|
Post by chrisharris on Oct 15, 2016 8:10:49 GMT
Fascinating stuff. lewesfc.com/2016/10/candidates-for-election-to-the-board-of-directors/In their Board election addresses both Charlie Dobres and Eddie Ramsden have signaled their determination, if elected, to have the playing budget of our first team and the ladies on an equal footing. (see website) Although the men's budget will not be decreased, the Ladies budget will be vastly increased to match that of the first team. I suppose if the case is there is money to invest in the playing side, where would you want it spent ? Eddie puts in a very persuasive argument but I guess not an entirely popular move with the descent of the first team over the years. Now we have a decent manager maybe resources should be directed in his direction. But maybe a very successful ladies team with a raised profile will bring in more resources itself. A brave move and certainly interesting, but marks a massive change in direction. What do you think ? equality of opportunity or status quo at our club
|
|
|
Post by hammerrook on Oct 15, 2016 12:19:12 GMT
There are lots of plus to getting in the WSL with the FA matching almost half funding in certain areas, also fund a decent amount to pitch repair costs.
I've asked some questions and raised this in the pass when on the board, in 2018 women's football is being restructured and I'm yet to see an announcement from the FA on what these plans are given Brighton ladies budget blast year was more than what our first team was on what are the realistic goals of this happening, I don't mind parity but there needs to be a realistic outcomes, with more and more ladies teams being taken over by there male counterparts, money is going to become quite an important part of this league.
I've felt for a while that while the goal of WSL is a nice one to have i do wonder if its a tad beyond or level and if we should wait to see what the FA throw at us in 2018. It's not beyond the FA to somehow make it difficult for clubs like Lewes to get promoted especially when you have a number of so called big name clubs with ladies teams at our level and below.
Personally if I have missed an announcement and the restructure has been announced and it looks promising for the likes of Lewes then I'm all for it, but if its not been announced then I fear where throwing money at something an potentially the door could be closed.
|
|
|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 15, 2016 13:03:30 GMT
I did begin wondering when in the last six years this idea came about. Then I realised that it was only a couple of years ago that the Ladies section was brought properly under the LFC banner, so this is presumably a new-ish brainwave. As far as I'm concerned, it's their job to actually put the good-sounding logic into practice – and raise completely new revenues from scratch. I will be seeking clarification on whether Supporters Club fundraising revenues will be also split 50-50. Does this initiative mean that the Ladies will be their league's money-bags, paying far more than everyone else and thereby inviting the same snidey grumblings that Whitehawk, Margate, Maidstone, etc have had to endure on Forums such as this in recent years?
|
|
believer
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 430
|
Post by believer on Oct 15, 2016 14:26:06 GMT
Ed and Charlie make quite persuasive arguments but the devil is in the detail. If the men's team get gates of 500 and the women get 50 it suggests that many more people are interested in the men's team than the women's. I don't think gate receipts should therefore be shared out so the revenue streams for the women will need to be innovative and secured before we commit to parity. I agree that we could be ground breakers in this and getting in first might mean fantastic opportunities- I really hope it does and the women become a national force. However, for me and many others the men's first team will always be the reason we support Lewes. The other stuff is great (I even love the beach huts) but will for me always be secondary to the first team. Coming to first team games is one of the few things I do for me and after the last few seasons I think we deserve to have them put first. If growing other parts of the club helps do this I am for it but I would like to have a bit more info on the how's before it gets my unreserved enthusiasm.
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 764
|
Post by simon on Oct 16, 2016 10:26:39 GMT
To be honest I'm surprised how few of the candidates reference one of the core issues which is how to arrest the steady decline of the men's team from the Conference to the mid reaches of Rymans South. And what level they aspire to see Lewes FC playing at in years to come.
I have no problem with increased funding for the Ladies team, however reality is at present the level of support for the men's team is 10x the level of the ladies team and the first team will remain the major interest if most people. Speaking personally I attend maybe 15 games a season to watch football, no more, no less.
Has anyone successfully made it to the end of Ed Ramsden's address yet?
|
|
|
Post by hammerrook on Oct 16, 2016 11:31:17 GMT
X
|
|
|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 16, 2016 11:52:17 GMT
I personally wouldn't be so harsh. I'm not sure what choice the Board will have re financial parity, if practically half the Directors essentially stood because of their association with the Ladies part of the Club. Whether this proves as to be contentious as the Beach Huts, for example, only time will tell. But the message is clear in the election addresses - the mandate will exist if Owners vote for the candidates' manifestos. That's precisely what one person one vote means. We have a say, which is the very essence of our Club's ownership model.
|
|
|
Post by sedlescombe on Oct 16, 2016 14:22:11 GMT
To be honest I'm surprised how few of the candidates reference one of the core issues which is how to arrest the steady decline of the men's team from the Conference to the mid reaches of Rymans South. And what level they aspire to see Lewes FC playing at in years to come. I have no problem with increased funding for the Ladies team, however reality is at present the level of support for the men's team is 10x the level of the ladies team and the first team will remain the major interest if most people. Speaking personally I attend maybe 15 games a season to watch football, no more, no less. Has anyone successfully made it to the end of Ed Ramsden's address yet? Yes I have
First of all let me say that Ed is absolutely one of the good guys involved at the club and we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude but I found myself checking whether Ed was actually still on the Board because there seems nothing here that requires his re-election. Why are we not already doing it? and if he is being held back by other Board members then we ought to be given more information and indeed names.
In practice the budgets for each side of the club reflects in large part the ability of each side to generate funds though I recognize that it may be a great deal easier raising funds for the men - even at Rymans level than the Women. In my view the playing budgets should continue to reflect income generated and if that means that the Women's side need to up their game to achieve higher incomes and have a greater playing budget - or even to bring in professional fundraising help in order to access the funds that Ed tells us is out there if only we bothered to ask then I am all for that. If that means that parity of budgets is achieved or even the focus of the club changes to one where the Women team is bring in more and are paying higher wages then even better.
Again though my question is why does it wait for this election when the Board could do it anyway. If there are oard members who simply oppose raising money for the women then I think we need to know. Otherwise why not just get on with it.
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 764
|
Post by simon on Oct 16, 2016 15:42:39 GMT
To be honest I'm surprised how few of the candidates reference one of the core issues which is how to arrest the steady decline of the men's team from the Conference to the mid reaches of Rymans South. And what level they aspire to see Lewes FC playing at in years to come. I have no problem with increased funding for the Ladies team, however reality is at present the level of support for the men's team is 10x the level of the ladies team and the first team will remain the major interest if most people. Speaking personally I attend maybe 15 games a season to watch football, no more, no less. Has anyone successfully made it to the end of Ed Ramsden's address yet? Yes I have
First of all let me say that Ed is absolutely one of the good guys involved at the club and we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude but I found myself checking whether Ed was actually still on the Board because there seems nothing here that requires his re-election. Why are we not already doing it? and if he is being held back by other Board members then we ought to be given more information and indeed names.
In practice the budgets for each side of the club reflects in large part the ability of each side to generate funds though I recognize that it may be a great deal easier raising funds for the men - even at Rymans level than the Women. In my view the playing budgets should continue to reflect income generated and if that means that the Women's side need to up their game to achieve higher incomes and have a greater playing budget - or even to bring in professional fundraising help in order to access the funds that Ed tells us is out there if only we bothered to ask then I am all for that. If that means that parity of budgets is achieved or even the focus of the club changes to one where the Women team is bring in more and are paying higher wages then even better.
Again though my question is why does it wait for this election when the Board could do it anyway. If there are oard members who simply oppose raising money for the women then I think we need to know. Otherwise why not just get on with it.
I salute you then as I found the address excessively long and rather boring. Something that could have been summarised in 10 lines. If Ed needs to know why the mens' budget is 10x that of the ladies then come along to a few of the games (apparently he doesn't) and he will see that the difference in attendances is also a magnitude of 10. What you get paid is relative to the money you bring in through the gate and sponsorship. Is it really such a surprise? Having coached mixed youth football for 8 years I commend the goal but honestly there is nothing to stop those running the ladies side from taking the steps now to get towards parity and I'm sure when the ladies generate average gates of 400 odd then all will be well. I am a bit surprised to read that the club needs 10 directors to run it. It sounds like one of the committee regimes at the FA, where big committees generally translates to a lack of accountability and, in recent years, a lack of performance. A lack of performance eh. Sounds like recent times at Lewes FC too.
|
|
|
Post by sedlescombe on Oct 16, 2016 16:20:08 GMT
Yes I have
First of all let me say that Ed is absolutely one of the good guys involved at the club and we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude but I found myself checking whether Ed was actually still on the Board because there seems nothing here that requires his re-election. Why are we not already doing it? and if he is being held back by other Board members then we ought to be given more information and indeed names.
In practice the budgets for each side of the club reflects in large part the ability of each side to generate funds though I recognize that it may be a great deal easier raising funds for the men - even at Rymans level than the Women. In my view the playing budgets should continue to reflect income generated and if that means that the Women's side need to up their game to achieve higher incomes and have a greater playing budget - or even to bring in professional fundraising help in order to access the funds that Ed tells us is out there if only we bothered to ask then I am all for that. If that means that parity of budgets is achieved or even the focus of the club changes to one where the Women team is bring in more and are paying higher wages then even better.
Again though my question is why does it wait for this election when the Board could do it anyway. If there are oard members who simply oppose raising money for the women then I think we need to know. Otherwise why not just get on with it.
I salute you then as I found the address excessively long and rather boring. Something that could have been summarised in 10 lines. If Ed needs to know why the mens' budget is 10x that of the ladies then come along to a few of the games (apparently he doesn't) and he will see that the difference in attendances is also a magnitude of 10. What you get paid is relative to the money you bring in through the gate and sponsorship. Is it really such a surprise? Having coached mixed youth football for 8 years I commend the goal but honestly there is nothing to stop those running the ladies side from taking the steps now to get towards parity and I'm sure when the ladies generate average gates of 400 odd then all will be well. I am a bit surprised to read that the club needs 10 directors to run it. It sounds like one of the committee regimes at the FA, where big committees generally translates to a lack of accountability and, in recent years, a lack of performance. A lack of performance eh. Sounds like recent times at Lewes FC too.
For what it is worth Apple who have been the world's largest company - I couldn't be bothered to check if they still are; have a Board of eight people.
I think you are on to something here. Speaking generally there is a tension between democracy and effectiveness - for example even with John Lewis' constitution there is a recognition of the need for professional management getting on with the day to day job away from constant democratic oversight and there is also a tendency in all voluntary organizations to elect people who are liked or are deemed a "good bloke (blokette?)" compared say to a ruthless bastard who might actually get things done.
Ultimately it is a balance and there will be many who would rather retain the integrity of the club as it is almost regardless of the years of failure on the pitch and that is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It is probably why community owned teams are more likely to have a lower ceiling for success than the mainstream model
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 764
|
Post by simon on Oct 16, 2016 17:04:35 GMT
I salute you then as I found the address excessively long and rather boring. Something that could have been summarised in 10 lines. If Ed needs to know why the mens' budget is 10x that of the ladies then come along to a few of the games (apparently he doesn't) and he will see that the difference in attendances is also a magnitude of 10. What you get paid is relative to the money you bring in through the gate and sponsorship. Is it really such a surprise? Having coached mixed youth football for 8 years I commend the goal but honestly there is nothing to stop those running the ladies side from taking the steps now to get towards parity and I'm sure when the ladies generate average gates of 400 odd then all will be well. I am a bit surprised to read that the club needs 10 directors to run it. It sounds like one of the committee regimes at the FA, where big committees generally translates to a lack of accountability and, in recent years, a lack of performance. A lack of performance eh. Sounds like recent times at Lewes FC too.
For what it is worth Apple who have been the world's largest company - I couldn't be bothered to check if they still are; have a Board of eight people.
I think you are on to something here. Speaking generally there is a tension between democracy and effectiveness - for example even with John Lewis' constitution there is a recognition of the need for professional management getting on with the day to day job away from constant democratic oversight and there is also a tendency in all voluntary organizations to elect people who are liked or are deemed a "good bloke (blokette?)" compared say to a ruthless bastard who might actually get things done.
Ultimately it is a balance and there will be many who would rather retain the integrity of the club as it is almost regardless of the years of failure on the pitch and that is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It is probably why community owned teams are more likely to have a lower ceiling for success than the mainstream model
Indeed, remember as well that the day to day football side is run by the Team Manager. I'm struggling to see why a 10 man board is needed. I am a firm believer in fan ownership, however I'm not sure at Lewes the model is right. IMHO the core business of most football clubs is running a successful first team and most years have seen struggle on the pitch (even in the years when the club didn't get relegated) despite having one of the higher levels of support in the Rymans.
|
|
believer
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 430
|
Post by believer on Oct 16, 2016 19:58:45 GMT
The difference between Apple and Lewes fc is that the Apple board get paid. Our board do it for love and I think that if there are 10 and not 8 it gives them all a little more free time or the club a bit more productivity. Don't see the numbers as a problem really.
|
|
|
Post by sedlescombe on Oct 16, 2016 21:02:14 GMT
The difference between Apple and Lewes fc is that the Apple board get paid. Our board do it for love and I think that if there are 10 and not 8 it gives them all a little more free time or the club a bit more productivity. Don't see the numbers as a problem really. Of those eight only two of them actually work for Apple. I guess the point is does an increased number of people aid decision making or diminish it as everyone has their say? Perhaps with fewer directors the Board might actually have done what was already within their power anyway and which is the basis of Ed's campaign.
|
|
|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 16, 2016 21:41:41 GMT
I reckon the desire to grow the size of the Board represents tacit acknowledgement of the unreasonable and unsustainable nature of past smaller Boards. I hark back to the number of Directors who fail to serve the full three years, and / or the number of former Directors who perhaps give the impression of having devoted more time than was healthy to the Club, and who seem now to only very rarely be at The Pan. I also think the Apple analogy is totally irrelevant to LFC. The Club has few paid employees and not many volunteers to carry out the Executive's decisions, whereas a Board of a commercial organisation is the mere tip of the workforce iceberg. My perception is that the Directors end up doing a lot of the doing, as well as all the directing. But if a Club wants to do more than run a Men's First Team, then it involves more work than probably many of our competitors need to resource. Whether just two extra Board members will be enough to dramatically ramp-up the Ladies budget as planned without recourse to further paid employees, sounds extremely optimistic to me, but then I'm a glass half-empty fellow so what do I know? Various posters have raised further interesting issues re budget parity and what that actually means in terms of revenue parity. Roll on the next Supporters Club meeting...
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 764
|
Post by simon on Oct 17, 2016 5:22:56 GMT
The difference between Apple and Lewes fc is that the Apple board get paid. Our board do it for love and I think that if there are 10 and not 8 it gives them all a little more free time or the club a bit more productivity. Don't see the numbers as a problem really. That seems to make the assumption that the only way to offer your services "for love" is to be on the board? The role of the board is to provide direction and take decisions - does it really need 10 people to do that?
|
|