|
Post by fairweatherrook on Oct 18, 2016 19:39:33 GMT
I'm very much in two minds about this. Women getting paid equally to men in general is a no brainer to me and the fact that it is an issue in 2016 is pretty horrendous. So in theory transferring that to football is a good idea and one that should be applauded.
However, market forces dictate how much money there is for anything in life and in my mind the money a team generates should be reflected in the budget they receive. Given the support base of the ladies team, it's obvious to me that the first team generate much more income for the club. Also, the club are not yet fully self-sufficient, so how will this be paid for? I assume either by lowering the first team and/or DS etc teams' budget or by someone throwing a load of money at it. If it's the former then I'm out, if it's the latter then I'm also out as that's the whole basis for community ownership, which in is what attracted me to the club in the first place.
So while I support the idea, I'd want to see how it would be put in practice as I certainly wouldn't support it if it impacted the men's sides in anyway as that is who I come to see.
|
|
|
Post by seagulloverlewes on Oct 19, 2016 8:13:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 19, 2016 9:03:12 GMT
From Barry's article
"But this isn’t the vision of a sustainable, community-owned club I bought into. This season alone directors could pump as much as a six-figure sum into the club, at best many tens of thousands. The 3G is under-performing against budget, overall income is down against budget and we rely on directors’ generosity just to pay wages at the end of each week. My great fear is that raising the women’s budget to financially unsustainable levels will massively increase our losses, making us more reliant than ever on our benefactors"
Is it all going horribly wrong?
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 770
|
Post by simon on Oct 19, 2016 9:31:51 GMT
From Barry's article "But this isn’t the vision of a sustainable, community-owned club I bought into. This season alone directors could pump as much as a six-figure sum into the club, at best many tens of thousands. The 3G is under-performing against budget, overall income is down against budget and we rely on directors’ generosity just to pay wages at the end of each week. My great fear is that raising the women’s budget to financially unsustainable levels will massively increase our losses, making us more reliant than ever on our benefactors" Is it all going horribly wrong? Interesting article from Barry which I agree with. If the deficit is as big as suggested then I would have thought before moving in to new 'ideals' the board should focus on existing projects such as: 1. Why is there such a big deficit 2. Why is the 3G off track 3. If we are running such a deficit, why are results so mediocre with one of the largest support bases in Rymans
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 19, 2016 9:51:31 GMT
But Charlie says this
"In July last year, having successfully raised nearly £1m in grants and investment, the 3G facility opened. Not only does it make a real contribution to the whole community’s sporting life, it is also making an increasingly significant difference to the club and its finances"
|
|
|
Post by hammerrook on Oct 19, 2016 9:55:11 GMT
I'd imagine getting relegated has brought a lesser income. I asked Barry about the 3g on Twitter he just feels like with all new things it takes tike to create maximum revenue.
I am concerned in the view that the two benefactors probably propping the club are, are the 2 that are bidding for financial parity if they feel there not getting what they want will they stick around and can we survive without there investment.
5 of the 7 people standing back this plan so 3 will be elected to the board, I'd imagine at least 1 current board member will back it. So I think it realistically will happen.
I think there are 2 clear stand out people standing in Richard and Ed B and I really hope they get elected as they both look to bring new things I actually think though neither of them will due to womens vote over whelmingly going to the others, let's hope for a good turn out from the owners as I feel this is a bad move for the club
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 19, 2016 10:53:18 GMT
Presumably the annual statement will add some clarity? I seem to recall that last year was the last year that the club would have to rely on donations - hence the reduced playing budget?
|
|
captain
Isthmian Premier
Posts: 1,267
|
Post by captain on Oct 19, 2016 11:05:19 GMT
As an aside (although not totally irrelevant) have a look at the 3 banners at the top of the website. Do you see any reference to Men's football? What control did the club have over the design of what is a poor relation to the previous website ?
|
|
|
Post by Fhorum Mhember 22 on Oct 19, 2016 11:09:36 GMT
I am concerned in the view that the two benefactors probably propping the club are, are the 2 that are bidding for financial parity if they feel there not getting what they want will they stick around and can we survive without there investment. Perhaps this is the nub of the matter. As long as individuals are funding the Club, can there really be true Equality (however much the contributors underplay their good deed)? But can the Club survive without some kind of sugar-daddy/mummy income? Will owners therefore feel that they have to vote for the money-men/women, even if they don't agree with what they are saying? If so, then that's not a healthy situation. It's a great article from Barry - fair and to the point. Must have been difficult to write, in the circumstances, but is much needed at this time. I'd stick an applause icon in here, if I knew how to do it. This is potentially a huge change for the Club, and I don't think a tick against a name at the AGM, where traditionally 10-15% of the ownership takes part, is the right way to get a mandate for such a momentous decision. I'm surprised if anyone thinks that, really. It's difficult to know what to believe sometimes. But you can have it on good authority that Ownership (as of Sep) stands at 1,076, and not the 1200+ you might read elsewhere. Think it'll increase this month, but only a wee bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 11:31:11 GMT
I fear this issue will tear the club apart, as Barry sayes it should never have been an election issue, I fear we are going to lose some very good and very important directors, I am not totally against it, but a period of consultation with every owner maybe getting a questionnaire and a couple of meetings to allow questions, Like if we did find new sponsors ie I think maybe there is a lot of right on feminist firms out there who might put up the money if we were the first, but I would also need to be reassured that its not another boom and bust modal.
|
|
believer
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 430
|
Post by believer on Oct 19, 2016 12:24:31 GMT
If you follow Ed's reasoning through then you could say why shouldn't our mens budget be the same as Chelsea 's as both teams play roughly the same amount of games. The simple answer is that they generate more income and until Lewes ladies can do the same parity should not happen.
|
|
captain
Isthmian Premier
Posts: 1,267
|
Post by captain on Oct 19, 2016 15:49:41 GMT
Excellent article by Bazza. Hope it gets widely read. The voice of common sense.
|
|
|
Post by stuartnoel on Oct 19, 2016 16:31:05 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. The website is updated by a few of us. We add new header banners on a regular basis based on either a theme or when we get a good image that represents the club. There's no bias in what images are used. More than happy to go into detail why we had to build a new website from nothing in just a few days if you want to hear. Of course it may not be everyone's cup of tea but it was either this or a generic version used by 90% of other clubs at our level.
|
|
|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 19, 2016 16:52:07 GMT
I think Barry has neatly and eloquently summed up the thoughts that have been behind my various posts on this thread. This really is starting to sound like an issue on which a special vote is required, rather than merely a minority mandate from an under-supported AGM vote. I also wonder whether some form of hustings would help owners interrogate some of the stuff in the election addresses. For example, I would love to know how making the Philcox steps "little one" friendly is a) possible, b) economically viable, c) a higher priority than, for example, returning some of the toilets lost over past seasons for cost reasons, and d) how it's not just a cynical attempt to hoover up the vote of some owners who're scanning through all the words and like the idea of accessibility. I wish that 80% of owners WERE just interested in the Mens team on a Saturday afternoon; seems to me a significant number are only interested in shopping savings or "supporting a novel-sounding little bandwagon from the other side of the world". (Not my words, but those of someone in the US that I tried to get interested in Ownership.)
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 19, 2016 17:59:41 GMT
Stuart it would be good to know why the website had to be re-built - clearly a significant amount of effort had to be expended in a short space of time.
|
|