|
Post by lewessussex on Oct 24, 2016 18:30:39 GMT
Have any other football club had parity in budgets before? Have we spoken to other community clubs about it? The focus must be on getting the mens team as successful as people, that would bring the most reward. Ladies football is a fraction of the populairty mens brings, even in the top divsion and at huge clubs like Man City, Chelsea etc the average attendance is just over 800 (and this with teams with huge attendances for mens football, showing the huge divide between the two). Even if we get up to that level, how is a small area like Lewes going to attract enough fans to compete with the mens, the answer is that it wont, the majority of people attend mens football more than ladies. We would earn a lot more money by having a successful mens team moving up the leagues, and getting to a average attendance of over 600 like years gone by. If we go ahead with this parity idea and the mens team continue to struggle like recent years, how much outrage would that cause the fans? It could possibly lead to a huge divide between fans and board
|
|
Jane R
Sussex County Division Two
Posts: 187
|
Post by Jane R on Oct 24, 2016 18:32:30 GMT
Hi , in response to Norm's request for other BOD election candidates to come on the forum I have, I am going to talk about my hopes from my piece on the website and not discuss any of the other worthy candidates.
I'm Jane the Ladies side Secretary and General Manager also a huge football fan and volunteer at Lewes FC. I used to watch the men every Saturday in the days of Steve King , now I am heavily involved on Sundays and volunteering at times during the week around The Pan Siro I cant make many Saturdays. This doesn't mean I don't support or follow all our teams, those on Twitter will see that I tweet and show my support to Darren and the lads via Rookmeister or Sofa Rooks and have helped out volunteering many a time.
As on my election piece my whole family including the dog are involved in some way at the club off pitch and my role as Sec / GM has plenty of variety. I can be seen with a broom, weeding tools, bus keys and a paint brush . But primarily I do the match arranging for our 3 Ladies teams , including signing on players and liaising with Sussex FA and all the various secretaries in our 3 leagues we play in.
This season I was also voted onto the FAWPL Management Committee and it an honour to serve on it representing clubs from the Southern Northern 1st and reserve teams. Our meetings are at Wembley Stadium and we discuss everything from sponsorships to club discipline.
I like to think that everything I do will benefit the players and the fans at Lewes FC, Jackie G and I drove Mark Bradley's fan engagement directive ( Covered Ladies matches on Sunday) the results were way above what we had hoped for. The Pan was deemed very welcoming and family friendly with some of the highest marks across the board.
Now, the important stuff to you guy's! IF I got elected I aim to concentrate on the community side and take the club into more local schools and social clubs, I would like to help Adam W's excellent work and use my experience from working in the retail sector in the past and charity work I have been involved in. I really enjoy dealing with people of all ages and it would be great to spend some time finding out what makes the fan's tick apart from those 3pts for all our teams across Lewes FC. I can't see any reason why I couldn't still be a volunteer and on the BOD, I think the two go together and complement rather than distract. I have had a go at most duties around the club off the pitch in the last 4 seasons so would now like to dip my toes in a little deeper.
Hope that helps, it is only a brief summary .We all want the same thing, a great and successful club with 3pts every match for ALL our teams male or female. #COYR #COYLR #OneClub
PS Keep the replies respectful and clean
|
|
captain
Isthmian Premier
Posts: 1,269
|
Post by captain on Oct 24, 2016 19:14:12 GMT
Excellent but how would you address the points made by Lewessussex in the previous post ?
|
|
Jane R
Sussex County Division Two
Posts: 187
|
Post by Jane R on Oct 24, 2016 19:19:16 GMT
I was answering Norm who asked for anyone else from the candidates to post. I wasn't answering Lewes Sussex
|
|
captain
Isthmian Premier
Posts: 1,269
|
Post by captain on Oct 24, 2016 19:46:05 GMT
Let me rephrase then. As a potential Director how would you address the points raised by Lewessussex which in all probability reflect the concerns of over 90% of the Club's fanbase.
|
|
|
Post by lewessussex on Oct 24, 2016 19:50:03 GMT
I wish every success for the ladies team, and I am happy for any gender to be on the board. I am just worried if this would have any effect on the mens team (even if not directly). As we all know the mens team has dreadfully failed in recent years, so whats being down to address this point? On top of this local teams are becoming richer in a lot of cases, what we are doing to compete with them, how we going to compete if we get promoted and ensure our time in the ryman prem wasnt like last time. Could we increase the budget to ensure a more successful return if we do get promoted and where the teams are a lot harder and richer. The best players are always going to be money motivated.
|
|
charlied
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 288
|
Post by charlied on Oct 24, 2016 22:31:38 GMT
If we go ahead with this parity idea and the mens team continue to struggle like recent years, how much outrage would that cause the fans? It could possibly lead to a huge divide between fans and board And if we don't go ahead with this parity idea and pass up at least the opportunity to increase club revenue for all teams by tens of thousands of pounds (in the absence of any other way to do it in the same timescale) and the men's team continue to struggle, how much forehead slapping would that cause the fans?
|
|
|
Post by lewessussex on Oct 25, 2016 1:02:33 GMT
If we go ahead with this parity idea and the mens team continue to struggle like recent years, how much outrage would that cause the fans? It could possibly lead to a huge divide between fans and board And if we don't go ahead with this parity idea and pass up at least the opportunity to increase club revenue for all teams by tens of thousands of pounds (in the absence of any other way to do it in the same timescale) and the men's team continue to struggle, how much forehead slapping would that cause the fans? But how would parity be achieved without it affecting the mens team? Where would this income for the womens team come from (bare in mind the small figure of revenue it already generates, it would need a huge boost in order to achieve parity). The theories nice in practice, but is there any past evidence that it works?
|
|
|
Post by sedlescombe on Oct 25, 2016 6:53:49 GMT
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.
Charlie,
Many thanks for your very helpful comments and clarifications. Personally I think the parity commitment is something of a red herring for anything other than marketing or publicity purposes. I would rather we raise as much money as possible for both teams. If that means the women raise more and have a higher budget then that is what they deserve and the same with the Mens. After all sport is supposed to be competitive and there are few if any instances where everyone gets the same
As you say and as Ed also notes in slightly more detail this is dependent on raising money from third parties, Ed goes into detail as to what those third parties are. There is also no suggestion that the mens budget will be reduced. It does beg the question given that you and Ed are both already on the Board then you could already be doing this. Either the Board are frustrating you from doing it (Lets leave the parity point to one side for the moment and look at this as raising significantly more money for the Womens team) in which case I think we are entitled to know who is frustrating this course of action or is this is something of an election gimmick. That's a pejorative way of putting it - more generous might be "Lets get people talking" . Still you don't need a mandate for something you already have the power to do and could have been doing twelve months ago - Is anyone on these Boards really opposed to trying to raise more money for the Womens team? I doubt it. Its more that the Parity point is rather getting in the way of something that is generally a good idea.
As I have posted elsewhere I feel there is rather less to this than meets the eye and a certain amount of division has been created by the way it has been presented when arguably the heart of the proposal could already be n place
|
|
simon
Isthmian South
Posts: 770
|
Post by simon on Oct 25, 2016 8:01:07 GMT
The suggestion that the mens budget will not be reduced could mean anything.
Does it mean that ladies and men will be responsible for their own fund raising? Does it mean that if we get promoted and mens income goes up 20% the budget will be left as is and the surplus diverted to the ladies?
The devil is in the detail which really is lacking here.
|
|
charlied
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 288
|
Post by charlied on Oct 25, 2016 10:15:59 GMT
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.
Charlie,
Many thanks for your very helpful comments and clarifications. Personally I think the parity commitment is something of a red herring for anything other than marketing or publicity purposes. I would rather we raise as much money as possible for both teams. If that means the women raise more and have a higher budget then that is what they deserve and the same with the Mens. After all sport is supposed to be competitive and there are few if any instances where everyone gets the same
As you say and as Ed also notes in slightly more detail this is dependent on raising money from third parties, Ed goes into detail as to what those third parties are. There is also no suggestion that the mens budget will be reduced. It does beg the question given that you and Ed are both already on the Board then you could already be doing this. Either the Board are frustrating you from doing it (Lets leave the parity point to one side for the moment and look at this as raising significantly more money for the Womens team) in which case I think we are entitled to know who is frustrating this course of action or is this is something of an election gimmick. That's a pejorative way of putting it - more generous might be "Lets get people talking" . Still you don't need a mandate for something you already have the power to do and could have been doing twelve months ago - Is anyone on these Boards really opposed to trying to raise more money for the Womens team? I doubt it. Its more that the Parity point is rather getting in the way of something that is generally a good idea.
As I have posted elsewhere I feel there is rather less to this than meets the eye and a certain amount of division has been created by the way it has been presented when arguably the heart of the proposal could already be n place
Thanks Michael. I think the very fact that this has caused so much discussion shows exactly why the Board would not have simply gone ahead and done this already. You will know from Barry's blog post that he is opposed to it and between him and me & Ed, there is a range of views across all eight current Board members. Board discussions since the election addresses were published have already started and have been very constructive and cordial so no need to worry about any 'blocking' or 'division'. Indeed, if we announced that everyone on the Board already agreed with this move then doubtless people would then shout 'stitch-up'. The reality is that this IS a significant move, it is not just a marketing ploy BUT it is intended to raise both teams' playing budgets in a way that, from six years' experience so far, appears to be unavailable from another means.
|
|
|
Post by hammerrook on Oct 25, 2016 11:23:29 GMT
Just curious how many other clubs at our level employ as many staff as we do. I'm not sure it is necessary personally.
With regards to not being able to generate income to take us on surely that's down to our model most other clubs probably run at a loss due to pocket men, but we don't have that luxury. Realistically you are going for look at what where doing model, the pitches basically says as much. This club seems more like a campaign for rights than a football club any more.
|
|
|
Post by Fhorum Mhember 22 on Oct 25, 2016 11:24:52 GMT
I was answering Norm who asked for anyone else from the candidates to post. I wasn't answering Lewes Sussex Thanks for the piece. I was only asking because I'd heard on Saturday that the candidates had agreed, in the interests of fairness, not to get involved in Forum discussions, so I wondered if that had changed. Whatever I've posted recently, I think we have 7 good candidates, all worthy of election, and they all need an equal bite at the cherry. I'm still making my mind-up, and extra information helps. Though perhaps there is a problem with that - voting started last week, and people may be voting now using information that wasn't available to those who voted last week. Think we've been caught out a bit - there's not usually this much interest in the Election - and sometimes there's not even a vote. Guess we're still learning. Maybe next year we have all the candidate discussions, including hopefully a Hustings (which nearly happened this time), and after that voting starts and the candidates stop.
|
|
charlied
Sussex County Division One
Posts: 288
|
Post by charlied on Oct 25, 2016 11:57:44 GMT
I'm not aware of any agreement to not get involved in the Forum. I would have thought that every candidate can and probably should promote their 'campaign' however they wish, be that via Twitter, FB, Forum, Rook In chats etc. More information/explanation is good isn't it? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by chrisharris on Oct 25, 2016 13:30:56 GMT
Of course we should all vote according to our whim. Many will vote according to the seven 'pitches' and take a view on their preference. Some on a hunch of whom will be better.
However this election has been embroiled on the issue of budget parity. Have to say having taken the (long) time to re read the Ed pitch again it is actually quite exciting. Many fears raised on here are addressed by Ed and Charlie in their addresses.
What slightly surprises me is that without any doubt this thread is an unofficial husting. Ed's point of view is well known (i'll vote for him as he is a friend of the fanzine ! ) Charlie has been forceful in his points but not a whiff of a point of view from the other candidates.
Lewes is a proud 'poitical' town and the club a community based democratic club so it baffles me why the other 5 candidates do not have the courage of their conviction and join the debate and let us know their point of view. After all it is set to be the burning issue over the next year so really it is surprising the silence.....please one of you break rank.
It would amaze me if they were not aware of the storm kicked off on here.
So please other candidates. Do you want parity ? Do you want it phased in ? Do you think the issue merits a 'members referendum'
I have taken the view, as most election addresses for whatever Board across the land, are waffle that I am voting on the issue of parity and the ramifications and of course absolutely respect those who vote for other reasons. So would be great if there was some opinion form them.
|
|