Wally by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 15:43:11, 145 views. In reply to '1-1 now'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.66.45.82

There was no coverage earlier on YCR Extra by Sniffer User: Sniffer

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 15:52:06, 159 views. In reply to '2-1 Boro Wally'

There is now, but the commentator’s voice is drowned out by the noise from the crowd

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 188.29.165.106

other HTs local interest by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:02:03, 171 views. In reply to 'There was no coverage earlier on YCR Extra'

Whitby 1 Bamber Bridge 1
Pickering 0 Gresley 1
F.A. Cup Brackley 0 Marine 3

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.66.45.82

3-1 Boro Burgess with header by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:12:01, 135 views. In reply to 'other HTs local interest'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.66.45.82

RE: There was no coverage earlier on YCR Extra by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:36:43, 149 views. In reply to 'There was no coverage earlier on YCR Extra'

They seem to be plagued with technical problems today.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 94.2.204.126

More Local Scores by Sniffer User: Sniffer

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:12:45, 149 views. In reply to 'Any updates from Stafford'

Wisbech 1 Tadcaster 2
FA Cup: York 1 St Ives 0

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 188.29.165.106

and these by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:15:09, 141 views. In reply to 'More Local Scores'

Pikes 0 Gresley2

Brackley 2 Marine 3 FA Cup

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.66.45.82

more by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:23:56, 130 views. In reply to 'and these'

Pikes 0 Gresley 3
Stalybridge 1 North Ferriby 1

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.244

Latest: Lancaster City 1-1 Basford Utd by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:38:13, 133 views. In reply to 'more'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 94.2.204.126

Att 601 at Stafford by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:39:25, 142 views. In reply to 'Latest: Lancaster City 1-1 Basford Utd'

Pikes 2 Gresley 3

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.158.71

latest scores by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:42:15, 184 views. In reply to 'Att 601 at Stafford'

S Shields 4 Grantham 0
Whitby 2 B Bridge 1

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.158.71

full time 3-1 Boro by Old Git

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:55:30, 170 views. In reply to 'latest scores'

S Shields 5 Grantham 0
Matlock 0 Hyde 0
Nantwich 2 Farsley 1
North Ferriby 1 Stalybridge 2
Lancaster 1 Basford 1

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.66.45.82

full time 3-1 Boro by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 17:01:27, 159 views. In reply to 'full time 3-1 Boro'

Doesn’t that put Boro top although teams do have games in hand.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 95.144.22.154

Thread: 91824

League Cup 2nd Round: Boro home to Whitby by Seadog Update User: Seadog Update

Posted: 4/10/2018 at 19:49:11, 261 views.

W/C 29 Oct

www.twitter.com/seadogupdate

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.166

in other words Tuesday 30th October by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 4/10/2018 at 22:26:34, 222 views. In reply to 'League Cup 2nd Round: Boro home to Whitby'

seeing as we know full well what our midweek matchday is ;-)

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 92.30.254.53

RE: in other words Tuesday 30th October by Athletico Seadog

Posted: 4/10/2018 at 23:50:58, 223 views. In reply to 'in other words Tuesday 30th October'

Unless there is a fa trophy replay

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.249

oh yes good point by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 5/10/2018 at 00:06:06, 202 views. In reply to 'RE: in other words Tuesday 30th October'

I suppose we might exceed our usual expectations in the Trophy and sneak a replay!!

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.52

Thread: 91823

Project EFL by Dewsbury User: Dewsbury

Posted: 4/10/2018 at 16:20:05, 287 views.

Right, let’s try this for the 3rd time (previous efforts swallowed by Mr Smith’s over-zealous spam filter…)

Has anybody seen this?

https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/non-league/south-shields-fc-launch-ambitious-project-to-get-into-football-league-1-9379824

Edited on 04/10/18 at 16:31:58
  • Reply
  • IP Address: 86.19.6.146

One quote by Cynic/ autumn grinch

Posted: 4/10/2018 at 16:27:38, 277 views. In reply to 'Project EFL'

‘Imagine how brilliant it would be to reach the Football League.’

For a short while, but it’s that not that great/different. It’s still two teams playing against each other.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.52

Genuine question by jason bourne User: jason bourne

Posted: 4/10/2018 at 22:16:08, 283 views. In reply to 'One quote'

I’ve read the article - although I’ve no idea whether Geoff Thompson is speaking as Chairman / owner, or Chairman / figurehead (like Trevor).

I have no issue with him outlining his ambition for the club. I’m sure many supporters have similar aspirations (and possibly greater still) for SAFC. Without ambition though, we would struggle to attract the right quality of player, the right Management team, encourage greater local business participation, and an even larger supporter (and ownership) base. Who’d want to be involved if they knew we were just going through the motions? The thing is, I can’t see us achieving those ambitions without changes to the club’s ownership structure.

A couple of years back, at the Corporation Club, SK mentioned Conference North, and a wage bill of £9k p.wk. (If my memory serves me right). I can’t see us generating that sort of cash through the turnstyle, extra sponsorship, golden goal tickets, which in itself provides a ceiling to what might be achievable. It’s 3 times our player wage bill now - based on the last lot of figures. Please don’t give me the Barcelona excuse. We’re a small town by the seaside, with half our catchment area, water, sand, fish and plastic! To that end, to match our ambition, we may need to consider changes and a goodbye to the principles of 100% fan ownership - With safeguards in place obviously.

I accept that won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, but if we retain those ambitions, at some point we could well be faced with a question.

Ambition or Principles?

Regards

Jason

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 88.105.245.72

RE: Genuine question by snainton seadog User: snainton seadog

Posted: 5/10/2018 at 00:34:56, 260 views. In reply to 'Genuine question'

Are you suggesting directors loans, philanthropy or someone looking to make a profit?

What is this amazing alternative you propose?

-- UP THE BORO

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.158.71

RE: RE: Genuine question by jason bourne User: jason bourne

Posted: 5/10/2018 at 11:21:21, 270 views. In reply to 'RE: Genuine question'

Bit prickly there, Smithy lad. Who jerked your chain?

Have another read. Dewsbury posted the link (without comment!) and I felt is was good and right that GT outlined his ambitions for his club. Haven’t had a look at our Business Plan recently mind, but I’m sure we have similar ambition. Even if we never achieve that, it is something to aspire to. Assuming we have ambition to progress up the Leagues, the point I was making, was that I can’t see us funding Conference North even (at the said £9k p.wk) without SOMETHING changing. In my opinion, our resource opportunity is limited through our supporter / ownership base as it stands, and we MAY be faced with a choice to make. I wanted to know if this choice is acceptable or not.

Bear in mind Conference North is not beyond our grasp in the very near future. No point addressing that funding gap when it’s upon you.

If it is acceptable to bring someone (individual or group) in - how we do that, and how it is funded, is a discussion for another time, and needs a much wider audience and participation than the traffic through this site these days. Certainly NOT Directors Loans mind.

If it isn’t acceptable what’s YOUR amazing alternative to find that extra £6k per week………………………just to take us up one level?

Jason

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 79.74.37.186

RE: RE: RE: Genuine question by joshlawrance User: joshlawrance

Posted: 5/10/2018 at 13:01:15, 240 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Genuine question'

I’ve always thought 25-40% ownership would be a good amount to open to investors but they only get a vote on a board decisions, the fan ownership retain deciding vote and have the populous.

this wouldn’t be for a long time yet and you would only consider it after seeing if we can maintain it ourselves.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.130

RE: RE: RE: RE: Genuine question by Terry Hope

Posted: 5/10/2018 at 13:11:32, 244 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Genuine question'

If it continues well on the pitch and the stand materialises conference north could be next season. Ownership and hence funding is a current day issue not something for the future. JB has a valid point in that it is difficult to envisage generating enough income to sustain a competitive step 1/2 playing squad even with the herculean efforts of the current board and volunteers. It needs discussion but perhaps the current Board already have.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.166

RE: Genuine question by Dewsbury User: Dewsbury

Posted: 5/10/2018 at 17:40:02, 230 views. In reply to 'Genuine question'

What other sources of income would be available to us if we were not fan-owned?

Simon Cope - Was Chair Of Something Some Time Ago

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.130

RE: RE: Genuine question by Tree User: Tree

Posted: 5/10/2018 at 18:37:22, 264 views. In reply to 'RE: Genuine question'

That was rather my thinking too. Why would a change of ownership model make a difference? I don’t dismiss the possibility of that change, but I’d need to be convinced of the benefits.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 82.30.88.118

RE: RE: Genuine question by jason bourne User: jason bourne

Posted: 5/10/2018 at 20:53:38, 296 views. In reply to 'RE: Genuine question'

ANY source of income, would surely be greater than we have now. We would just need to be careful how we obtain that. (coming back to that)

Let’s turn your (and Tree’s) points around for a minute. Let’s do nothing / change nothing - just retain the status quo. Let’s imagine for one second, that SK and team have ambition, and achieve this or a subsequent year, a further promotion. Without a change to the ownership structure, how do you propose to fund that potential £6k p.wk gap? I don’t want to get into figures here, but if we average another 500 on the gate, and put the price up a couple of quid, extra bar takings, golden gamble etc that would be say £6k………………………….every 2 weeks. That’s half way. Where’s the rest? And if we then say ‘but were not bothered about going further’ - that extra income would drop off a cliff.

What’s wrong with POTENTIALLY ’selling’ some of the equity in the Club, to the right party, who could fund the increased wage bill? No overall control, no loans that can be called in later. Just ’someone’ interested in furthering the football club. Do they exist? Maybe. But we won’t know till we explore that, and there’s no point doing that, if the ownership base would just turn that down out of hand.

The Board may have explored that already, who knows. We could always wait till the last minute and wing it.

The question remains, without the means to fund that wage increase ourselves, and to retain an ambitious outlook for the future, would you consider a change to the ownership structure that, with safeguards, could fund the sort of ambition put into print by the Chairman of South Shields?

Regards as always.

Jason

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.172

RE: RE: RE: Genuine question by Tree User: Tree

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 11:57:59, 241 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Genuine question'

In essence what you are proposing (correct me if I’m wrong) is some sort of shared ownership model; selling part of the equity of the club to someone willing to hand over their cash for no return other than potentially seeing the club progress.

I’d certainly be willing to consider that - with some reservations - but, obviously, it would depend what was on the table. I don’t know of any such arrangement out there at present - that’s not to say there aren’t any. Experience suggests that ‘philanthropists’ spending money on football clubs tend to want ownership and control.

Sustainability is a key issue for me, we’ve been in competition with plenty of clubs supported by benefactors who get bored or disenchanted when things don’t run as smoothly as they imagine and the money suddenly dries up, leaving the club in a mess. So, there would need to be some form of guarantee of income over an extended period of time. Allied to that, I think that any arrangement (and related income) would need to be targeted at promoting long-term, stable income growth, helping the club to develop new and sustainable revenue streams. I am, I confess, naturally averse to the ’sugar daddy’ model of football club ownership, throwing money at ‘better’ (or at least better paid) footballers than clubs can otherwise afford amounts, in my book at least, to financial doping. In that sense, non-league football is something of the ‘Wild West’, and we need to remember that the Football League is increasingly wary of clubs run on this basis. League Two clubs are limited to spending 55% of their income on player wages.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 82.30.88.118

Another genuine question for Tree by Cynic

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 13:41:54, 166 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Genuine question'

Any idea if there are any issues about how ‘income’ is defined for that 55% Tree?

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 80.41.66.63

RE: Another genuine question for Tree by Tree User: Tree

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:23:02, 154 views. In reply to 'Another genuine question for Tree'

Off the top of my head it is all revenues, so gates, TV money, sponsorship etc. As I recall, that can include ‘donations’ from an owner, but they do have to be donations, not loans.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.130

RE: RE: RE: RE: Genuine question by dogtanian User: dogtanian

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 13:43:11, 186 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Genuine question'

We should be aiming for the premiership and champions league. Kittrick out!

Oh sorry, I thought this was the Facebook page for a moment

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.130

RE: RE: RE: Genuine question by Dewsbury unreg

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 14:16:29, 190 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Genuine question'

So basically your suggestion is raising capital, but instead of investing that in something long term (buildings, a stand, facilities etc), burn through it as wages? And when that money runs out, what do you do? Can’t see that getting my vote, sorry.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.200.15.231

Club’s ambition by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 14:58:50, 202 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Genuine question'

When it is talked of ambition for the club - and I am not knocking ambition - but ambition to what exactly? We can not continually deem ambition to mean promotion otherwise that would mean not being happy until we challenged for the Champions league. My interpretation of ambition would be to reach as high a level as we can sustainably support and then do better than expected with the players we can afford. Look at our past years and the clubs that have done better than us each year with far less finances. Personally I have enjoyed these past 11 years immensely at each level and far more than when I first started following the club after moving over here in 1995 whilst in a much higher league. Although I will always want the best for the club, I have no false dreams of being in a league we can’t sustain. I guess the skill of the manager is getting the best players possible with similar to our present wage bill levels. We don’t have to be Lemmings.

Good luck today lads. UTB.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 95.144.22.154

RE: Club’s ambition by Tree User: Tree

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 16:27:13, 165 views. In reply to 'Club’s ambition'

Agreed. I’ve enjoyed twenty something years of non-league much more than I did league football. Every club has its ceiling in terms of revenue, you just have to try to get as close to that ceiling as you can and use the resource as effectively as possible.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.130

RE: RE: RE: RE: Genuine question by Tree User: Tree

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 18:14:15, 196 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: Genuine question'

I think, in any case, there’s lots more that can still be achieved without any need to change the current model. We shouldn’t forget, too, that the club already has several hundred ‘philanthropists’ making ongoing investment. I think that’s important in itself; the notion of Boro being a community club, owned by the community is key. I’d argue it makes it a more attractive offer for potential sponsors, and it also means we as fans are more inclined to lend our support.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.189

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Genuine question by jason bourne User: jason bourne

Posted: 6/10/2018 at 19:46:44, 192 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: Genuine question'

Cheers Gents.

Time to close this thread down though eh?

If Trevor was to make a statement similar to GT, what would it say?

Tree - that summary is about right. I’m not saying I don’t have reservations, but in the right circumstances and protection in place etc - I’d consider it. Dewsbury, No, not the input of a chunk of money and when its gone, its gone. Regular commitment to covering ongoing expenses. It would need plenty of due diligence etc to make sure it was the right fit / character / means etc. In my mind, we’d ’sell’ a proportion of the club for a nominal figure on a legal written agreement that if they ever wanted to walk away a) they’d have to give x months notice and b) we’d get first option to buy the share back for the same nominal figure. As I said previously, no money going in as a loan, and no overall control.

I accept we need to try maximise our revenue streams, I’m just not sure what those might be that would generate the sort of sums required. Speaking with Board members at the North Ferriby game, I understand that progress is now being made with the new stand. BUT we’re improving a site that isn’t ours. Apart from filling it with more supporters once a fortnight, we’ll rarely be using it to generate those extra funds.

We’ve had a great ride so far, and all without a sugar daddy - so why change a model that has worked ok so far? Can’t knock that argument if I’m honest.

BUT how will we all feel if, come the end of the season, we remain top and achieve that promotion? (apart from incredibly happy and excited!) SK goes to the Board in May and says that wef 1st July, to be competitive we need to fund a wage bill of £9k p.wk. Trevor turns round and says (politely) no chance, and SK walks, saying something on the lines of I’ve taken you as far as I can and/or the club don’t match my ambitions.

Yes I have mixed feelings, and some concerns. I just don’t want to discount a change to our ownership structure out of hand.

Regards all.

Jason

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 78.145.165.141

Re:re::re:re::re:Genuine Question by BoroNo7 User: BoroNo7

Posted: 7/10/2018 at 09:41:09, 206 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Genuine question'

Jason et al

Jason was right to raise this question in the first place as progress on the field brings with it the need for decisions about the future structure and funding of the Club and we do need to be going forward with our eyes open “ no surprises”

The subsequent discussion on here covers in my view most of the relevant issues but I’m not sure there is any clear majority for any given course of action , the Board face some difficult times - they need our full support !

I think most people would agree the crux of our dilemma was contained in Jason’s original post :-

Ambition or Principles ?

Sadly too many Clubs,and SFC was sadly one,have suffered the drastic consequences of a lack of integrity in those who owned their Clubs in the past, what we are seeking is very elusive - Ambition with Principles - answers on a postcard please to the Board

UTB

Edited on 07/10/18 at 10:20:14
  • Reply
  • IP Address: 92.40.249.58

RE: Re:re::re:re::re:Genuine Question by Dewsbury User: Dewsbury

Posted: 8/10/2018 at 11:39:34, 217 views. In reply to 'Re:re::re:re::re:Genuine Question'

Ambition vs Principles

Well, congratulations are due to Mr Bourne for convincing us that this is a straight choice between ambition and principles, and that if we choose to stay as fan-owned we are somehow lacking in ambition…forgive me if I don’t quite buy into this false dichotomy that he has created.

His premise is that there is a magic money tree of individuals willing to gift money to the club, if only we were to allow them the ability to own share in the club. And that they would have to keep gifting the club money for the duration of their ownership of those shares. Quite what these individuals would get in return for this generosity isn’t quite made clear by our learned financial friend. However, let’s play along with this idea. For argument’s sake, say we set up a new limited liability company, and hived off 10% of the shares in this manner. An individual owning 10% of the club would have no shareholder influence, as the remaining 90% would be owned by us. Would anybody be really interested in this arrangement? If so, how many of these people exist that would be willing to contribute on an ongoing basis for no return? And - if they do exist - would they not be willing to donate money even without having a shareholding?

I would argue that generally speaking, the sugar-daddy type people that get involved in football clubs to financially subsidise them do so mainly for the benefit of their own ego. There are very few cases of philanthropy in football these days. If someone is putting large chunks of cash in - genuinely as a gift, not as loans - that person will want a majority shareholding in the club.

I get that as we go higher, our budget needs to increase. However, rather than immediately jumping towards changing our ownership structure as a solution, would it not be more sensible to look at each income stream the club has, and see what could be done to maximise each of those first? I feel like we’ve missed out a large chunk of discussion about finances, and landed in the “fan ownership is holding us back" camp.

Simon Cope - Was Chair Of Something Some Time Ago

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 62.7.64.69

RE: RE: Re:re::re:re::re:Genuine Question by jason bourne User: jason bourne

Posted: 8/10/2018 at 17:12:43, 186 views. In reply to 'RE: Re:re::re:re::re:Genuine Question'

‘dichotomy’ - apologies, I had to look that up first!

I’m not sure why, but every time I read something serious and substantial from you, on any subject, I feel as though I’m being lectured by an idealist!

Anyway - Referring back to my original post, I said ‘…………………. at some point we could well be faced with a question. Ambition or Principles?’ For me, that’ at some point’, is now. For you obviously not. If you feel we’ve missed a large chunk of a discussion about finances, then let’s get on with it - because time marches on. Not on here mind, but the stark reality is, we could be months away from needing extra money.

I’ve one post left on here, and I’ve reserved that for the Audited Accounts - so I’ll close now, and won’t reply further. However, one last point of order if I may. This ‘learned financial friend’ is now a retired learned financial friend :-)

Best wishes.

Jason

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.189

RE: RE: RE: Re:re::re:re::re:Genuine Question by seadogx (the original one)

Posted: 8/10/2018 at 18:34:20, 196 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Re:re::re:re::re:Genuine Question'

“financial doping" or “philanthropy" in non-league football ends up going wrong far more often than not, so I am not sure who the “idealists" are on this thread.

you say we are months away from “needing" more money, presumably the 9k we need to gain promotion from conf north. if that worked we would then need whatever salford are paying to get out of the conference and on it goes..

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.45

RE: RE: RE: Re:re::re:re::re:Genuine Question by Dewsbury User: Dewsbury

Posted: 10/10/2018 at 19:02:47, 171 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: Re:re::re:re::re:Genuine Question'

With due apology to your desire to close this discussion…

If I were intending to be idealist, I would have just posted banging the “it’s 100% fan ownership or nothing" drum, and not addressed anything of substance…however I thought I was being rather pragmatic in pricking your restructuring balloon with substantive points.

Anyway, onto the meat of the discussion. I see you have ignored my opinion that you are creating a false choice between ambition and principles and just carried on ploughing that furrow regardless, this time claiming that I don’t feel the “time is now". Actually, the time is always now if we’re talking about finding additional income to feed the never-ending arms race that is a football manager’s wage demands…

I’ll ask you again - why have you jumped straight to the conclusion that we need to change the club ownership model? Please answer that straight question. If you could also address the points I raised in my last post about the scarcity of men with large wallets growing on magic money trees, then even better.

Simon Cope - Was Chair Of Something Some Time Ago

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.158.71

Thread: 91822

Help! Transport Required by SAFC Admin

Posted: 4/10/2018 at 10:25:15, 242 views.

Is anybody able to assist in taking a gentleman from Stafford to Manchester Airport following Saturday’s game please?

Norwegian Seadog is flying out.

Thank you in advance

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 82.132.239.169

Re: Transport by Viking Seadog

Posted: 4/10/2018 at 14:16:53, 226 views. In reply to 'Help! Transport Required'

Hi!
I’m fine with someone that can take me to Stafford railway station. There are direct trains to Manchester Picadilly leaving 17:28 or 18:28
Up the Boro!

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 91.85.78.129

READ your facebook messages please Are by gamblegirl

Posted: 4/10/2018 at 15:13:48, 209 views. In reply to 'Re: Transport'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.189

Thread: 91821

BUXTON v SOUTH SHIELDS last night’s highlights by Old Git

Posted: 3/10/2018 at 21:30:27, 200 views.

That pitch looks familiar and you can pick your spot for the BORO visit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zYkvApBqgE&feature=youtu.be

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.90.11.116

Thread: 91820

BORO v WITTON match report Northwich Guardian by Old Git

Posted: 3/10/2018 at 20:59:24, 215 views.

https://www.northwichguardian.co.uk/sport/16958388.goals-from-set-pieces-sink-witton-albion-at-scarborough/

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.90.11.116

Thread: 91819

Elections… by snainton seadog User: snainton seadog

Posted: 3/10/2018 at 20:33:29, 174 views.

I wonder if we’ll get any new candidates this year?

I think it’s important to remember that whilst the current board are doing a great job they’re all still volunteers, and the burden of running the club cannot be underestimated. Let’s hope a few more people come forward to help out, whether its as a board member or just offering time and support.

We can’t get complacent just because we’re home and doing well on the pitch.

-- UP THE BORO

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.34

Have you ever moaned at what the club does or doesn’t do? by seadogx

Posted: 4/10/2018 at 00:14:55, 256 views. In reply to 'Elections…'

Think you can do bettter?

1. Have you volunteered yet?
2. Are you a trust member? If yes please see below. If no, from £15 per year, this could be the gateway to making a difference to our club and eachother.
3. Volunteer in it’s highest form, apply to sit on the Board of Directors.

Role of a Director:
Solve a range of problems on a daily basis in your own time.

Additional Information:
Not for the faint hearted but much needed to move our club forward. Those with medical issues should seek a doctor before taking office.

Apply within.

Up the Boro

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 78.151.49.122

Thread: 91818

Gooda interview after win against Witton by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 2/10/2018 at 23:51:42, 252 views.

https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/video-interview-with-scarborough-athletic-scorer-bailey-gooda-after-the-witton-success-1-9377727

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.166

Thread: 91817

Kittrick interview after win against Witton by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 2/10/2018 at 23:51:11, 173 views.

https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/video-interview-with-scarborough-athletic-boss-steve-kittrick-after-the-witton-win-1-9377714

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.166

Thread: 91816

Tonight by Cynic

Posted: 2/10/2018 at 21:56:46, 239 views.

Hard fought win - Witton very organised and difficult to break down. Everybody worked hard for the team.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 80.41.69.117

did we play? by inblottysfootsteps User: inblottysfootsteps

Posted: 2/10/2018 at 22:01:31, 252 views. In reply to 'Tonight'

the tumble weed on here kept me entertained..

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 86.142.113.142

RE: did we play? by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 2/10/2018 at 23:31:18, 198 views. In reply to 'did we play?'

This site only comes to life when we lose.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a02:c7f:3827:8300:e

Re: Tonight by Tommy Wooton

Posted: 3/10/2018 at 06:52:49, 289 views. In reply to 'Tonight'

Great result. Big improvements made from Saturday and a further improvement second half. Well done to all the players and management team for that performance.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a02:c7f:5e33:5200:8

Thread: 91815

Full-Time Scores in Evo-Stik Premier Div by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 2/10/2018 at 21:55:09, 205 views.

Buxton 2-0 South Shields

Farsley Celtic 2-0 Lancaster City

Grantham Town 1-2 Hednesford Town

Hyde Utd 0-0 Workington

Marine 1-0 Stafford Rangers

North Ferriby 2-5 Matlock Town

Boro (Gooda, Walshaw) 2-0 Witton Albion Att: 807

Stalybridge Celtic 1-1 Nantwich Town

Warrington Town 1-0 Mickleover Sports

Boro stay in 3rd place. Warrington overtake Basford to go top.

Edited on 02/10/18 at 21:58:53
  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a02:c7f:3827:8300:e

Wally’s now division’s top scorer by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 2/10/2018 at 22:16:13, 186 views. In reply to 'Full-Time Scores in Evo-Stik Premier Div'

with 7 goals (joint top with Nathan Watson of Basford Utd).

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a02:c7f:3827:8300:e

Thread: 91814

U19s beat Shelley 6-1 in competitive home debut by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 21:46:13, 171 views.

Crowd 103

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 92.30.253.67

a bit of a report by Old Git

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 22:08:44, 274 views. In reply to 'U19s beat Shelley 6-1 in competitive home debut'

The visitors from Shelley, West Yorkshire, a village 3 miles from Holmfirth & 6 from Huddersfield
went in at half-time 2 down having created the 3 best scoring chances before Boro’s lads
scored 2 good goals to take the lead after the first 45.
In the 2nd half Boro U19s dominated, looking a yard quicker across the pitch and scored another
4 goals before one of the visitors better players scored a late consolation.
So a very satisfying performance to put in front of the home spectators sheltering in the main stand
fto avoid the constant downpour.
There was the food van in attendance and a few made an occasional visit although all the usual
drinks were available in the bar. Maybe a few more locals will cram into the stand next time.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.90.11.116

next home fixture by Old Git

Posted: 2/10/2018 at 12:50:51, 180 views. In reply to ' a bit of a report'

October 15th v Bradford Park Avenue

8th October away at Emley

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.90.11.116

Thread: 91813

Tonight’s one and only result by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 21:34:03, 191 views.

Basford 2-0 Whitby.

Basford go TOP

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.172

Thread: 91812

Bad news for Will Annan by Old Git

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 17:41:12, 231 views.

according to S News he could be out for 6 months
for reconstructive surgery on his ankle.
Will is hoping to be back in 3 months.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.90.11.116

RE: Bad news for Will Annan by dogtanian User: dogtanian

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 19:08:03, 226 views. In reply to 'Bad news for Will Annan'

Sad face :(

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.130

Thread: 91811

From FACEBOOK. Match tonight by Old Git

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 10:59:47, 223 views.

Our Under 19s kick off their first competitive home game tonight against Shelley FC

The lads will be hoping to build on their opening day 4-2 win at last season’s champions Pontefract.

Kick off is at 7.45pm, £2 adults, £1 conc.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.90.11.116

Anyone know which gate by Old Git

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 11:03:10, 231 views. In reply to 'From FACEBOOK. Match tonight'

will be open.
It was fun & games for the Pickering v Colne match and that was in daylight.
People don’t need to be wandering about in the dark
so it would be helpful to know.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.90.11.116

RE: Anyone know which gate by beckywitch User: beckywitch

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 13:34:47, 179 views. In reply to 'Anyone know which gate'

They said on the pre-match interview entry through the clubhouse.

beckywitch

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.244

Cheers by Old Git

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 17:04:14, 147 views. In reply to 'RE: Anyone know which gate'

I was hoping that was the case

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 146.90.11.116

Thread: 91810

Can I be the voice of reason? by Malton Seadog User: Malton Seadog

Posted: 30/9/2018 at 19:50:05, 281 views.

I’m going to keep this very short. Sometimes statistics can make a point.

2015/16: Kittrick joins us on the back of 7 straight league defeats. Crowds drop as low as 211 vs Spennymoor, his first point in charge of the club. We survive and come within minutes of winning a cup final.
2016/17: In his first full season in charge, he puts together a team capable of finishing 3rd, and due to injuries, we lose a playoff semi-final. Our league position improves by 17 positions from the previous season.
2017/18: We finish 2nd and earn promotion, amassing 95 points, winning 30 games, and scoring 101 goals.
2018/19: In our first season at NPL Premier level, we are 3rd, having won half of our games, and lost only two. We have beaten two promotion favourites (Basford/Hyde), and have the second best attack in the league with 19 goals.

Can someone explain to me the crisis please?

Losing 2-3 after winning 2-1 is crap. Of course it is. I think questioning SK’s ability to manage a football club after finishing in the top three in both full seasons in charge of us is also crap, to be honest.

It’s September. We’re 3rd. If we keep losing after leading in games and we are 15th by Christmas, by all means we can have a look, but for now, I really don’t see the issue, aside from reacting badly to one bad result. Shields lost. Gainsborough lost. Buxton lost at home to Lancaster! We will lose games in this division and can still do well. Let’s lose the sense of entitlement, acknowledge that there are some very astute and seasoned teams at this level, and get on with it. If we win more than we lose (currently 5-2 in that regard), we’ll be up there.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 82.43.217.44

Fair point … But by Fendog

Posted: 30/9/2018 at 20:21:15, 253 views. In reply to 'Can I be the voice of reason?'

To be fair yes he has done the above …. But with the resources he has at his disposal so he should. Mangers in this league would kill for his sort of budget.
Just think what a better coach could do 😉

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.189

re:Can I be the voice of reason? by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 30/9/2018 at 22:14:54, 314 views. In reply to 'Can I be the voice of reason?'

Well said Malton, I fully agree with you. I said it previously but most, if not all, teams in this league will win some and lose some - some deserved some not deserved. I don’t think the team did themselves justice on Saturday but moaning at them will certainly not help. It is times like those that they need our encouragement.

Of course it could be argued that a club our size could do better with a better coach but it could also do a lot worse as demonstrated in 2015/16.

Enjoy the journey.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 95.144.22.154

RE: Can I be the voice of reason? by dogtanian User: dogtanian

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 13:59:16, 232 views. In reply to 'Can I be the voice of reason?'

I bet all the boro fans in that 211 crowd are enjoying the ride now. There’s been some dysmal periods as a boro fan and this is not one of them

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 85.255.237.126

Too Right by Chester Perry

Posted: 1/10/2018 at 17:18:59, 194 views. In reply to 'RE: Can I be the voice of reason?'

I was in that crowd of 211, quite worrying times in terms of finance and piss poor football.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 165.225.81.49

Re comments from the stand by Old man

Posted: 3/10/2018 at 20:54:47, 142 views. In reply to 'Can I be the voice of reason?'

Its great to be joint on points in third place although other teams have games in hand. Shouting at steve kitterick when the team has kept a clean sheet and won 2-0 is bizarre and disrespectful. Spoiled a great game in many peoples opinion very sad if we were bottom 4 the chappie has to realise there would be a crisis but not two lost games away at grantham and against nantwich i was overjoyed to see our position end of september not need for it.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 109.153.164.114

Thread: 91809

2 questions.. by filey1

Posted: 30/9/2018 at 10:57:46, 234 views.

1. Golden gamble number?
2. Man of the match?

Forgotten yesterday already, cmon Boro!!

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 82.132.239.111

It’s a secret, Ross Killock, nt by Transpennine dave

Posted: 30/9/2018 at 12:18:43, 217 views. In reply to '2 questions..'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.244

11959 by Old Seadog User: Old Seadog

Posted: 30/9/2018 at 16:38:56, 209 views. In reply to '2 questions..'

See post lower down

Edited on 30/09/18 at 16:40:18
  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.155.166
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
© Surfing Seadog. All Rights Reserved. Site design and development: Steve Smith

Views expressed on this forum are those of the individual poster, and not of the site administrators,scarborough athletic football club or the seadog trust unless otherwise stated.