The Dart(s) Board

Thanks for posting that Steve!

It was like being there.

Still don’t think Ady has a handle on discipline though.

DJ on the pitch? Really! in May? really?

I’m still believing in the board and I get that this day and age is massively different to what they took on yonks ago. I don’t like to see them continually criticised. They’re easy targets - a bit like school dinner ladies.

There appears to be a massive miscommunication between clubs and stewards regarding the Yoof. I’ve seen the security acting, apparently, under a different agenda with no clear idea of what the rules are. I see it at every home game.

No questions about ground ownership? In my view - that’s critical and maybe holding us back.

Sleightly Deceptive wrote: Fri Feb 06, 2026 8:24 pm No questions about ground ownership? In my view - that’s critical and maybe holding us back.

If I understand you correctly SD, you are suggesting that if we owned our ground then the club might be better able to attract large investors. But surely, if we could afford to buy the ground then we wouldn't need large investors anyway. Perhaps even more importantly, if the stadium and surrounding land is what attracts potential investors, then you might want to question the motives of those investors anyway. So you could argue that not owning the ground is a safeguard as with no assets to strip, the only motive for buying into the club would be the football itself.

In any case, since March 2020, the constitution allows shareholders a maximum of 50 type "A" voting shares which are £25 each. So even if we found someone willing to put say, £5 million into the club, he or she would only get £1250 worth of votes, the same as some supporters probably already have. Whilst that policy made perfect sense 20 years ago and was an understandable decision given what had happened to our old club, there is a growing belief amongst many of the shareholders that outside investment is the only way we are ever going to be able to compete and believe it is now time to change that policy. However, if they wanted to remove the 50 share maximum, company law dictates that to do so would require 75% of the vote to make that change. And when I say 75% of the vote, I'm talking about 75% of the total "A" shares belonging to those that take part in the vote. i.e. Shareholders get one vote for every "A" share they own. So if 149 single "A" share voters voted for the motion but one individual with 50 "A" shares voted against, the motion would fail. 150 would just tip it over the 75% for a win. So for any of that to happen, one or more shareholders would need to request the board to put the motion to the shareholders for said vote.

Of course there is a risk attached to this idea and for some clubs, it hasn't gone well. But for others it has enabled them to succeed and go on to better things. In any case, there is also a risk in letting our club just sink slowly down the pyramid, constantly harping on about how we can't compete and lowering fans expectations every year. Whether this is the right move or not, it wouldn't hurt to be having the conversation.

I was more alluding to the fact that whilst the ground is owned by someone else, that someone might decide they don’t want it anymore. Dramatic as it might sound, it could end up a small business park or housing. Especially if the slide continues.
“If only all councils were like….” might not be forever. Just my private nightmare.

As a loyal fan following the Darts for 73 years from 5 years old to a 78 years old supporter still working from home I get to read the Forum regularly whilst not always posting.
But having seen the changes over the years at Watling Street with a pitch & tennis courts and later a car park, all of the different players and managers good and bad then the groundshare with Maidstone the unofficial stand behind one goal and significant black & yellow paint everywhere etc.
Then the loss of the ground and several ground shares with Erith & Belvedere,Welling and Cray etc and with it the drop down to the Kent league before rising back up the leagues a special thanks to the council must be remembered for providing us with a ground and letting us run it.
Despite our current situation and whilst respecting the thoughts of those fans who speak about their opinions on the players, manager, board members etc I can only express my thoughts about the suggestion of a big money man needing to come in and that is no no no
I know the club needs more monies coming in so at the moment I do have a few A and B shares but will be purchasing a few more as money allows so I would ask all the fans to have a look to see if they can increase their shares especially those who don't have any at the moment.
Not a huge increase in money but a far better idea than a big money man coming in then going after a short term of spending.

Wow. Respect Trevor!

Sleightly Deceptive wrote: Wed Feb 11, 2026 8:06 am I was more alluding to the fact that whilst the ground is owned by someone else, that someone might decide they don’t want it anymore. Dramatic as it might sound, it could end up a small business park or housing. Especially if the slide continues.
“If only all councils were like….” might not be forever. Just my private nightmare.

There is a long term legal agreement in place with the council (99+ years) so it’s very unlikely that the council would decide they don’t want it anymore.

If anything, the fact the council do own the ground is a good thing as it offers protection to the club should we be open to outside investors. By that I mean if things went belly up then at least the ‘investor’ wouldn’t be able to sell the ground to recoup / pay off debts because it wouldn’t be theirs.

whether or not someone is willing to invest knowing this is a whole new question……

Understood. I will always bow to folks’ better knowledge and understanding than my own. A bag load of ifs and buts.