|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 17, 2016 8:41:01 GMT
What do you think about my point that the Board – except Ed Ramsden on his own admission – in reality do a whole lot more than just provide direction and decision-making?
|
|
krook
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 388
|
Post by krook on Oct 17, 2016 9:59:12 GMT
Keep the woman's team completely separate from the men's team regards the budgets .The board have always said when people moan about the ladies teams that they are always run Separately and it should stay that way . Like others have said most people go to watch the men's team and they should be the main priority let the woman have a separate board if they want to raise more funds for their teams but don't interfere with the men's budget.Iff certain people on or off the board want more for the woman then that's fine but don't interfere with the men.
|
|
krook
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 388
|
Post by krook on Oct 17, 2016 10:02:35 GMT
P s that's in football matters lol.
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 770
|
Post by simon on Oct 17, 2016 17:35:07 GMT
What do you think about my point that the Board – except Ed Ramsden on his own admission – in reality do a whole lot more than just provide direction and decision-making? I don't disagree. People on the board give a lot of time and do a lot of things. However that is a different question to do you need a 10 person board to run Lewes FC? That's more than virtually every club in the Premier League. What do they all do?
|
|
|
Post by sonjakoufels on Oct 17, 2016 18:29:46 GMT
The last 2 ladies games had gates over 100, so the men don't get 10 times the support.
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 770
|
Post by simon on Oct 17, 2016 20:28:11 GMT
The last 2 ladies games had gates over 100, so the men don't get 10 times the support. I wouldn't plan the future of the club based on 2 games. Let's have a look over a whole season to judge, when the men have had their bigger pulling games like Horsham and Hastings. I bet it won't be far off 10:1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 20:59:35 GMT
The last 2 ladies games had gates over 100, so the men don't get 10 times the support. I wouldn't plan the future of the club based on 2 games. Let's have a look over a whole season to judge, when the men have had their bigger pulling games like Horsham and Hastings. I bet it won't be far off 10:1. Interesting debate I must say. Wouldn't have thought there is much mileage in pretending the gate income for the ladies is anything more than a tiny fraction of the whole...the gates are far smaller and the cost of entry much less.
|
|
|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 17, 2016 21:06:43 GMT
Given the piss-poor turnout in recent elections, perhaps they've been deliberately controversial to try and summon up a bit more interest
|
|
|
Post by sonjakoufels on Oct 17, 2016 21:13:57 GMT
I wouldn't plan the future of the club based on 2 games. Let's have a look over a whole season to judge, when the men have had their bigger pulling games like Horsham and Hastings. I bet it won't be far off 10:1. Interesting debate I must say. Wouldn't have thought there is much mileage in pretending the gate income for the ladies is anything more than a tiny fraction of the whole...the gates are far smaller and the cost of entry much less. Don't forget the ladies only play half the amount of games over a shorter season. If they ladies only average 60, that would mean the men will have to average 600.
|
|
|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 17, 2016 22:38:50 GMT
From what I can see after another lengthy re-read, neither election address refers to a 50/50 split of matchday revenues, etc. They do though talk about raising new sponsorship etc so that the Club can set equal playing budgets for men and women. I would be interested to know how existing sponsorship revenues have held up after the latest relegation, because I would hate the job of trying to add such a huge % on top before August next year. It may well be that most of that can come from grants, as I know nothing about that world. And I would love to see Owner numbers treble... But anyway, good luck to the chap working on it for nowt.
|
|
believer
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 430
|
Post by believer on Oct 18, 2016 5:34:37 GMT
The number of games played respectively is another interesting point. Does parity mean average wages per game or total sum equality? If the totals were the same the women's team would be on a far better "per match" rate which doesn't necessarily seem right.
|
|
paul
East Sussex Football League
Posts: 30
|
Post by paul on Oct 18, 2016 9:17:10 GMT
there's some good stuff in ed's unnecessarily long election address. if you're a true lewes fan you'll want the ladies side to be successful and if raising the playing budget will help that then it's an avenue worth exploring. but I think ed taking us for fools if by saying it's not going to some point negatively impact upon the mens playing budget.
despite blathering for far too long ed's obviously a very clever guy but I cant understand how he thinks this is going to be remotely sustainable. for someone who was on the original board continually banging the drum about making the club sustainable this idea, in it's current form, is half baked. being an owner of either gender this is hugely important and not one to be swept under the carpet. so best case we get a sponsor or someone to fund the ladies playing budget, a sugar daddy if you like, how long is that going to last? a year, two, maybe three? ultimately though someone is either putting their hand in their pocket for the foreseeable future or when it's no longer externally funding will the club really pull the ladies budget or will both mens and ladies budget be reduced as a cost cutting measure? i think we can guess the answer to that.
and why now? we've been in community ownership for 6 years now so whys it been acceptable to ed that we've had such inequality for 6 years but because he's up for election this is now being proposed. sure it's a grand gesture but it doesn't add up. although less grand, growing the ladies budget in a more sustainable way would surely be more sensible. chucking a load of cash at the ladies or men's team isn't what i signed up as an owner. presumably we'll also be getting steve king in to manage the ladies to bring in the mercenaries from london.
and because i'm daring to question ed i'll be labelled a 'sexist'. that really is the weakest argument there is. and the example of using kids as a reason to split the budget. please. this is football.
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 770
|
Post by simon on Oct 18, 2016 13:02:24 GMT
Interesting debate I must say. Wouldn't have thought there is much mileage in pretending the gate income for the ladies is anything more than a tiny fraction of the whole...the gates are far smaller and the cost of entry much less. Don't forget the ladies only play half the amount of games over a shorter season. If they ladies only average 60, that would mean the men will have to average 600. You could of course look at it another way. Total number of attendees x admission price = income generated. In other words the men play twice the number of games, with 3 x the admission price and (say) 8 x the support. That means the mens team generates almost 50 x the income. So equal wages is frankly a pipe dream at this point in time, and I would be a bit worried if large amounts of time were consumed on it. Maybe having a separate 'Ladies Board' would be an option? Given the piss-poor turnout in recent elections, perhaps they've been deliberately controversial to try and summon up a bit more interest Tends to support my own belief that 80% of people are really only interested in watching football on a Saturday afternoon, and the main driver of success at Lewes FC is the success of the men's first team.
|
|
captain
Isthmian Premier
Posts: 1,267
|
Post by captain on Oct 18, 2016 16:10:57 GMT
Let's hope that owners cast their votes with that foremost in their minds. Having read candidates spiel I fear that one potential mix on the Board may result in more discussion disproportionately leaning towards the Ladies team. As far as I am concerned we have two different segments of the football market with the Men's and Ladies in different segments. The Ladies segment, based on my experience, is a vastly inferior product to that of the Men's. That of course is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by exasperatedrook on Oct 18, 2016 17:19:15 GMT
I cannot see how increasing the ladies finances will not have a detrimental effect on the men's first team. Probably 95% of supporters, including myself, are only interested in the men's first team. Good luck to them but I have no interest in ladies football. If I feel the mens team is being compromised further, and let's be honest it's the last thing they need, I shall be withdrawing my support of this club. I suspect I will be one of many.
|
|