Re: A new low

By Gareth Coates (beano)14/1/2022 17:32Fri Jan 14 17:32:51 2022In response to Re: A new low

Views: 1025

Arthur, you said "Firstly Joe Dixon is not the only director of STAINES TOWN FC."

Companies House says he is; the current officers are him, plus the Company Secretary, Steve Parsons.

The club website lists an "Executive Committee"; while these are the people carrying out the day-to-day running of the club, they don't quite have the same powers, legal rights or responsibilities as Directors. They operate in line with the responsibility delegated to them by the sole Director.

You are absolutely right that, as the owner of Staines Town FC, Mr Dixon has a duty to protect his investment. Whether allowing the football club to operate without a budget for players is the right way to do that is a matter of opinion but basic logic suggests that should Staines drop to Step 5, the club's value as an asset would decrease.

It's clear to anyone who has looked at their accounts that the Thames Club is a business which has struggled for many years and so it is quite natural to ask why Downing LLP continues to support it. Even if they do have a long-term plan for the site which involves an alternative use of it, it's highly unlikely they'd admit to that until they absolutely had to and there's no guarantee any further development would be granted planning permission.

As a football fan who grew up locally during an era where Staines Town were regularly a division or two above their local rivals, I've chipped into this conversation in an effort to understand what the issues are and how they might be resolved. I tend to agree with you that blaming all the club's ills on the owner of the club is a little unfair but, given that said owner seems to have absolved himself of responsibility for it's day to day operations, I can see why long-term Staines fans might take that approach.

Both Norman and myself have attempted to ask what the long term future of Staines Town FC might be; my suggestion is that pouring money into continued legal action might not be the best way to secure it. Given the kind of business Downing LLP does, I'm guessing that they might be able to cover legal costs longer than Joe Dixon could on his own, so surely a more sensible approach would be to seek a 'reset' in relations between STFC and the Thames Club / Downing.

It is admittedly very unlikely, but a rapproachment might lead, in the longer term, to STFC having some of the facilities placed under its control, enabling it to generate greater revenue.

If the maintenance and facility issues can be made good and the club can concentrate on football rather than legal action, this would presumably enable a playing budget to be made available, which leads to better results and therefore, more people through the turnstiles. The Thames Club could benefit from that through bar income, plus ground rent as a minimum. At the very least, having a stable tenant paying rent every month provides some sort of return in a way that an empty site without planning permission does not. Therefore, in the short term, it should be in everyone's interests for the club and its landlord to co-exist, at least for the duration of the current lease.

The ultimate question is what happens if (a) the two sides cannot resolve their differences or (b) an agreement is reached but leads to the club being given notice to quit at the end of its current lease.

You can say what you like about the previous stewardship of STFC but, when the Swans were groundsharing at various places before the current Wheatsheaf Park opened, the late Alan Boon was at games, week in, week out and that isn't something that can be said about Mr Dixon. That's his business of course, but I can see why it leads to questions from Staines supporters.

reply to this article | return to the front page