Club Doncaster

[normal rules]

So are some peoples houses that are leasehold, does that mean you dont own them.

Leaseholder - Person who holds the lease for propery/land...owner.

Go on companies house and tell me who owns the stadium, is it the council or Doncaster Rovers?

I’m unsure. That’s why I put a question mark after my comment.
The Malkinson Family owned York Street in Boston and leased it out to BUFC. When the lease was up, they kicked the football club out on the premise it was being sold. it’s still up for sale , but that’s another story. And a local pub team play footy on it (no joke)

[oggycompton]

So are some peoples houses that are leasehold, does that mean you dont own them.

Leaseholder - Person who holds the lease for propery/land...owner.

Go on companies house and tell me who owns the stadium, is it the council or Doncaster Rovers?

What is your point though? You seem to be all over the place with the  points you want to score.

And FYI, the lease is held by the Football Foundation and not DRFC.

My point is that it is an asset, as per my original post.

[oggycompton]

So are some peoples houses that are leasehold, does that mean you dont own them.

Leaseholder - Person who holds the lease for propery/land...owner.

Go on companies house and tell me who owns the stadium, is it the council or Doncaster Rovers?

I’m unsure. That’s why I put a question mark after my comment.
The Malkinson Family owned York Street in Boston and leased it out to BUFC. When the lease was up, they kicked the football club out on the premise it was being sold. it’s still up for sale , but that’s another story. And a local pub team play footy on it (no joke)

As leaseholder you hold the owership of whatever it is you are leasing. As soon as that lease is over (90 something years for Donny at the stadium),the lease transfers back to the original party.

Some do like in your comment, others renegotiate or sell it to the people who were leaseholders.

A similar transaction sometimes occurs on council houses for example if people have  lived there for a long time.

[vaya]

So are some peoples houses that are leasehold, does that mean you dont own them.

Leaseholder - Person who holds the lease for propery/land...owner.

Go on companies house and tell me who owns the stadium, is it the council or Doncaster Rovers?

I’m unsure. That’s why I put a question mark after my comment.
The Malkinson Family owned York Street in Boston and leased it out to BUFC. When the lease was up, they kicked the football club out on the premise it was being sold. it’s still up for sale , but that’s another story. And a local pub team play footy on it (no joke)

As leaseholder you hold the owership of whatever it is you are leasing. As soon as that lease is over (90 something years for Donny at the stadium),the lease transfers back to the original party.

Some do like in your comment, others renegotiate or sell it to the people who were leaseholders.

A similar transaction sometimes occurs on council houses for example if people have  lived there for a long time.

The club/Foundation does not own the ground. It is leased. In order to sell the ground, they would have to buy it off DMBC in the first place.

[oggycompton]

So are some peoples houses that are leasehold, does that mean you dont own them.

Leaseholder - Person who holds the lease for propery/land...owner.

Go on companies house and tell me who owns the stadium, is it the council or Doncaster Rovers?

I’m unsure. That’s why I put a question mark after my comment.
The Malkinson Family owned York Street in Boston and leased it out to BUFC. When the lease was up, they kicked the football club out on the premise it was being sold. it’s still up for sale , but that’s another story. And a local pub team play footy on it (no joke)

As leaseholder you hold the owership of whatever it is you are leasing. As soon as that lease is over (90 something years for Donny at the stadium),the lease transfers back to the original party.

Some do like in your comment, others renegotiate or sell it to the people who were leaseholders.

A similar transaction sometimes occurs on council houses for example if people have  lived there for a long time.

The club/Foundation does not own the ground. It is leased. In order to sell the ground, they would have to buy it off DMBC in the first place.

DMBC wouldnt care who owns the lease, it would just transfer to the new owners. thats how a lease works.

[vaya]

So are some peoples houses that are leasehold, does that mean you dont own them.

Leaseholder - Person who holds the lease for propery/land...owner.

Go on companies house and tell me who owns the stadium, is it the council or Doncaster Rovers?

I’m unsure. That’s why I put a question mark after my comment.
The Malkinson Family owned York Street in Boston and leased it out to BUFC. When the lease was up, they kicked the football club out on the premise it was being sold. it’s still up for sale , but that’s another story. And a local pub team play footy on it (no joke)

As leaseholder you hold the owership of whatever it is you are leasing. As soon as that lease is over (90 something years for Donny at the stadium),the lease transfers back to the original party.

Some do like in your comment, others renegotiate or sell it to the people who were leaseholders.

A similar transaction sometimes occurs on council houses for example if people have  lived there for a long time.

The club/Foundation does not own the ground. It is leased. In order to sell the ground, they would have to buy it off DMBC in the first place.

DMBC wouldnt care who owns the lease, it would just transfer to the new owners. thats how a lease works.

The ground is leased. It is not an asset belonging to the club. They do not own it. It is presumably sat on DMBC's books, not the club's.

[TommyC]

Was being the operative word. It's fantastic that we don't rely on the owners' personal cash for survival but it would seem that TB has been reticent to financially support the club for some time.

At the meet the owners event he said that he had been reminded that he had put £12.5m into the club as had Dick Watson making £25m overall. I'm as grateful as anyone for that.

Dick Watson died SIX years ago. The fact that TB has spent an equal amount would suggest that either DW was investing a much larger amount than TB or TB has not put a penny into the club for at least six years. Not that he needed to when we had transfer fees from Marquis and Whiteman to cover our trading losses rather than being reinvested into strengthening the squad.

That's it in a nutshell. Silent Majority doesn't like it when I bring up the "Five Year Plan" for Championship Football that was trumpeted by the board 5 years ago to much fanfare. That's presumably because it has been binned/buried and any mention of it is somewhat embarassing for the board given the current state of things. But either way, if you look at what Baldwin said at that time, he specifically said that the club was at that point self-sustaining. He went on to say that the Directors voluntarily CHOSE to inject a couple of million a season into the club on top of that because they WANT a Championship football club. For that reason we at that point had a budget that equated to top 6 in League 1. That is all fact based on direct quotes from Gavin Baldwin.

Fast forward pretty much exactly 5 years to now. The plan has failed (obviously) and we are told that the club is self-sustaining and that the Directors no longer have to put their hands in their pocket to fund the club. So basically, the only difference between now and then is that the Directors no longer choose to put any money in.  We were a self-sustaining club 5 years ago! The only reason we were competing at the level we were is because the Directors chose to shoot for Championship football. Clearly they no longer have that level of ambition. I make no criticism of that in itself but it may help to manage expectations if instead of trumpeting how great it is that we're self-sustaining, the board instead admitted that there has been a subtsantial decline in investment from the owners over the last few years.

And i'll pre-empt those who will say "it isn't about the budget, it's about how you use it" with this little quote from Baldwin himself.....

“More often than not, budgets will equate to league position, roughly. There are anomalies such as Shrewsbury. That makes it exciting. Over five years your squad budget will tell you where you come in the league."

I don't like it when you bring up the 5 year plan?

Can you show me some evidence of that?

"Sack the Board" thread from mid February. Page 10 onwards.

I've also asked you at least three times to confirm where our budget now ranks by comparison to that Top 6 League 1 budget we then had. You have so far refused to answer the question.

[oggycompton]

So are some peoples houses that are leasehold, does that mean you dont own them.

Leaseholder - Person who holds the lease for propery/land...owner.

Go on companies house and tell me who owns the stadium, is it the council or Doncaster Rovers?

I’m unsure. That’s why I put a question mark after my comment.
The Malkinson Family owned York Street in Boston and leased it out to BUFC. When the lease was up, they kicked the football club out on the premise it was being sold. it’s still up for sale , but that’s another story. And a local pub team play footy on it (no joke)

As leaseholder you hold the owership of whatever it is you are leasing. As soon as that lease is over (90 something years for Donny at the stadium),the lease transfers back to the original party.

Some do like in your comment, others renegotiate or sell it to the people who were leaseholders.

A similar transaction sometimes occurs on council houses for example if people have  lived there for a long time.

The club/Foundation does not own the ground. It is leased. In order to sell the ground, they would have to buy it off DMBC in the first place.

DMBC wouldnt care who owns the lease, it would just transfer to the new owners. thats how a lease works.

The ground is leased. It is not an asset belonging to the club. They do not own it. It is presumably sat on DMBC's books, not the club's.

We are essentially arguing the same thing. Yes DMBC is the landlord but Doncaster Rovers own the lease.

DMBC would not care if Doncaster Rovers owned it, I owned it or you owned it. The lease is for 9x years and there is a stadium here, as long as they get paid they don't care. Any new owner of Doncaster Rovers would just assume the lease for the land and the functionality of what is on it.

[ravenrover]

If you dont want to invest in your football club, sell up or at least put it up for sale and move on.

People will say...'But who will buy it?'. Put it up and lets find out as this isn't working, its going backwards and fans, players and managers alike have had enough of it.

I'd rather have someone who cares about the club running the show than these figureheads acting as puppet masters for the constant stream of lies and rhetoric that they spiel out at every meeting that for 5 years has turned out to be utter rubbish and actually...lies.

Where have you been, the Clib is permanently up for sale to the right buyer as a businrss man would you buy a business with very few assets and the risk of having to fork out to keep the business afloat if needed and no forseeable profit from said purchase?

Not sure where you've been hiding. But we are self sustainable now have you not heard, thats the latest saying out of the club. Own our own stadium and training facilities too, I would call those assets.

And your profit stream comes from?
TB is on hand to fund any shortfalls
Andvwhat would you do with these assets of training ground, we do mot own the ground
Dear me you say you are a business man it's not like saying buying and selling on E Bay is much of a business

[i_ateallthepies]

He has a paste table at the Sunday car boot, Raven.

[vaya]

So are some peoples houses that are leasehold, does that mean you dont own them.

Leaseholder - Person who holds the lease for propery/land...owner.

Go on companies house and tell me who owns the stadium, is it the council or Doncaster Rovers?

I’m unsure. That’s why I put a question mark after my comment.
The Malkinson Family owned York Street in Boston and leased it out to BUFC. When the lease was up, they kicked the football club out on the premise it was being sold. it’s still up for sale , but that’s another story. And a local pub team play footy on it (no joke)

As leaseholder you hold the owership of whatever it is you are leasing. As soon as that lease is over (90 something years for Donny at the stadium),the lease transfers back to the original party.

Some do like in your comment, others renegotiate or sell it to the people who were leaseholders.

A similar transaction sometimes occurs on council houses for example if people have  lived there for a long time.

The club/Foundation does not own the ground. It is leased. In order to sell the ground, they would have to buy it off DMBC in the first place.

DMBC wouldnt care who owns the lease, it would just transfer to the new owners. thats how a lease works.

The ground is leased. It is not an asset belonging to the club. They do not own it. It is presumably sat on DMBC's books, not the club's.

We are essentially arguing the same thing. Yes DMBC is the landlord but Doncaster Rovers own the lease.

DMBC would not care if Doncaster Rovers owned it, I owned it or you owned it. The lease is for 9x years and there is a stadium here, as long as they get paid they don't care. Any new owner of Doncaster Rovers would just assume the lease for the land and the functionality of what is on it.

Yes, but for a prospective buyer of the club they end up being liable for the lease and upkeep of the ground, but not own the ground itself. This is not in and of itself necessarily a huge selling point.

[oggycompton]

If you dont want to invest in your football club, sell up or at least put it up for sale and move on.

People will say...'But who will buy it?'. Put it up and lets find out as this isn't working, its going backwards and fans, players and managers alike have had enough of it.

I'd rather have someone who cares about the club running the show than these figureheads acting as puppet masters for the constant stream of lies and rhetoric that they spiel out at every meeting that for 5 years has turned out to be utter rubbish and actually...lies.

Where have you been, the Clib is permanently up for sale to the right buyer as a businrss man would you buy a business with very few assets and the risk of having to fork out to keep the business afloat if needed and no forseeable profit from said purchase?

Not sure where you've been hiding. But we are self sustainable now have you not heard, thats the latest saying out of the club. Own our own stadium and training facilities too, I would call those assets.

And your profit stream comes from?
TB is on hand to fund any shortfalls
Andvwhat would you do with these assets of training ground, we do mot own the ground
Dear me you say you are a business man it's not like saying buying and selling on E Bay is much of a business

The profit stream comes from success in footballing terms. Entertaining football...more people watch, more food gets eaten and more shirts are sold. Basically, the exact opposite of what is happening now so the very thing TB is bemoaning and the club is championing will be totally irrelevant when people don't get season tickets and people stop turning up to watch the negative 541 football Danny 'Yeah, No' Schofiled keeps playing.

So yeah sustainable at the minute, not next season or the year after because you cant just stand still, you have to invest. If you dont want to, thats fine. Put it up for sale and go.

You keep the assets in some cases, others would come in and get rid of them. facts are... they are assets as I've said previously. The stadium is an asset as the football club (in whatever guise) has the lease for the stadium for the next ninety-something years, ownership of it makes no difference. Do you think the landlord would just boot out whoever takes over? bearing in mind the reason the lease was awarded in the first place is that it was hemorrhaging millions a year. We are doing them a favour by having the lease.

I'll ignore the business comment but anyone with half a brain knows that if you stand still and don't re-invest you go backwards as we can quite clearly see is happening right before our glorious eyes, on and off the pitch.

[oggycompton]

He has a paste table at the Sunday car boot, Raven.

More profit for Club Doncaster!!!!!!!!!

[oggycompton]

So are some peoples houses that are leasehold, does that mean you dont own them.

Leaseholder - Person who holds the lease for propery/land...owner.

Go on companies house and tell me who owns the stadium, is it the council or Doncaster Rovers?

I’m unsure. That’s why I put a question mark after my comment.
The Malkinson Family owned York Street in Boston and leased it out to BUFC. When the lease was up, they kicked the football club out on the premise it was being sold. it’s still up for sale , but that’s another story. And a local pub team play footy on it (no joke)

As leaseholder you hold the owership of whatever it is you are leasing. As soon as that lease is over (90 something years for Donny at the stadium),the lease transfers back to the original party.

Some do like in your comment, others renegotiate or sell it to the people who were leaseholders.

A similar transaction sometimes occurs on council houses for example if people have  lived there for a long time.

The club/Foundation does not own the ground. It is leased. In order to sell the ground, they would have to buy it off DMBC in the first place.

DMBC wouldnt care who owns the lease, it would just transfer to the new owners. thats how a lease works.

The ground is leased. It is not an asset belonging to the club. They do not own it. It is presumably sat on DMBC's books, not the club's.

We are essentially arguing the same thing. Yes DMBC is the landlord but Doncaster Rovers own the lease.

DMBC would not care if Doncaster Rovers owned it, I owned it or you owned it. The lease is for 9x years and there is a stadium here, as long as they get paid they don't care. Any new owner of Doncaster Rovers would just assume the lease for the land and the functionality of what is on it.

Yes, but for a prospective buyer of the club they end up being liable for the lease and upkeep of the ground, but not own the ground itself. This is not in and of itself necessarily a huge selling point.

Thats exactly where we are now. How many people own a football club for ninety-something years? The point is moot.

[ravenrover]

Oggy do yourself a favour put the spade down after you've filled the hole in you persist in digging

[oggycompton]

Oggy do yourself a favour put the spade down after you've filled the hole in you persist in digging

Yeah, its tough being right on every point. With every point coming back being factually incorrect or totally inaccurate.

[ravenrover]

Yep you are not wrong there pity it's not you being right

[Glyn_Wigley]

Club Doncaster makes up for Rovers financial losses and, if we can sort out our horrific recruitment policy, gives us the funds to make it work.

Without it the horrific recruitment policy would still be here, and we'd still be shit, but we'd also be losing £2m a season.

How does it make up for rovers financial losses ?

Don't you think you ought to know all the facts before gobbing off about it?

[WantleyDragon]

Without Club Doncaster the Rovers, Dons and Belles would each need to have their own operating staff, Ticket office, Commercial, Publicity, Admin', Groundstaff etc.  With CD there is just one set of staff doing the work for all three clubs.  There is a very significant (and very obvious) financial advantage to that which each club benefits from.

Why is that an advantage to Rovers, when the football club could just do it on their own without the Belles and Dons draining resources ?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Without Club Doncaster the Rovers, Dons and Belles would each need to have their own operating staff, Ticket office, Commercial, Publicity, Admin', Groundstaff etc.  With CD there is just one set of staff doing the work for all three clubs.  There is a very significant (and very obvious) financial advantage to that which each club benefits from.

Why is that an advantage to Rovers, when the football club could just do it on their own without the Belles and Dons draining resources ?

Because then all three entities are funding one set of people between them instead of three sets of people in total.

Please tell me that you can understand that the cost of one set of people is lower than three sets of people.

[WantleyDragon]

Without Club Doncaster the Rovers, Dons and Belles would each need to have their own operating staff, Ticket office, Commercial, Publicity, Admin', Groundstaff etc.  With CD there is just one set of staff doing the work for all three clubs.  There is a very significant (and very obvious) financial advantage to that which each club benefits from.

Why is that an advantage to Rovers, when the football club could just do it on their own without the Belles and Dons draining resources ?

Because then all three entities are funding one set of people between them instead of three sets of people in total.

Please tell me that you can understand that the cost of one set of people is lower than three sets of people.

No, Belles and Dons aren't funding anything, only a drain on resources.
The extra staff that comes with those clubs are also a drain.

[vaya]

Without Club Doncaster the Rovers, Dons and Belles would each need to have their own operating staff, Ticket office, Commercial, Publicity, Admin', Groundstaff etc.  With CD there is just one set of staff doing the work for all three clubs.  There is a very significant (and very obvious) financial advantage to that which each club benefits from.

Why is that an advantage to Rovers, when the football club could just do it on their own without the Belles and Dons draining resources ?

Because then all three entities are funding one set of people between them instead of three sets of people in total.

Please tell me that you can understand that the cost of one set of people is lower than three sets of people.

No, Belles and Dons aren't funding anything, only a drain on resources.
The extra staff that comes with those clubs are also a drain.

You've still to explain how you know they are being funded and are a drain on resources.

Who's told you this?
 

[Cramby10]

You’re all pissing in the wind. You can’t explain anything to someone who doesn’t want to understand.

[i_ateallthepies]

There is none so blind a he who will not see.

[WantleyDragon]

3 pages, no ones yet explained how club doncaster is a benefit to Rovers?

Surely DRFC can run the car boot, gym and 5 a side pitches alone, and without the rugby and ladies team diverting funds.

The Belles and Dons were always separate entities.

[vaya]

3 pages, no ones yet explained how club doncaster is a benefit to Rovers?

Surely DRFC can run the car boot, gym and 5 a side pitches alone, and without the rugby and ladies team diverting funds.

The Belles and Dons were always separate entities.

...and you've still not explained how you know they're diverting funds.

[WantleyDragon]

Without Club Doncaster the Rovers, Dons and Belles would each need to have their own operating staff, Ticket office, Commercial, Publicity, Admin', Groundstaff etc.  With CD there is just one set of staff doing the work for all three clubs.  There is a very significant (and very obvious) financial advantage to that which each club benefits from.

Why is that an advantage to Rovers, when the football club could just do it on their own without the Belles and Dons draining resources ?

Because then all three entities are funding one set of people between them instead of three sets of people in total.

Please tell me that you can understand that the cost of one set of people is lower than three sets of people.

No, Belles and Dons aren't funding anything, only a drain on resources.
The extra staff that comes with those clubs are also a drain.

You've still to explain how you know they are being funded and are a drain on resources.

Who's told you this?

OK. Let's say the Belles and Dons make a profit, ( highly unlikely) their profits go back into each individual club respectively, fair ?

What about the funds from the gym, car boot and pitches ?
Is that distributed evenly between 3 clubs? Or do Rovers get a bigger share ? Is that fair ?

My point is, if all 3 clubs were separate entities ( as they always were ) and Rovers ran the stadium, and collected all proceeds from said revenue streams, plus charged rent to the rugby club for use of the stadium.
Rovers would be in a FAR better position, granted Belles and Dons wouldn't be, but then I don't support them.

[vaya]

Without Club Doncaster the Rovers, Dons and Belles would each need to have their own operating staff, Ticket office, Commercial, Publicity, Admin', Groundstaff etc.  With CD there is just one set of staff doing the work for all three clubs.  There is a very significant (and very obvious) financial advantage to that which each club benefits from.

Why is that an advantage to Rovers, when the football club could just do it on their own without the Belles and Dons draining resources ?

Because then all three entities are funding one set of people between them instead of three sets of people in total.

Please tell me that you can understand that the cost of one set of people is lower than three sets of people.

No, Belles and Dons aren't funding anything, only a drain on resources.
The extra staff that comes with those clubs are also a drain.

You've still to explain how you know they are being funded and are a drain on resources.

Who's told you this?

OK. Let's say the Belles and Dons make a profit, ( highly unlikely) their profits go back into each individual club respectively, fair ?

What about the funds from the gym, car boot and pitches ?
Is that distributed evenly between 3 clubs? Or do Rovers get a bigger share ? Is that fair ?

My point is, if all 3 clubs were separate entities ( as they always were ) and Rovers ran the stadium, and collected all proceeds from said revenue streams, plus charged rent to the rugby club for use of the stadium.
Rovers would be in a FAR better position, granted Belles and Dons wouldn't be, but then I don't support them.

Right, so you've no idea if they are funded not. You've just made stuff up and kept posting it.

This is why people just end up ignoring you and you end up changing your user name again.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Without Club Doncaster the Rovers, Dons and Belles would each need to have their own operating staff, Ticket office, Commercial, Publicity, Admin', Groundstaff etc.  With CD there is just one set of staff doing the work for all three clubs.  There is a very significant (and very obvious) financial advantage to that which each club benefits from.

Why is that an advantage to Rovers, when the football club could just do it on their own without the Belles and Dons draining resources ?

Because then all three entities are funding one set of people between them instead of three sets of people in total.

Please tell me that you can understand that the cost of one set of people is lower than three sets of people.

No, Belles and Dons aren't funding anything, only a drain on resources.
The extra staff that comes with those clubs are also a drain.

Absolute poppycock.

And why should we spoon feed you when we've gone to the trouble of looking into and understanding all aspects of Club Doncaster, which go far further than just the Don's and Belle's participation.

You choose to criticise and make massive assumptions about things you say you know little about.

Gain an understanding first, then ask questions and only then can you put yourself in a position to criticise.

And, wtf has Club Doncaster got to do with the sh*t show last night? It's like blaming Patienceform for Rovers defeats.

[Chris Black come back]

It’s not just last night though. It’s the last 2 years, day in, day out disappointment.