charlied
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 288
|
Post by charlied on Oct 23, 2016 13:33:56 GMT
In reply to Sean's question: "Charlie you seem the best man to ask just how much is the finance being propped up by people I'm worried about this also think others will be when reading BC article. I just wondering if it was that you and ED where not to be elected just how far is this club from being solvent as I think it's no secret about the donation you and Ed have made to this club to keep us going." One answer to your question is that, no, we are not yet there in terms of confidently being able to achieve a balanced budget at the end of a season. I think it is still likely that overall the club will make a loss this season, but my best guess is that this year it might be around £30k-£50k. I think Barry's somewhat alarming higher figure was based on some initial Board discussions which included extrapolations on lower gate receipts, but these were in fact incorrectly modelled (and look like being fine); lower than budgeted 3G revenues, but we now have dedicated sales resource (commission only!) on this and the recent 'run-rate' is picking up nicely; commercial not hitting budget, but in fact the main 'sponsorship' part is already around 70% of budget so far. One area that we did budget a large boost in was Ownership because each Board member has been targeted with individually attracting 120 new Owners. So the answer Sean is that we are definitely solvent, because we KNOW we can meet any losses but that we are also making good progress financially as we work towards full sustainability. 3G revenues are building and brand new profit streams are being created, the latest one being the Girls Academy which started this September. However, one key figure that I think everyone needs to be reminded of is the amount of donations from Directors that the club RELIED upon during its fantastic (vis-a-vis Men's First Team) 2007/8 season: That figure was £275,050 (according to official accounts). On top of this was the money that ought to have been paid to HMRC and that led to our near-extinction event in 2009. The reason I mention the £275k figure is to put in context the possible £30k-£50k figure that might require 'propping up' at the end of this season. My point is that, ever since the club very nearly went pear-shape, we have been on a deliberate journey to make that donation figure smaller and smaller each year. In some seasons, we went backwards because we decided (with hindsight, wrongly) to artificially increase the Men's playing budget as a kind of pump-prime to boost our efforts or to cushion the continuing impact of turning round a previously financially defunct business. That just personally cost some Directors but cost the club nothing. Where things have worked - and several things HAVE worked, including the Beach Huts ;-)) - we have grown our revenues more than our costs and therefore continued to make in-roads in to the annual donations figure. And that is exactly the kind of thing I mean when I wrote in my election address about doing stuff that was GOOD and SMART. Starting a Boys' and now a Girls' Academy is a great thing to do AND makes a profit; building a 3G (at absolutely no cost to the club itself) is a great thing to do AND (when you allow for the saving in training venue costs and that it fully employs our Community Manager) already makes a profit. And THAT is why I back the idea of creating parity of resources for our Women's First Team - I believe that it is another case of doing something which is not only a good thing to do, it will also bring in more revenue, for the whole club, than it costs. And it looks like we are very in tune with the way things are going too as the FA Chief Exec has announced TODAY in the papers: www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/22/fa-womens-football-fa-cup-deal-martin-glennOne final thought, if we want to get to a situation where the Men's First Team playing budget is £4k a season or even £10k, how will we get there? As you know, part of my Board gig is to look at long-term infrastructure improvements (of which the 3G was the first to come to fruition) so that we not only get, for example, a great new Clubhouse but also create brand new revenue/profit streams. And these infrastructure improvements will (if we can find a way to do them) lead to step-changes in revenue, but they are some way off and even then, not guaranteed. And what of increased sponsorship? Kevin Miller is an excellent Commercial Director but we need to think about how much more headroom (available sponsors) there is for him to bring in compared to the budget he already achieves - he will continue to work very hard but I personally don't see where another, for example, £200k or £300k can come from by offering what we already offer (great though it is!). So, even if you don't agree with resource-parity for Women's Football or don't agree with us being the club to pursue it (both of which are tenable positions), let me ask you how ELSE you think we can increase our revenues SIGNIFICANTLY or even just make it a bit easier to stand still? That's not a rhetorical question, I genuinely ask that if you don't want us to try and do something bold as proposed with our Ladies' Team, what specific new revenue-generating ideas do you have? Not ones that can bring in a few grand (though they ARE welcome too!) but ones that completely shift the needle. Mine and Ed's belief is that going for parity is NOT a risk to our Men's team - in my case, I can specifically say because if we don't FIRST find the funding, we won't be able to do it. But doing NOTHING differently IS a risk. I know my earlier post said I wouldn't butt in on the forum, but Sean asked me a question and only a couple of people approached me in the bar yesterday ;-)
|
|
believer
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 430
|
Post by believer on Oct 23, 2016 15:01:10 GMT
It is a shame that the voting on Thursday will be before the meeting and not at the end. I think a discussion during the meeting would see more people voting with a better idea of what they were voting for.....
|
|
|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 23, 2016 16:03:05 GMT
I also don't want to butt in, but I guess you mean £10k a week, not season, for the Men's budget?
|
|
charlied
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 288
|
Post by charlied on Oct 23, 2016 16:37:14 GMT
Yes, £10k per week (£380k per year), which is probably what you'd need to do well in the Conference South (as it used to be called) these days.
As I said, I would genuinely welcome input on how to get to that figure.
|
|
|
Post by hammerrook on Oct 23, 2016 16:56:18 GMT
In reply to Sean's question: "Charlie you seem the best man to ask just how much is the finance being propped up by people I'm worried about this also think others will be when reading BC article. I just wondering if it was that you and ED where not to be elected just how far is this club from being solvent as I think it's no secret about the donation you and Ed have made to this club to keep us going." One answer to your question is that, no, we are not yet there in terms of confidently being able to achieve a balanced budget at the end of a season. I think it is still likely that overall the club will make a loss this season, but my best guess is that this year it might be around £30k-£50k. I think Barry's somewhat alarming higher figure was based on some initial Board discussions which included extrapolations on lower gate receipts, but these were in fact incorrectly modelled (and look like being fine); lower than budgeted 3G revenues, but we now have dedicated sales resource (commission only!) on this and the recent 'run-rate' is picking up nicely; commercial not hitting budget, but in fact the main 'sponsorship' part is already around 70% of budget so far. One area that we did budget a large boost in was Ownership because each Board member has been targeted with individually attracting 120 new Owners. So the answer Sean is that we are definitely solvent, because we KNOW we can meet any losses but that we are also making good progress financially as we work towards full sustainability. 3G revenues are building and brand new profit streams are being created, the latest one being the Girls Academy which started this September. However, one key figure that I think everyone needs to be reminded of is the amount of donations from Directors that the club RELIED upon during its fantastic (vis-a-vis Men's First Team) 2007/8 season: That figure was £275,050 (according to official accounts). On top of this was the money that ought to have been paid to HMRC and that led to our near-extinction event in 2009. The reason I mention the £275k figure is to put in context the possible £30k-£50k figure that might require 'propping up' at the end of this season. My point is that, ever since the club very nearly went pear-shape, we have been on a deliberate journey to make that donation figure smaller and smaller each year. In some seasons, we went backwards because we decided (with hindsight, wrongly) to artificially increase the Men's playing budget as a kind of pump-prime to boost our efforts or to cushion the continuing impact of turning round a previously financially defunct business. That just personally cost some Directors but cost the club nothing. Where things have worked - and several things HAVE worked, including the Beach Huts ;-)) - we have grown our revenues more than our costs and therefore continued to make in-roads in to the annual donations figure. And that is exactly the kind of thing I mean when I wrote in my election address about doing stuff that was GOOD and SMART. Starting a Boys' and now a Girls' Academy is a great thing to do AND makes a profit; building a 3G (at absolutely no cost to the club itself) is a great thing to do AND (when you allow for the saving in training venue costs and that it fully employs our Community Manager) already makes a profit. And THAT is why I back the idea of creating parity of resources for our Women's First Team - I believe that it is another case of doing something which is not only a good thing to do, it will also bring in more revenue, for the whole club, than it costs. And it looks like we are very in tune with the way things are going too as the FA Chief Exec has announced TODAY in the papers: www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/22/fa-womens-football-fa-cup-deal-martin-glennOne final thought, if we want to get to a situation where the Men's First Team playing budget is £4k a season or even £10k, how will we get there? As you know, part of my Board gig is to look at long-term infrastructure improvements (of which the 3G was the first to come to fruition) so that we not only get, for example, a great new Clubhouse but also create brand new revenue/profit streams. And these infrastructure improvements will (if we can find a way to do them) lead to step-changes in revenue, but they are some way off and even then, not guaranteed. And what of increased sponsorship? Kevin Miller is an excellent Commercial Director but we need to think about how much more headroom (available sponsors) there is for him to bring in compared to the budget he already achieves - he will continue to work very hard but I personally don't see where another, for example, £200k or £300k can come from by offering what we already offer (great though it is!). So, even if you don't agree with resource-parity for Women's Football or don't agree with us being the club to pursue it (both of which are tenable positions), let me ask you how ELSE you think we can increase our revenues SIGNIFICANTLY or even just make it a bit easier to stand still? That's not a rhetorical question, I genuinely ask that if you don't want us to try and do something bold as proposed with our Ladies' Team, what specific new revenue-generating ideas do you have? Not ones that can bring in a few grand (though they ARE welcome too!) but ones that completely shift the needle. Mine and Ed's belief is that going for parity is NOT a risk to our Men's team - in my case, I can specifically say because if we don't FIRST find the funding, we won't be able to do it. But doing NOTHING differently IS a risk. I know my earlier post said I wouldn't butt in on the forum, but Sean asked me a question and only a couple of people approached me in the bar yesterday ;-) Thank you Charlie so much for that, one question I do have is why has it taken a election to out this idea across why not just do it, does it really take an election to make a decision. I value your and Ed input to this club so much I know just how much time and effort you put into the RIO project, I fear though that these pitches Eds more than most due to the language he used has put your positions at risk and genuinely think your both an asset the club can't find to lose. I also have concerns just how women's focused the board is going I mean realistically the women's section of the board could out weigh the mens by the end of this election process. While I think the ladies are great I do fear about focus's on the mens team. I respect what the ladies would gain for the club from the WSL and the financial awards are clear to all if people look into it, but I do believe it is an unrealistic goal. I also hope the board don't just look at the new academy's as revenue incomes and are actually looking at standard of players coming into them. I wish you all the best but I think this bid of yours and Ed is more than an election address and should Elbe a individual vote. As personally I have not read enough or seen a clear vision to say yay or nay. I just want our club to be here in 10yers time and not go like Peacehaven and other clubs in Sussex look to be which is struggling
|
|
charlied
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 288
|
Post by charlied on Oct 23, 2016 17:04:38 GMT
Sean, the reaction demonstrates that this is a big question i.e. parity. The idea has been very generally knocked about for some time, but, for the reasons I've given, we felt that now was the time to raise its profile. But I can't stress enough that a vote for me or Ed is not an automatic mandate to go ahead, it is only a signal for the Board to discuss the idea more seriously.
Also, I just don't recognise your characterisation about being women-focussed or, for that matter, men's team focussed. We are football focussed and it's not an either/or choice. Both me and Ed talk about this initiative having the ability to raise the budget of both teams and that's exactly what we mean.
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 770
|
Post by simon on Oct 24, 2016 7:26:22 GMT
And THAT is why I back the idea of creating parity of resources for our Women's First Team - I believe that it is another case of doing something which is not only a good thing to do, it will also bring in more revenue, for the whole club, than it costs. And it looks like we are very in tune with the way things are going too as the FA Chief Exec has announced TODAY in the papers: www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/22/fa-womens-football-fa-cup-deal-martin-glennThe rather self-congratulatory tone of Martin Glenn is at odds with the content sadly. The budget for womens football will rise to £17.7m in 2016? In the overall context of football in UK that really is chicken wotsit and we all know it. Thereby hangs the problem. Football in England is all about making the big clubs richer, and restricting grass roots investment to as little as can be got away with. Plus the FA is a male dominated institution, run by middle aged men and big boards (imagine, sdme are even bigger than the proposed board at Lewes FC!!). That ultimately is why the national team is so bad that we struggle against the likes of Malta, Iceland, Slovenia etc and why clubs from lower levels struggle to sustain any progress. Also why there is a dire shortage of decent English players and managers. Even the Sussex County FA cannot exist without a barrage of council members, representatives etc. Until there is radical change at the top of the FA it's hard to see anything much happening really. It's easy to put a few soundbites in the paper, less easy to actually do anything, which is why most of Martin Glenn's recent predecessors have quit without achieving very much. In fact so far Glenn's only real 'achievements' have been overseeing the farce at Euro 2016 and then the Allardyce embarassment. A promising start (not).
|
|
|
Post by hammerrook on Oct 24, 2016 8:44:15 GMT
Sean, the reaction demonstrates that this is a big question i.e. parity. The idea has been very generally knocked about for some time, but, for the reasons I've given, we felt that now was the time to raise its profile. But I can't stress enough that a vote for me or Ed is not an automatic mandate to go ahead, it is only a signal for the Board to discuss the idea more seriously. Also, I just don't recognise your characterisation about being women-focussed or, for that matter, men's team focussed. We are football focussed and it's not an either/or choice. Both me and Ed talk about this initiative having the ability to raise the budget of both teams and that's exactly what we mean. Charlie my mens focus and women's focus steams from the fact to soon, we have more people associated with the women's set up on the board than we do the mens. Now that's not an issue overly except that one of the new male candidates has a clear long history in the football game and while others don't. For me it's not about the sex of the people Standing and needing parity of gender on the board its about what you offer for example Agger's imo is one the most people with the biggest football brain on that board but realistically others offer far less in that terms, It's about being right for the job not about what sex you are (steaming from the other thread also). This whole equality drive the world seems to be is great but relative how about we get women playing 5sets at Wimbledon instead of 3 considering the pay is equal there. It's all relative and the while I get this club lovds being a trend setter, not really sure little non league Lewes are the club to take it on considering financial mistakes hit us far harder than anyone else
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 10:45:57 GMT
Well its getting near to voting time, im not Happy in fact im the other one Grumpy because it has been turned into a one issue election, it means for the first time owners are not being asked to vote for who they think would be the best board member which surely is the point. we could lose good people board members owners fans just because its been made an election issue. As I have read it if Ed dose not raise the money through new streams of sponsorship it does not happen, it should have been presented separately, from what I have read there has been some consultation and discussion already, but there should have been/be a chance for owners to have their views heard and questions answered like what happens down the line if sponsors withdraw. Anyway I will vote for who I think will be the best board members as that should be the one and only point of this election. Whoever gets my votes and im still not quite decided, is a vote to be on the board and is not a mandate for anything else, big decisions must go to the ownership. We are owners not members.
|
|
|
Post by chrisharris on Oct 24, 2016 11:14:02 GMT
lewesfc.proboards.com/thread/3398/catering-proposal?page=1&scrollTo=31584I have posted this in the Everything Else section if the link does not work !!! Charlie, you have asked where the ideas are for that can fundamentally have a big impact on the budget. I know other Chris gave you a copy of the fanzine which had a proposal for a massive shake up and expansion of the catering enterprise. Not pie in the sky, I took over a run down kitchen operation. On a Sunday we would do up to 300 covers and in tandem sometimes a marquee wedding. A substantial operation, not a hick operation. On a limited budget I revamped the kitchen, the staff, the service, the branding, increased the gross profit and average spend to such a successful degree we were able to franchise the operation out, a concept previously alien to the ailing establishment. I did offer last year, when I had spare time, to help with the catering set up but was told all was in hand by a high ranking official at the club which struck me as short sighted. An unelected official. Thoughts Charlie and anyone else ?
|
|
|
Post by pellsfan on Oct 24, 2016 11:37:13 GMT
Am I allowed to conclude that this is just 'Pie in the Sky' stuff?
|
|
charlied
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 288
|
Post by charlied on Oct 24, 2016 11:41:23 GMT
Chris, I've responded to your catering idea on the thread where you posted it. I'm sorry that someone was high-handed with you previously.
|
|
|
Post by Fhorum Mhember 22 on Oct 24, 2016 12:06:34 GMT
It is a shame that the voting on Thursday will be before the meeting and not at the end. I think a discussion during the meeting would see more people voting with a better idea of what they were voting for..... Indeed Anyway I will vote for who I think will be the best board members as that should be the one and only point of this election. Whoever gets my votes and im still not quite decided, is a vote to be on the board and is not a mandate for anything else, big decisions must go to the ownership. We are owners not members. Well said. Also ... In the interests of Equality, can the other 6 candidates now post here why we should vote for them? Had a good chat with Ed (R) on Saturday, and maybe I'm not (quite) as cynical about the BIG issue as I was last week. (To add to previous comments, Ed suggesting that he does nothing for the Club is just his weird sense of humour, possibly even stranger than my own. He has done a heck of a lot over the years, and often the big horrible crap jobs fall on his doorstep.) Sounds like the Club won't suddenly be in dire financial straits come Friday, whoever is voted-in. In some ways, that raises more questions than answers, but on the whole, it might calm the thoughts of those people I know have been worrying about the finances, and what if ... Seems like there is some method in the madness, and that this BIG proposal could have very, very beneficial financial implications for us (that is, for the Club as a whole). And it also seems that timing is crucial, and if we delay too long we might miss the boat - though there is also an appreciation that this has been rushed, and an understanding of the problems/confusion that it is causing. It's true what Charlie says - we need some radical thinking if we want to progress without continued subsidising - something magical that significantly increases funding, sponsorship (and finds 960 new owners). Gonna be a strange Election - I know people who disagree with Ed (R)'s address, but are voting from him anyway, despite him expressly telling us not to.
|
|
|
Post by lewessussex on Oct 24, 2016 13:21:13 GMT
I just think the Mens team should be the primary focus, the cold hard facts is that mens football is a lot more popular. And its not like the mens team has been successful since we changed to a community club, efforts should be on getting them up the leagues. Not changing views and focusing on womens football.
|
|
krook
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 389
|
Post by krook on Oct 24, 2016 15:19:13 GMT
Totally agree lewessussex, but I think certain people only want to hear one answer and that's only what they think.
|
|