Urban Spaceman

(apologes for coming back to the ownership / accounts topic AND if I am misreading the tangled web of ownership and charges) More Homes DFC have a tangible asset of £4m on their most recent books, given the sole reason for the existence of that company is it safe to assume that's what they have valued the land bought (and not yet paid) from the club at??? (shares in DFC would be investments?) Whatever asset it is, they revalued it in the last accounts to increase it from £3.1m to £4m and given its an unaudited small company , no one will challenge the valuation in the accounts i presume. Does anyone know if its within the power of the directors of DFC ltd. to cancel ( revoke / call in whatever the term may be) the charge(s) given the overdue payments? (if all it took was 1 or 2 rogue directors to create the charge(s) does it require all to cancel them?)

just my opinion, but as GordonS has highlighted above the Donald Dewar meets all the requirements and has all the minimum features. Its still a horrible experience in general going there, as its no where near fit for purpose. The access is horrendous, the parking is non existent for the football fans, the hall / sports centre is rightly in use at the same time as games meaning hundreds of kids and parents milling about and no access to the facilities in the actual centre for the football fans. No space, no view and everything that is required to meet the minimum requirements is make shift and the bare minimum. Its unpleasant for kids football so to actually charge an entrance fee at this level is robbery. I equate it to that Oceangate Titan Sub. It had all the features of a submarine but at the end of the day it was just a metal tub held together with glue and guided by an excel spreadsheet. Thats the Donald Dewar for WOSFL football. having said that I tend to disagree with Inanimate Carbon Rod, Its unrealistic to think everyone has the right to see a football game, that just doesn't happen at any level of football. If any team in L1 or above draws Clydebank in the cup, there will be fans locked out. It happens at all levels. Fans thinking they have a god given right to attend any match they wish has led to a number of disasters. But that again doesn't excuse the Donald Dewar just not being fir for purpose at any level of football. If Drumchapel are serious about thier future they need an alternative (if the intention is to extend the footprint at the DD they need a lot of work, starting with a purpose built pavilion separate from the Leisure centre)

Indeed, quite literally Business Partners in the 50:50 ownership on all variations of "Old Firm" trademarks and work together to protect their joint intellectual property and more importantly the financial income they gain from being the "Old Firm".

is correct he's a 2007 under the SYFA rules, although has mostly been in the pro-youth set up at St Johnstone till last year (ish) I believe, so would guess he's our youngest keeper, replacing Peter Dennison , thrown in the deep end at 17 in 1995 after another Sons Keeper Crisis *tm . Who I am sure will have coached Luke Smallwood at some point, given his GK coaching in the area.

any idea where it was taken? Doesn't look like Kilbowie to me?

This, there was a lot of shoving it random confused peoples faces last night in Dumbarton High Street, good few of the young team having their own parade outside the Harp club annoying every passer by as there were no actual Rangers fans to intimidate. For some cultural or political reason there is a lot of people that support either side who have (not so deeply repressed) anger and violence issues and feel the need to get in other peoples faces whether they are winning or losing.

Apparently you've just played a behind close door game against Everton and lost 4-0.

I think its a positive that the club (by necessity or not) are creating this Community Trust. Mainly as it will benefit the community potentially more than the club. I have no experience how these things work in practice for the other clubs that are decades ahead of us in this regard. Presumably to get the Astro funding the actual astro pitch has to be held in the name of the Community Trust (not the club). So stadium held as a club asset, the pitch as a community asset with DFC first team as the anchor tenant with first call on lets. Any Income from the other lets to community clubs (do one Broomhill) is paid to the Community Trust. As a Charity / Non Profit any excess is ploughed back in for maintenance or held back to pay for the relaying every few years. If that's correct there is no direct additional revenue for the Club? (You cant just take the surplus funds from a charity and hand them to a Limited Company) There are obviously indirect savings in expenditure for the club, who no longer need to maintain a grass pitch or pay for lets to train elsewhere. or is there a way around the trust getting charity funding for an asset to be held by a Ltd?

Nathan Fatterson - Am I right! Appears he has been left out for todays Friendly against Sligo. Confirms one of either Dyche doesn't rate him or he's out recovering from a roast dinner.

not a clue, so nothing or worth to add, would be interested to see actual ballpark figures of budgets or what the average player is on per week. at that level.

meant to add...its unfortunately bad PR for the club as others have said as In my view the community aspect should be the main driver for having youth age group teams (U19s, U18s, U17s, U16s etc) (The U20s can replace what would have been a reserve team but only for some of the young first team players needing game time) Its just extremely unlikely that anyone playing Youth Football at the above ages is going to be able to step up into a L1/L2 team. Dumbarton would be better off focusing on young players falling out of the pro youth set ups. Without taking sides, its more realistic that the local boys could play at WOSFL level and would have a better pathway at the Vale. Which makes you think it is just a piece of the jigsaw for funding for the Astro. Fair enough, The area is crying out for more football pitches and if its gets another through DFC is a benefit to the whole community.

No they did engage with DU and Haldane at both age groups (Riverside tbh were ignored) but from what I heard it was already a done deal with the 2 Haldane age groups and the discussion with DU was just a tick box exercise because of the supposed existing tie in. Due to the nature of how it was done, It was essentially asking both DU age groups to give a few of their best players to old Haldane / New Dumbarton and then fold. Leaving the other boys on the scrap heap. Lessons learned for DFC should be that, while taking over any existing team at the age group is the cheapest and easiest option, It has this negative impact on boys football in the town impacting multiple teams. They should have identified a local coach looking to work their badges with a League team not already linked with an existing boys team, held open trials and selected the best based on that.

to be fair its 15 and 16 years old, nobody can anyone that age do anything they dont want to do!

For this years intake, its not Dumbarton United at all! other than the new Womens Team. So that link up seems permanently broken now Both the U17s (2008s) and the U16s (2009) are a straight take over of Haldane Utd teams (players and coaches). Gordon / The club made the suggestion that DU and Haldane come together / merge to form the new DFC academy age groups. Obviously the best solution for DFC as in theory they get the best players from both. But in real practical terms (someone called it politics) that meant 2 teams becoming 1. Boys lost to football with nowhere to play. when previously it was 2 successfully run teams (both Haldane and DU at won their respective leagues at U16s) The main issue is that DFC are not providing coaches, so it relies on the volunteer coaches of the teams taken over, which brings all the baggage and politics into play. BUT that doesnt sound like its the coachers or parents. Its the boys themselves that all have a history with both teams and are doing what is best for themselves, rightly so.

There's an argument to be made that if its called the Champions League and you are not your national champion then it IS by invite. especially when the "non champions" access is based on a needlessly complicated calculation skewed towards the bigger nations and not just individual club performance.