Dorking F.C. - Another £500,000.

[Big J R]

Thanks for the above Peter.

 

I have been busy preparing for daughters birthday celebrations so wasn't able to view the web-cast live from the council chamber.  It appears the Lib-Dems were speaking out against Surrey F.A. being the ground lease-holder whilst then sub-letting the lease to Dorking F.C.

 

It's reported in length in TODAYS Dorking Advertiser.

 

Dorking F.C. responded today on their web-site, and I take the liberty of pasting it in full further below in blue for those that can't access it.

 

This is the latest on the Dorking Advertiser web-site:-

 

http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/Dorking-Wanderers-chairman-wants-special-town/story-26630157-detail/story.html

 

 

FROM THE DORKING F.C. WEB-SITE TODAY.

 

"A summary of the club's distinctive community achievements and efforts to achieve agreement on groundsharing, after council discussions last night.

The new Board of Dorking FC has issued a statement re-affirming the club's distinctive community purposes and clarifying the efforts made to meet Dorking Wanderers' desire for a ground share arrangement at Meadowbank. The statement follows misleading comments made by a small number of councillors at a meeting last night.

At the meeting of Mole Valley District Council's Scrutiny Committee, ahead of a decision due to be taken shortly by the Executive, a small but vocal group of Liberal Democrat and Independent councillors attempted to block a proposal to grant Dorking FC a new lease at Meadowbank - the club's home ground for over 60 years - suggesting Dorking Wanderers have equal rights to use of the football ground when it re-opens and provide a similar role in the community. The councillors also claimed that Dorking FC would use its lease to block any ground share arrangement.

The Board of Dorking FC has published the following statement in response:

"The new board operating Dorking FC reached an agreement with Mole Valley District Council to take over the operation of the town's historic club in May 2014, saving it from closure and running it on the basis of a number of community-based priorities that are highly unusual in modern-day football.

Under our new stewardship the club was immediately converted to a Community Interest Company – a business with primarily social objectives where surpluses must be reinvested in the community and assets are locked into the club for the benefit of the community in perpetuity.

Within a few months, the club has delivered on many of its promises to the Council to promote community football for men, women and young people.

Specifically, Dorking FC has already:

• provided regular football for free to local youth players under 18

• promoted many local youth players to the first team, making progress on the long term aim of creating a truly local and representative team for Dorking, and patiently developing players from the immediate community rather than pursuing the more usual route in modern football of recruiting from far and wide to ensure immediate playing success at any cost

• incorporated Dorking Ladies into Dorking FC, providing much-needed financial and technical support to ensure long term prosperity for women's football in the community

• created a new U18 girls team and partnered with Mole Valley Girls to create the District's first-ever complete player pathway for girls to play football from age 7 right through to adulthood

• worked with youth football clubs representing more than 1200 young people in the area, to create greater collaboration and sharing of resources, promoting and enhancing youth football for all players of any standard in the Dorking area.

This approach, prioritising the wider community interest over all else, is highly distinctive and defining of Dorking FC. The work has also been recognised by the award of the FA Charter Standard and a Football Foundation Grow the Game grant.

While Dorking FC has played at Meadowbank since the 1950s, a new, second senior team playing and training there will be competing for use at weekends and evenings with the local youth football clubs and depriving them of much needed slots. These clubs have 170 teams between them, creating full demand for the community football facility and, when denied access, many of their children will have to play on unlit muddy pitches.

A ground share with Dorking Wanderers also presents significant challenges to the Dorking FC business plan, agreed with Mole Valley District Council last year, risking our ability to provide, and develop, these unique sporting benefits for the whole community.

These are real issues that need to be resolved. Nevertheless, the suggestion by a handful of councillors that Dorking FC will block a ground share with Dorking Wanderers simply ignores the facts. In March, we initiated a meeting with the Dorking Wanderers committee and set out our concerns. We also invited their Chairman Marc White to come back to us with suggestions for meeting some of those concerns and operating a ground share viably for both clubs. Unfortunately, Mr White declined that invitation at the time. We repeated our offer last week and we are pleased that, on this occasion, he has accepted. We will meet later this month and are very much looking forward to what we hope will be open, honest and mutually beneficial talks which ensure local youth football clubs aren’t deprived of much needed evening weekday facilities."

Edited June 4, 2015 by Big J R

[Smudge]

Did not think that there were any Youth/Childrens teams that played regularly on Saturdays in a League format.

 

Muddy pitches did make me laugh,are the Dorking Footballers only playing home games,so they avoid Muddy away pitches that most Non League Clubs have,at some point in the season.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Smudge

[E&E Rich]

Thanks BJR, very interesting reading.

 

I've got to say that the people who wrote that statement must need their heads examining. Talk about spinning a story! Do they think everyone in Mole Valley are stupid? 

 

"Within a few months, the club has delivered on many of its promises to the council." About time someone at DFC did, as the place has been rotting away for twenty five years since they were in the Isthmian Premier Division. The "new" people seem to want to airbrush a large chunk of the past, but at the same time keep the bits that suit them. Not possible chaps. My club made an error in the late seventies which we'd love to write off but unfortunately with a less interested council have received no help whatsoever. When you screw up, it takes time and / or compromise to rebuild. DFC have been ever so fortunate to effectively be given a brand new ground. However, they clearly still aren't happy and you can almost hear the stamping of feet because they're not getting their way coming through in this statement. They still don't get it.

 

DFC have proudly announced that they are now doing a great job for under 18s football, yet did their youth team not almost fold a couple of years back until they were rescued by DFCW who enabled them to complete their fixtures? They also seem to believe that their community efforts are "highly distinctive" when there are an enormous number of clubs across the country who do exactly the same or similar from a community standpoint.

 

Also if there are 170 clubs that would use it according to this statement, then what is the problem with one more club using it?

 

If the club is SO concerned about the community then why is it so hostile to another club within its borough?

 

Are DFCW not part of the community also?

 

Why can't Bookham play there too; as a MVDC tax paying club, surely they have similar rights and wanted to play at step five themselves?

 

Arguably it should be DFC that revert to youth only, which would be a pity, but would be entirely in keeping with their stated community intentions. Finally, the reference to "unlit muddy pitches" is a total joke. If there truly are that many clubs wanting to use it, then they clearly aren't going to get to use it very often, spending much of their time back on the "unlit muddy pitches" again. Those poor little urchins playing on that nasty grass stuff again, oh, how will they cope?

 

So one on hand we have "we have a great history and have been at the ground for years so it should remain ours" while on the other hand "we let the ground rot, were badly organised, watched our league status plummet and are lucky to be alive at all" Likewise, we have "we are a new club with new faces" against "we have had an issue with DFCW historically and still hate them" Either it's all, or it's nothing chaps, and a little humility at some point would really have helped here.

 

And before anyone else bangs on about some hidden agenda on my part (boring), I spend about 40 hours a week working on my own club and don't have time for any others. However, as a council tax payer in this area and being well aware of how the club has been run in the past from personal experience, DFC have got to put up with whatever terms are thrown at them by MVDC and be thankful they are still allowed to continue. If DFCW are genuinely upstarts, or a flash in the pan, then they will disappear in due course, leaving DFC to once again become the only senior club in the borough. Or DFC could get some private investment and purchase a new ground, but be warned, that takes a lot of time.

 

And also be warned, joke statements like this will be shredded to pieces by people with the slightest degree of knowledge of local football, leading to a lack of trust. From the outside looking in, it seems to me as though DFC may have a brand new face, but still has the same old mind set. 

[Big J R]

I am led to believe that the Dorking Advertiser have EDITED their peice on their sitedue to an inaccuracy.

 

It certainly seems slightly differently worded to me.  I may be wrong. (I often am, but I put it down to age.)

 

Anyway  -  Here the link that discusses future talks between DFC and Dorking Wanderers.

 

http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/Dorking-Dorking-Wanderers-meet-discuss-potential/story-26627878-detail/story.html

Edited June 5, 2015 by Big J R

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

First of all, It's great news that Dorking will be getting this new development on a  now particularly ugly part of town.

 

 

 

The ground was closed on Health and Safety grounds because DFC Ltd couldnt/wouldnt comply with the lease that was awarded after the court case.

 

That lease was surrendered by DFC Ltd. It is now clear that at that time the new DFC board and the council had an agreement that DFC would return to Meadowbank "next" season (2016/17)

 

At the next executive meeting the council will decide if DFC will get a 25 year lease, with Surrey FC as head tenant of the football facility.

 

Now for Dorking FC to sign a 25 year lease, and probably a repairable lease, it must be confident it has a business plan to deliver what it has said and particularly to pay the rent for 25 years and keep the bits it has "control" over in decent order. It doesn't want a repeat of the downward spiral that DFC Ltd presided over in the last decade.

 

So it needs any agreement with Dorking Wanderers FC to fit in with its own business plan.

 

The last council meeting suggested that Wanderers weren't too keen on signing a 25 year lease themselves. No wonder as it has spent a lot of money and effort converting Westhumble to  a Ryman ground. ( and ex conference players aren't cheap either!)  Perhaps they are concerned a 3g pitch wont be allowed at the level they aspire to play in.

 

As a Dorking FC supporter and volunteer , I very much want to see Dorking Fc back at Meadowbank with a sustainable plan to last out my lifetime at least.

As a football supporter living in Dorking I would also like to watch Ryman football with Wanderers.

What I dont want is for it all go tits up, and no senior football is played in the town.

 

To that end I hope all parties can come to an agreement that genuinely helps everyone, not some fudgey compromise that stores up problems down the line.

 

I concede Wanderers are currently playing at the higher level but let's remember, in the 2016-2017 season and Meadowbank opens, both clubs could very easily both be in the same league and division!

 

Now as for the spin in press releases etc, both clubs and the council are pretty good at all that, it is to be expected.

 

I wouldn't expect the current board to be overly expressive about the recent decline, it wouldn't be very classy or achieve much, but the failings of the old DFC Ltd have been touched upon in press release and media.

 

I however have little class, and it would have been infinitely better for all concerned if DFC Ltd had done what it did last summer, a few years earlier.

Alternatively having won a court case to stay there it should have made the most of it and at least kept the place legal.

[Big J R]

I totally agree with Jeff's, (TSF), post above.  The actual planning application is not to be heard until next month.  Hopefully and assuming the plans are passed without any further hitches, the work on Meadowbank will commence promptly.

 

Regretably, there was one letter in the Dorking Advertiser this week from an alleged Wanderers supporter, which was basically just there to, 'Stoke the Fire'.  Some local residents and parents have voiced a slightly anti-development plan view, inferring the whole development is just football orientated.  This is short sighted and not true.

 

When the the two clubs DO get their heads together, lets just hope that, to use an old union phrase, "The meeting will be amicable and constructive'.

 

Whatever happens, I'm pretty sure there will be yet more letters in the local press voicing opinions one way or the other.  And before you ask, NO  -  They won't be from me, unless of course, I feel the comments are counter productive.

 

Q.E.D.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Big J R

[E&E Rich]

Very fair points chaps.

[Big J R]

The 'boss' goes into print today....

 

Glynn's 'take' on the coming season.

 

http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/Dorking-s-pre-season-plans-coming/story-27507181-detail/story.html

[Big J R]

Dorking F.C.  announce another sponsor.

 

http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dorkingfc/news/dorking-fc-powered-by-all-natural-coco5-1465994.html

[Big J R]

I am told by a highly reliable source, (sauce ?), that the demolition at Meadowbank has occured and the builders are 'In' this coming week.

 

Good news at last !!

[TRS]

Well everything was still standing yesterday morning, although the signs are up and there is a big container in the car park.

 

I noted from yesterday's programme - "both the club & council are now confident that we will return to play our home games at the new Meadowbank early in the 2016/7 season"

[Big J R]

Well everything was still standing yesterday morning, although the signs are up and there is a big container in the car park.

 

I noted from yesterday's programme - "both the club & council are now confident that we will return to play our home games at the new Meadowbank early in the 2016/7 season"

 

 

I love the vagueness of the announcement Trevor.

 

Hope the Surrey F.A. haven't definitely said they'll definitely be out of Bridge Street Leatherhead by the start of next season.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Big J R

[TRS]

On the subject of Meadowbank, some great drone footage on youtube. The football ground obvious from the colour of the grass compared to the rec!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL2eVAILtDk

[Big J R]

Thanks for the fantastic link, Trevor.

 

Great music and shots of my beloved Dorking.

 

Do we know who the drone pilot is ?

[Big J R]

'Tweeted' today on the DFC site.....

 

https://twitter.com/dorkingfc/status/674287980916420610/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

[Big J R]

Here is the latest take on the ground work at Meadowbank.

 

http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/Ground-work-begins-council-offer-guarantees-end/story-28379675-detail/story.html

 

M.V.D.C. 'admit' they have no firm date fixed for completion, so it looks more games next season away from Leafy Dorking and Surrey F.A. staying in Bridge Street, Leatherhead for a while !!

Edited December 18, 2015 by Big J R

[Chris Clapham]

Oh dear! - http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/Desperate-Chicks-need-cash-stay-afloat/story-28474433-detail/story.html

[TRS]

Very diplomatic of the club but i do blame MVDC. How long have they spent on this now? Still let's arrange some more meetings and rack up those expenses. Maybe they are hoping Chicks do fold so they can have Wanderers as sole tenants? Perhaps that's what they've wanted all along.

[nosher]

lol - Epsom & Ewell Mk II

[Smudge]

Where do they get the £30,000 figure from for 1 season? All they need is a groundshare agreement,League and F.A. Fees,Cup entry costs etc.Players/Management cost nothing so we are told,so why such an exhorbitant figure surely?