|
Post by hammerrook on Oct 19, 2016 18:23:37 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. Didn't East web used to do it i belive there no longer operating www.east-web.co.uk/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
|
|
|
Post by sonjakoufels on Oct 19, 2016 19:14:15 GMT
The average attendance of the Mens team so far is 374. Highest 521 ( v Guernsey) lowest 284. If you take out all of the kids and away supporters, how many owners attend mens 1st team matches? We have 1200 owners and (probably ) less than 25% attend games.
Hopefully if we can climb the table, the fairweather fans will turn up.
So I think a questionnaire would be good.
By the way, 284 is less than twice the highest gate of the Ladies best attended match. :-)
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 770
|
Post by simon on Oct 19, 2016 20:07:45 GMT
The average attendance of the Mens team so far is 374. Highest 521 ( v Guernsey) lowest 284. If you take out all of the kids and away supporters, how many owners attend mens 1st team matches? We have 1200 owners and (probably ) less than 25% attend games. Hopefully if we can climb the table, the fairweather fans will turn up. So I think a questionnaire would be good. By the way, 284 is less than twice the highest gate of the Ladies best attended match. :-) An interesting post, mainly for showing how you can make stats say anything. The lowest mens attendance is 2 x the highest ladies attendance. Right oh. What about comparing like for like? As for the ownership. I think there is a risk of trying to make out that you can only be a supporter if you are an owner, or if you are an owner you are a 'fairweather fan' if you don't show up. Well firstly there are plenty of owners who live miles away who don't attend. There are some board members who don't attend as well. It doesn't make them less of a fan. Equally I know plenty of people who go to games who are not owners. That includes me, but it doesn't stop me attending around 15 x a season and putting money into the club (considerably more than an 'absentee' member). That's why (Pellsfan) I referred to 80% of people, not 80% of members, being interested in Saturday football. I do agree with the questionnaire though as the club probably needs to understand the dynamics of its support base a lot better than just putting more good chaps with good soundbites on the board.
|
|
|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 19, 2016 21:35:31 GMT
80% of people is clearly more than 80% of owners, so that would even better! I was just responding to the earlier point about where people's interest lies. But I wholly share your distaste for people trying to make out (in Paul's words, for example) that I'm not "a true fan" of LFC unless I give a damn about the Ladies. They weren't even a proper part of the Club until a couple of years ago, so how does that sort of claim work? And I'd bet decent money that there's a few Life Members who don't 'do' Ladies football either.
|
|
|
Post by sonjakoufels on Oct 19, 2016 21:39:15 GMT
I was trying to say that owners are not just mens team watchers. They are people that want to be a part of the club. The fair weather fans, are not owners, but people that turn up when the club is doing well. Probably a regular at another Sussex club. If the Ladies team were top of the league, then I am sure gate would increase dramatically. If they could achieve the Success that Brighton achieved then gates in WSL 2, the they could reach the same as the men in Ryman South. I did not mean fans are not true fans, unless they are owners.
It is a big gamble, I am not sure if it is worth it until I have more idea of the figures involved and where it is coming from. I do agree that the 1st team budget should not comprised. Personally I watch both men and ladies teams. If I still lived in Lewes, I would watch the reserves and under 18s midweek.
|
|
|
Post by lewessussex on Oct 20, 2016 0:17:28 GMT
I have sat back and read all this in shock of how such a unfeasible idea can even be expressed. Men and women football should be separate. I am all for the success of the womens team but this is crazy. I thought after the horror of the last 6 years, the board would try all there best to eradicate the mens success, but this does not seem the case, why is know one taken any responsibility for our continued failure?? The truth is parity for the 2 would not be viable, its a fact that mens football will always take president no matter what level the ladies team achieve, hence why even huge clubs like Man Utd, Chelsea womens all play at non-league grounds, come on its logic. Could you imagine other community owned clubs such as Barca or Wimbledon doing this ?? The mens team should be the focus, because it reaps the best returns and is also the main interest of the majority of supporters as well. Its been said in the past that some board members dont have enough football experience, and this is sadly really showing.
|
|
dkb22
Isthmian South
Posts: 646
|
Post by dkb22 on Oct 20, 2016 3:44:34 GMT
It's hard to disagree with anything in Barry Collins' blog post to be honest. Any major decision like this should be put to a direct vote and the other candidates that support equal budgets should have made their position explicitly clear in their address.
The lack of detail in Ed Ramsden's pitch was worrying.I was expecting to eventually come to a detailed plan of how it would work but it turned out to be entirely based on a presumption that new sponsors and members would sign up (and then, crucially, stick around). I remember similar things being said when we became a community club, about how membership would soon make us sustainable, and yet we're still reliant on one or two generous, wealthy benefactors.
|
|
|
Post by stuartnoel on Oct 20, 2016 7:09:31 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. Not sure it's one for this thread James but the issues that came to light with East Web, who previously managed the website meant we needed to build a new website in a 5 day window...you may remember that during the summer we went offline for 24 hours - that was related to this.
|
|
krook
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 388
|
Post by krook on Oct 20, 2016 8:40:19 GMT
This supposed a club run and owned bye the fans yet a big stupid decision like this and for the worse , is going to be decided as it sounds by a few people who no nothing about running a football club.also I don't like the sound if true that either one or two members people within the club may pull out if they don't get elected onto the board and won't be putting money into the club now that doesn't sound very sustainable to me which I don't think will ever happen anyway not enough support and members anyway.
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 770
|
Post by simon on Oct 20, 2016 8:54:00 GMT
I was trying to say that owners are not just mens team watchers. They are people that want to be a part of the club. The fair weather fans, are not owners, but people that turn up when the club is doing well. Probably a regular at another Sussex club. If the Ladies team were top of the league, then I am sure gate would increase dramatically. If they could achieve the Success that Brighton achieved then gates in WSL 2, the they could reach the same as the men in Ryman South. I did not mean fans are not true fans, unless they are owners. It is a big gamble, I am not sure if it is worth it until I have more idea of the figures involved and where it is coming from. I do agree that the 1st team budget should not comprised. Personally I watch both men and ladies teams. If I still lived in Lewes, I would watch the reserves and under 18s midweek. I think 'fairweather fans' is quite a derogatory term really. It's inevitable a club in Lewes position will need to try and maximise support from secondary fans. That's why there are initiatives like Non League Day and similar. You will always get more floating fans when the club is doing well. Personally I am a season ticket holder at another club (not Brighton) but I attend Lewes regularly and that generates income. I don't really have an interest in being an owner. Maybe by your definition that makes me a 'fairweather fan' but by attending games I probably put 3x the money in that an absentee owner would. Your last paragraph is right though. It all comes down to the maths. In that respect I wish people could have been a bit more specific in their election addresses about the what and the how rather than the 'motherhood and apple pie' type guff that I have read.
|
|
|
Post by hammerrook on Oct 20, 2016 10:01:00 GMT
I had a discussion with the chairman who I think is a asset to this club as i do Charlie and Ed about what happens of we have a did split on the board in an decision and well im still non the wiser on that one. Thing is it looks to me this is an instance where its highly likely to happen. 4 directors will vote in favour of parity unless they put it to an owner's vote (which they should imo) so we have the realistically option that one of the other 6 directors if not more will vote in favour if more then I guess it will happen if not more what will happen at a dead heat.
Lindsey will be voting for one of the 2 directors wanting parity not because she thinks it will work but because she feels they both add value to the club which is undeniable. I think we need a clear answer from the club and that is just how much are Charlie and Ed holding this club up at the moment, and also if this comes to a pass where it's likely to happen can we see a clear business model and have the chance to vote on it.
I'm not a owner currently Lindsey my partner is I decided to sponsor Baz shop this season instead.
As for fairweather fan I don't come any more just to involved in Seaford RfC to even consider getting near the club at the moment and wouldn't go near the current ladies set up anyway when I used to go every home go without fail, but I read the website on a daily basis I tend not to stick to forum as well only 4 weeks ago people where stupidly calling for Darren to be sacked. But I think this is such a important move that we just need to know more.
|
|
|
Post by Fhorum Mhember 22 on Oct 20, 2016 11:36:29 GMT
1,076 I had a discussion with the chairman who I think is a assist to this club as i do Charlie and Ed about what happens of we have a did split on the board in an decision and well im still non the wiser on that one. Thing is it looks to me this is an instant where its highly likely to happen. 4 directors will vote in favour of parity unless they put it to an owner's vote (which they should imo) so we have the realistically option that one of the other 6 directors if not more will vote in favour if more then I guess it will happen if not more what will happen at a dead heat. Not sure that's the way to look at it. Here's another view. Election turn-out is in the order of 150, I believe (give or take). There are about half that number (approx) of owners (ie voters) in the Ladies section of the Club ... I imagine most of those will be voting in a particular way, because, let's face it, they are pretty much voting for Christmas. So chances are, a certain 5 candidates would be successful - all of whom are (probably) in favour of the parity proposal - plus one current Board member (at least) who I imagine is also in favour - so that would be 6 out of 10 (at least).
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 770
|
Post by simon on Oct 20, 2016 13:04:25 GMT
The other angle to this is what view players, potential players and management will take.
Most players and managers prefer to be part of a successful team, winning promotion etc. I would imagine that if there is the suggestion of the success of the 1st team coming secondary to some wider plan then I could see them giving Lewes FC a wide berth.
To be fair, Charlie Dobres' pitch does clearly talk about not reducing the mens budget, however that could mean anything if other teams are increasing budgets.
It will be genuinely interesting to see where the club is in 5 years time....
|
|
|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 20, 2016 13:10:46 GMT
I just hope it doesn't come to people voting with their feet.
|
|
|
Post by sedlescombe on Oct 20, 2016 15:33:41 GMT
The other angle to this is what view players, potential players and management will take. Most players and managers prefer to be part of a successful team, winning promotion etc. I would imagine that if there is the suggestion of the success of the 1st team coming secondary to some wider plan then I could see them giving Lewes FC a wide berth. To be fair, Charlie Dobres' pitch does clearly talk about not reducing the mens budget, however that could mean anything if other teams are increasing budgets. It will be genuinely interesting to see where the club is in 5 years time....
In practice there is rather less to this than meets the eye.
The reason Charlie can talk about the mens budget not being effected is that there really is nothing more to this than a promise to work harder at raising funds for the Ladies. Something that doesn't actually need an election to achieve as this could already be going on but of course that doesn't get retweets from Jane Garvey. The 50/50 thing - which to my mind is a red herring and in practice is rather patronizing - is not even desirable. Let the team budgets reflect what they can raise. Why limit the Women to 50% if they can raise more. If they need professional fundraising to access more money then that is something we should certainly recruit - and would certainly be something worth seeking a mandate for though Ed rather suggests there are pots of cash out there which would fund the womens team if only someone (the Board?) had only got around to asking for it.
Sound and fury signifying not very much though it has got everyone talking about the elections which is no small thing
|
|