Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Div

      Pie and Bovril Nostalgia Mobile Phone Cases!   12/09/18

      We are delighted to have partnered up with Nostalgia Cases to offer a huge range of fantastic Scottish Football phone cases to our visitors. These high quality cases are available in a range of retro and up to date designs and there variations available for all Premiership, Championship and League 1 clubs as well as four of the League 2 teams. Within each club there are a range of choices. You'll find it difficult to choose! This is an Edinburgh based start-up, and they also provide a custom design service so if there is a kit you don't see that you'd love for your phone you can get in touch with them and they'll add it to their range. Naturally there is a HUGE support for all the major phone manufacturers and models and what's more delivery in the UK is completely FREE. What's even better is that Pie and Bovril users can get 10% off their order using the coupon code PIEANDBOV Take a look and browse the full range for your favourite club by clicking through to the website below. https://bit.ly/2M5laZs

Recommended Posts

Brabco are right. There is no reason whatsoever to sign over any club assett , big or small, without gain for the club.If plans for this pathway were made and published without prior consultation of the club then that is on the Council.

I think I have been rational to this point, now I am going to be true to my paranoid, conspiracy theory geeky self.

There are people on the council who could not give a damn about the club. They see us as a diddy club and their  affections lie in Glasgow, and I do not mean with Thistle or Queens Park. They may even by hostile to the idea of a successful local community club which broadens its support base, offers cheaper football and is free of a lot of ugly stuff to be found elsewhere. Hence the narrow defeat of the planning application. Happy to be shot down on this by people who know more about that than me, but that is my suspicion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brabco are right. There is no reason whatsoever to sign over any club assett , big or small, without gain for the club.If plans for this pathway were made and published without prior consultation of the club then that is on the Council.
I think I have been rational to this point, now I am going to be true to my paranoid, conspiracy theory geeky self.
There are people on the council who could not give a damn about the club. They see us as a diddy club and their  affections lie in Glasgow, and I do not mean with Thistle or Queens Park. They may even by hostile to the idea of a successful local community club which broadens its support base, offers cheaper football and is free of a lot of ugly stuff to be found elsewhere. Hence the narrow defeat of the planning application. Happy to be shot down on this by people who know more about that than me, but that is my suspicion.
I am unsure why the local government would be against a local community club broadening it's support base and offering cheaper football, not sure what that has to do with them; unless you are referring to the personal allegiances of council officials?

Happy to shoot you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cremola foam said:

Brabco are right. There is no reason whatsoever to sign over any club assett , big or small, without gain for the club.If plans for this pathway were made and published without prior consultation of the club then that is on the Council.

I think I have been rational to this point, now I am going to be true to my paranoid, conspiracy theory geeky self.

There are people on the council who could not give a damn about the club. They see us as a diddy club and their  affections lie in Glasgow, and I do not mean with Thistle or Queens Park. They may even by hostile to the idea of a successful local community club which broadens its support base, offers cheaper football and is free of a lot of ugly stuff to be found elsewhere. Hence the narrow defeat of the planning application. Happy to be shot down on this by people who know more about that than me, but that is my suspicion.

The objection we raised was about lighting up the castle, not the walkway which has been proposed before, I think. The land that Historic Scotland (or the council, not sure who proposed this) want to put these lights on are on bits of land that we can't develop as far as I'm aware. Brabco's objection stated that the club needed to look at ways of maximising our profit on the current site but I honestly don't see how a couple of lamp posts at the castle side stop us from doing anything, it's just car parking space and grass and we can't build there. Their objection seems petty to me but they are within their rights to do so.  

I'm not entirely fond of how our council goes about certain things (the expectation that DFC would pay up hundreds of thousands of pounds for them to build the aforementioned pathway on our land is still a particularly baffling one for me) and I agree that the majority of local councillors probably don't give two fucks about DFC or how successful it is but do you think that the proposals Brabco put forward were suitable for the community?  There were huge question marks over funding, access and egress to the new stadium and flooding risk which Brabco failed to satisfy in the proposal. Even taking out the question of whether councillors want us to be successful, they need to act in the interests of the community as a whole and I tend to agree with them that building a stadium at Youngs Farm would've been a disaster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

There are people on the council who could not give a damn about the club.

 

We should be more concerned about the fact our owners don't give a damn about the club tbh.

 

It would be in our best interests to work with the council rather than against them. They didn't throw out our planning application because they don't like Dumbarton FC, they did so because it was fucking ridiculous.

 

The only thing we gain from refusing permission to install a few lighting columns is a backlash from the local community (there's been plenty so far, even after we released a statement) we are working hard to get onboard and a soured relationship with the local council.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

 

 

 

 

 

We should be more concerned about the fact our owners don't give a damn about the club tbh.

 

It would be in our best interests to work with the council rather than against them. They didn't throw out our planning application because they don't like Dumbarton FC, they did so because it was fucking ridiculous.

 

The only thing we gain from refusing permission to install a few lighting columns is a backlash from the local community (there's been plenty so far, even after we released a statement) we are working hard to get onboard and a soured relationship with the local council.

 

The objection to the castle/rock lighting planning application was made nearly one year ago, why is this suddenly news? In the spirit of come and go, it makes sense for DFC to accommodate the council where they can as long as the club itself does not incur costs either now or in the future. The WDC website portal for planning shows who exactly constructed the objection on behalf of the club and to be fair, the objection as outlined seems reasonable and is open to discussion. The newspaper article is online click bait with the casual observer ignoring the substance and just taking in a catchy title for the story. The mock outrage from the self-styled paragons of the community is sad and funny at the same time.

The Young's Farm stadium proposal, in my opinion, was always doomed to failure for all sorts of reasons. I can see comparisons in the current Sons situation with that of Clydebank. The club though does have something that at the time of the Bankies demise did not. A home. A leaking home by all accounts but bricks and mortar (plus steel) all the same. Brabco clearly sees the land on which the current stadium is built as some sort of cash opportunity. They don't care about the football club - never have in my opinion. Is there not a bloke involved with them that has been struck off for dodgy business dealings? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



The objection to the castle/rock lighting planning application was made nearly one year ago, why is this suddenly news? In the spirit of come and go, it makes sense for DFC to accommodate the council where they can as long as the club itself does not incur costs either now or in the future. The WDC website portal for planning shows who exactly constructed the objection on behalf of the club and to be fair, the objection as outlined seems reasonable and is open to discussion. The newspaper article is online click bait with the casual observer ignoring the substance and just taking in a catchy title for the story. The mock outrage from the self-styled paragons of the community is sad and funny at the same time.


I've no idea why it's suddenly news, I certainly hadn't heard anything about it until the local press picked up on it. I'm not sure it's clickbait tbh, it's hardly made up nor is it dramatised, it even includes direct quotes from the owners. I wouldn't really say the headline is misleading either, at the end of the day our owners rejected it, whether it was up for discussion or not.

Whilst the majority of folk commenting are Facebook roasters they do have a point. The castle looks spectacular when it's lit up at night and it's something the locals have wanted reinstated for a long time. If I was to put myself in their shoes I'd probably be annoyed at seeing the local football club reject the prosposal. Thankfully the board moved very quickly to distance the club from the stance of the owners, unfortunately some of the said Facebook roasters seem unable to comprehend that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The objection to the castle/rock lighting planning application was made nearly one year ago, why is this suddenly news? In the spirit of come and go, it makes sense for DFC to accommodate the council where they can as long as the club itself does not incur costs either now or in the future. The WDC website portal for planning shows who exactly constructed the objection on behalf of the club and to be fair, the objection as outlined seems reasonable and is open to discussion. The newspaper article is online click bait with the casual observer ignoring the substance and just taking in a catchy title for the story. The mock outrage from the self-styled paragons of the community is sad and funny at the same time.
The Young's Farm stadium proposal, in my opinion, was always doomed to failure for all sorts of reasons. I can see comparisons in the current Sons situation with that of Clydebank. The club though does have something that at the time of the Bankies demise did not. A home. A leaking home by all accounts but bricks and mortar (plus steel) all the same. Brabco clearly sees the land on which the current stadium is built as some sort of cash opportunity. They don't care about the football club - never have in my opinion. Is there not a bloke involved with them that has been struck off for dodgy business dealings? 



It’s only been brought to the attention of the public now because that f*cking rag of a newspaper got hold of the story and posted it for “likes” on social media.

You may be able to tell I’m not a great fan of our local tabloid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

 

 

 

 

 

We should be more concerned about the fact our owners don't give a damn about the club tbh.

 

It would be in our best interests to work with the council rather than against them. They didn't throw out our planning application because they don't like Dumbarton FC, they did so because it was fucking ridiculous.

 

The only thing we gain from refusing permission to install a few lighting columns is a backlash from the local community (there's been plenty so far, even after we released a statement) we are working hard to get onboard and a soured relationship with the local council.

 

Given that the vote against the stadium was only 10-9 i don't think they threw it out because it was ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that the vote against the stadium was only 10-9 i don't think they threw it out because it was ridiculous
Thankfully the 9 idiots who supported building a stadium on a floodplain, with limited access and pie in the sky commercial spaces that would lie empty were outvoted by the 10 who quite rightly thought it was fucking ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RGD89 said:

It’s only been brought to the attention of the public now because that f*cking rag of a newspaper got hold of the story and posted it for “likes” on social media.

You may be able to tell I’m not a great fan of our local tabloid.

 

 

Good job you're in hospitality on Saturday or I'd be right up for a square-go for patter like that :lol:

Spoiler

Unless you mean the Reporter obviously, in which case fire away panning them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:
6 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:
Given that the vote against the stadium was only 10-9 i don't think they threw it out because it was ridiculous

Thankfully the 9 idiots who supported building a stadium on a floodplain, with limited access and pie in the sky commercial spaces that would lie empty were outvoted by the 10 who quite rightly thought it was fucking ridiculous.

The current stadium is built on what used to be water and has limited access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The current stadium is built on what used to be water and has limited access.
The current stadium can only house 2000 supporters, is within walking distance of 2 train stations and a number of bus stops, doesn't have numerous training pitches, doesn't have numerous commercial spaces and isn't accessed via a slip road from one of the busiest roads in Scotland.

Given the issues we've had at our current place with the sinking pitch and the access to the stadium when playing larger teams it reaffirms the notion that the proposal to move to Youngs Farm was stupid. That's before we start on the capacity and the ridiculously ambitious commerical shite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions are obviously divided on the Young Farm proposal. A 9-10 vote is close. Our current home cannot continue. We are boxed in, capacity is limited, investment is compromised and atmosphere could be better. It is just not good enough for a club with Championship ambitions.

I am touched by some people's faith in the Council.  My paranoia, on the other hand, is wholly justified ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, cremola foam said:

Opinions are obviously divided on the Young Farm proposal. A 9-10 vote is close. Our current home cannot continue. We are boxed in, capacity is limited, investment is compromised and atmosphere could be better. It is just not good enough for a club with Championship ambitions.

I am touched by some people's faith in the Council.  My paranoia, on the other hand, is wholly justified ;).

How on earth is building a new stadium going to change the atmosphere? There is only an atmosphere if the fans create one.

We don't need a bigger capacity. I see us as an established League 1 side who might have the odd venture into the championship. League 1 sides are never going to fill the away end of our current stadium. Yes extra capacity helps bring more money in when playing sides with a large fan base. However, we do not play those kind of clubs anywhere near enough to warrant spending milions on a bigger capacity stadium.

And compromised investment?

The only benefit that I was really looking forward to with the new stadium was the 4G training pitches which could bring in some revenue and provide a full park for the team to train on instead of renting a half pitch elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, cremola foam said:

Opinions are obviously divided on the Young Farm proposal. A 9-10 vote is close. Our current home cannot continue. We are boxed in, capacity is limited, investment is compromised and atmosphere could be better. It is just not good enough for a club with Championship ambitions.

I am touched by some people's faith in the Council.  My paranoia, on the other hand, is wholly justified ;).

They aren't. The fans can see Brabco for what they are; a bunch of self-interested charlatans, and most wouldn't trust them as far as they could throw Iain Wilson - let alone trust them to rehome the club. 

The sooner we rid DFC of the Cancer that is Brabco the better. Our current home would be absolutely perfect if it hadn't been neglected by owners focused on chasing a pie-in-the-sky dream. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

The current stadium can only house 2000 supporters, is within walking distance of 2 train stations and a number of bus stops, doesn't have numerous training pitches, doesn't have numerous commercial spaces and isn't accessed via a slip road from one of the busiest roads in Scotland.

Given the issues we've had at our current place with the sinking pitch and the access to the stadium when playing larger teams it reaffirms the notion that the proposal to move to Youngs Farm was stupid. That's before we start on the capacity and the ridiculously ambitious commerical shite.

And, most importantly, the fact a move to Young’s would have seen us cede ownership of the asset to the very rump of jokers who evidently don’t care a fig about the football club.

Madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brabco are what they are - a group of investors who were sold a potential land deal with the complication of a football club attached. I wouldn't criticise them because they're not Dumbarton fans with the club's best interests at heart. If there was a solution that delivered for both Brabco and Dumbarton FC then I wouldn't grudge them their profit if it also gave something worthwhile to the club. Thats the nature of modern football club ownership: the days of local philanthropists reliving their youth spent following a team are over and it's why fan ownership - either full or at least partial - is an important aim. It's telling that it took at least 6 years for Brabco to go to the fans with their first plan for moving and almost another 3 years for them to try again with the second Youngs Farm plan. They tend not to interfere with the day to day running of the club, except when it suits them to do so, and have largely left the club board to get on with things.

Which is part of the problem.

They've been absentee owners for much of their tenure at a time when previous club boards were mismanaging the club. Income was limited. Maintenance at the current ground was minimal. It was laying the foundations for the very problems that they tried to use to justify the move. Brabco spoke of the current ground as being unfit for purpose. It was in poor repair and didnt generate income. They warned of a spiral of decline.  As much as the message came from Brabco, we can't shoot them for being right. The stadium is in a state of disrepair and for years we weren't doing enough from a commercial point of view. Much of that was down to previous boards. Those legacy problems are issues that the current board have worked tirelessly to try to overcome and it's incredible just how much they've had to deal with since John Steele was confirmed as chairman and the current board was convened. 

Youngs Farm was never going to solve any of the problems Brabco identified (and through their negligence undoubtedly contributed to) but it would have given the club the option of new sources of income. The figures for the 3g/4g pitches were deeply questionable. They did a bit of work in pulling together various reports but the numbers never seemed to have any basis in reality. Similarly a major concern for the planners was access to the site. Plan A was an absolute bust as the retail side of things was never going to provide the money needed to finance the deal, but 14 acres of housing and a local football stadium would have attracted a fair amount of traffic to an already poor road. The money they planned on spending on infrastructure upgrades seemed to be optimistic. Ultimately their plan B was still flawed and whilst it would be wrong to completely ignore some of the issues they identified, their proposal was never likely to be a particularly viable solution in it's most recent incarnation. It's telling that they've not come back with Plan C.

So why object to the lighting at the castle? If they're looking at the land at the current ground for possible redevelopment then night lighting at the castle isnt exactly going to be a big draw for potential home owners. It devalues the land even more from a housing viewpoint. Whether any such development of even a small part of the land at the current ground ever actually happens, Brabco clearly believe that lighting at the castle would put any future development in doubt. The club's statement is telling - this was a solely Brabco decision without consultation with anybody at the club. It's created some very negative press amongst a local population who are at best ambivalent about their local football team, and in some cases actually hostile towards us.

All of the efforts of the current board and the volunteers who help with fundraising activities has been channelled into dealing with a legacy of mismanagement from previous chairmen, often running the club like their own private fiefdom, and an ownership group who gave little regard to the asset they owned until it started to look like their investment was a massive bust. The scale of the challenge is staggering. The club needs to get the local community on board. That may be as new fans to follow the club but it equally may be as venue users who will hire the function suite, pay for sponsorship or attend events organised by the club and it's volunteers. The local press story undoubtedly made that job a little bit tougher. It's just another in a line of issues that have had to be dealt with and hopefully one that the club can put behind it as we all look towards next season.

Edited by BallochSonsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cremola foam said:

Opinions are obviously divided on the Young Farm proposal. A 9-10 vote is close. Our current home cannot continue. We are boxed in, capacity is limited, investment is compromised and atmosphere could be better. It is just not good enough for a club with Championship ambitions.

I am touched by some people's faith in the Council.  My paranoia, on the other hand, is wholly justified ;).

Interested to read your comments. Why do you think that the present home for the Sons ‘cannot continue’? Also you mention that ‘investment is compromised’. How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ross Forbes said:

Good job you're in hospitality on Saturday or I'd be right up for a square-go for patter like that :lol:

  Hide contents

Unless you mean the Reporter obviously, in which case fire away panning them.

 

^^^Not Gare Clyde^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×