Dorking, Dorking, Dorking.

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

That seems to be the view of the club too Bitch, keep the pressure on. The court judgement must really give the club the confidence to carrying on battering the council.

 

Personally I wouldn't park the tanks on the council lawns but time will tell.

 

I hope you dont get a duck this season krooner.

 

Hello, Greg Dyke!

[Bitch]

TSF it's your money the council spent trying to ride roughshot over the law without a thought for the community it is supposed to be serving.

 

To me it's a victory for non league football.

[Krooner]

Doesnt matter TSF as long as the team wins

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

It is a victory Bitch, and it was "my money" both sides spent.

The council believed it was doing the right thing for the community and of course itself.

The club thought they were doing the same.

 

 

Victory won, justice served.

 

Now its time to pick up the prize, and build for the future.

 

The board can get rid of the old manager, change the players and decide who they want at the club.

 

They can't change who their landlord is.

[Bitch]

Ah, but the club was forced to have to pay legal fees in an action brought by a tyranical council in a case that was bound to fail in law. That is unforgivable to spend public money in that way. Get rid of the council members at the earliest opportunity

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

just had an election (good stuff chinese viagra).

 

 

 

 

 

[Bitch]

Originally Posted By: thespursfan

just had an election (good stuff chinese viagra).

[Big J R]

I don't see why the current situation should interfere with Bookham at all !

 

DFC Ltd have a stay on the lease, no matter what becomes on offer after negotiations.

 

The lease is a fact of life, protected by the Courts. It's just a matter of agreeing the terms.

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

and if the terms prohibit subletting/groundsharing or allow it at a price ?

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

 

I've often wondered why Bookham didnt share with Leatherhead rather than Dorking.

 

It would seem to make more sense geographically to me.

 

Just fall down the hill and you're there.

 

Bigger difference in standard so easier for player development/retention/attraction.

 

I wonder why not?

 

 

[Teflon]

Simple really TSF, Leatherhead did not want a ground share. Dont believe they change now either as they are bringing through their good U18 team as a reserve side.

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

That sounds like a good idea.

Dorking have to let the u18s straight in the first team or they go to Leatherhead u18s.

 

Im surprised Leatherhead didnt want a ground share, most clubs would welcome the revenue and the reserves could have played at Bookham.

 

Any chance Dorking and Bookham doing that?

 

Dorking havent had much success without a reserve side.

[Gussy]

So judging by TITsf's posts he wants a few things

 

.1. He wants the council to run roughshod over Dorking re: lease

.2. He wants Bookham to leave Meadowbank so Dorking lose income

.3. He wants leatherhead to poach Dorkings U18

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

I would like dorking to get the lease sorted and thereafter stop fighting the council and work with them. Threatening councillors and officers doesnt seem the way forward to me.

 

I would like to see Dorking have a reserve side which is difficult when Bookham share but perhaps the reserves could share at Bookham.

 

 

If the u18s could get a chance of first team games or reserve games they might stay at Dorking. Some left for Leatherhead but then some made the first team end of last year.Perhaps a reserve side would be the bridge youth/first team.

 

I have to say I would prefer Dorking to be more self sufficient with their own reserves and youth sides using Meadowbank.

 

Leatherhead seem to have chosen that route, compare, contrast, discuss!

[Big J R]

Originally Posted By: thespursfan

and if the terms prohibit subletting/groundsharing or allow it at a price ?

Then I would have thought that we go back to His Honour Judge Nathan and ask for a ruling. As we have already shared Meadowbank for two seasons, I could not imagine him agreeing to such a attempted prohibition on MVDC's part.

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

Stopping any possibility of a sitting tenant is a fairly common clause though jr, re Worthing and Horsham.

 

Hasnt it cropped up in negotiations so far?

 

It seems Leatherhead could groundshare but chose not to so I could be worrying over nothing as usual!

 

Do Dorking FC see groundsharing a permanent way forward?

Would a reserve side help and are there any plans for one next season?

[Gussy]

Some clubs are not in the position to have reserves, i'm sure Dorking are working toward that but before that happens certain things have to be in order.

 

you say things which seem like you have best interests at heart but it's just designed to pick holes in what ever Dorking do.

[Teflon]

That's not picking holes Gusset it digging a fooking trench

[Gussy]

Too right Teffs

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

well lets be honest Gussy things arent all rosy in the meadowbank garden, despite my throwing manure over the fence.

 

If people realised I intend the manure to be dug into the flower bed rather than smeared across the windows they might listen to what I say more.

 

The club got nearly 100 players signed on last year, a reserve side would have helped keep a few, and some more points might have been picked up by having players used to each other and knowing their positions set plays etc.

 

Im hoping Dorking fc might have one next season. Somewhere for last years u18s to play too. Whats to stop it?