The Site
News Index
Search The Site
About The Site
The Season
Fixtures & Results
League Table
Player Profiles
06/07 Photo Gallery
The Club
Archive 92/93 to 19/20
Match Database
Away Fans Guide
The Terraces
E-mail List
Fun & Games
Daggers Dictionary

 The Poll

Daggers change of ownership: should we...

Stay as we are (Members Club)
Go with the East Consortium
Go with the Tamplin Consortium
Look for another solution

View Current Standings


"Essex Senior Cup"
Two blokes in the away end. (from Len Britton)




Next Match

17 April 2021
Solihull Moors
Vanarama National League 

Last Match

13 April 2021
Vanarama National League 
Won 2-0

     On This Day

In 1993,The Daggers beat Bath City 2-1 at Home in the GM Vauxhall Conference 

In 1994,The Daggers drew 2-2 with Northwich Victoria Away in the GM Vauxhall Conference 

In 1995,The Daggers beat Farnborough Town 3-1  Away in the GM Vauxhall Conference 

In 1997,The Daggers drew 1-1 with Hitchin Town at Home in the ICIS League Premier 

In 1999,The Daggers beat Hampton 2-1  Away in the Ryman League Premier 

In 2004,The Daggers lost 0-1 to Halifax Town at Home in the Nationwide Conference 

In 2006,The Daggers drew 2-2 with Canvey Island at Home in the Nationwide Conference 

In 2010,The Daggers beat Burton Albion 2-1 at Home in the Coca Cola League Two 

In 2017,The Daggers drew 2-2 with Sutton United at Home in the Vanarama National League 

In 2018,The Daggers lost 1-3 to Bromley Away in the Vanarama National League 



Fair Play For The National Game
by Nelson on 04/03/2002

Co-publisher Nelson gives us the lowdown on the Fair Play For The National Game Campaign. Nelson is a member of the organisation's committee.

Fair Play For The National Game
Fair Play for the National Game is a supporters' organisation campaigning for a decent system of promotion between the Nationwide Conference and the Football League.

The Campaign's main focus is to get as much publicity for the cause of 3up/3 down between the Conference and the Football League through the media.

One promotion place is unfair in two main ways:

1. The sporting aspect of 1 up is clear to see. So many Conference clubs have no meaningful games after February. Usually, by then, two or three clubs are chasing the one elusive promotion slot, and apart from any relegation battles to avoid the three relegation slots, the majority of clubs are simply going through the motions to ever decreasing crowds. 3 up/3 down (with a playoff for the third slot) would keep the majority of clubs and supporters interested right to the last day of the season.

2. The financial problems engendered by 1 up can be just as galling. During the last few months of the season, clubs who have nothing to play for find that attendances drop dramatically. Less people in the ground means less cash for playing staff and ground improvement. We all know clubs who have, in the past, been denied promotion because their ground does not meet league requirements. Rather than trying to help the situation, the Football League continually votes for a system which ensures that some clubs are unable to develop their grounds.

Before the last League AGM, we were assured by a number of League Chairmen that they would be voting FOR 2 up/2 down. However, when push came to shove, the vote went 69-3 against the proposal. The main argument used was the issue of "parachute payments".

Parachute payments are grants given to clubs who have been relegated. They are paid to any Premiership club that is relegated to the Football League. The argument for parachute payments is a good one. Players have often been signed on Premiership wages and the club needs to find that money from somewhere. Currently, the one club that is relegated to the Conference from the Football League also receives a parachute payment.

Quite understandably, the Premiership pays the parachute payment to its relegated clubs from funds gained through television revenue. However, the Football League chairmen insist that the Conference should pay the parachute payments for those clubs relegated from the league. Perhaps they should consider stumping up the payments for the Premiership clubs then?

At the last league AGM in June 2001, the Conference presented a plan doubling the current parachute payment for the one club currently being demoted from the league and matching that payment for another. The League's official statement suggested that this was not enough for them. How much do they want?

We need to help build up the pressure on the Football League chairmen so that they are continually answering questions on the subject. If you listen to any one of them trying to defend their current policy, it's laughable. Get journalists to ask the right questions and public support will be ours.

So why should a Dagenham & Redbridge supporter want to get involved? If we go up, then surely we don't want an extra trapdoor added to the League to increase the chance of relegation do we? Well, actually, that's a false argument. It is an interesting fact that no club promoted from the Conference to Division 3 has been relegated back into the Conference within the first few seasons. Yes, it's true that Scarborough and Barnet have recently rejoined the Conference, but both had a significant time in the League. Clubs that have been relegated to the Conference in recent seasons have not really set the league alight and the improved chances of at least being involved in a promotion battle would, we believe, far outweigh the added threat of relegation in the first place. Even should the Daggers achieve their goal and reach the promised land of the Football League, it will be at the expense of a Boston United side who, most would agree, certainly would deserve to be joining us. The same applies for us should we lose out to tonight's opponents.

You can out find more about the Fair Play For The National Game campaign on our website at

 is an independent website and the views expressed are not necessarily those of Dagenham & Redbridge Football Club