Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2023 16:55:05 GMT
and thats the problem if the board consent to a vote mmm
|
|
|
|
Post by downthepan on Aug 31, 2023 17:49:26 GMT
Because you're undecided? Because I am mainly a fan of the men's team and think it should be up to fans of the women's team to decide. |
|
offside
Sussex County Division Two
Posts: 136
|
Post by offside on Aug 31, 2023 18:52:57 GMT
I think this could have just as big of an impact on the men’s team as the women’s team. If it’s no longer 50/50 budget as it is determined that the women deserve a bigger budget than the men, what is to say the men’s budget won’t be slashed as ambition is solely focused on getting the women as high as possible? I have no idea if that would be the case but without the equality stance there is nothing to stop that happening.
|
|
spur
Isthmian South
Posts: 857
|
Post by spur on Aug 31, 2023 19:55:30 GMT
The men are very likely to be second class citizens in this scenario. Whether or not that's the case, selling off the women's side is surely too serious a matter for owners to ignore.
|
|
Thebigman
Sussex County Division Two
Posts: 232
|
Post by Thebigman on Aug 31, 2023 20:31:28 GMT
I think this could have just as big of an impact on the men’s team as the women’s team. If it’s no longer 50/50 budget as it is determined that the women deserve a bigger budget than the men, what is to say the men’s budget won’t be slashed as ambition is solely focused on getting the women as high as possible? I have no idea if that would be the case but without the equality stance there is nothing to stop that happening. Mercury 13 would have no say in slashing a men’s budget as they would only have purchased/invested in the womens Ltd company. Alternatively the funding that the club currently puts towards the womens team could be put into the men’s side in lieu of Mercury’s investment in the women’s. The equality stance has ultimately got us into a position where we could really kick on and seize the moment. But equality isn’t always about giving two groups of people the same thing, I don’t see it as a bad thing if the women’s budget got increased as they are at a significantly higher level |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2023 21:20:24 GMT
I think this could have just as big of an impact on the men’s team as the women’s team. If it’s no longer 50/50 budget as it is determined that the women deserve a bigger budget than the men, what is to say the men’s budget won’t be slashed as ambition is solely focused on getting the women as high as possible? I have no idea if that would be the case but without the equality stance there is nothing to stop that happening. Mercury 13 would have no say in slashing a men’s budget as they would only have purchased/invested in the womens Ltd company. Alternatively the funding that the club currently puts towards the womens team could be put into the men’s side in lieu of Mercury’s investment in the women’s. The equality stance has ultimately got us into a position where we could really kick on and seize the moment. But equality isn’t always about giving two groups of people the same thing, I don’t see it as a bad thing if the women’s budget got increased as they are at a significantly higher level |
|
wm
Sussex County Division Two
Posts: 207
|
Post by wm on Aug 31, 2023 21:21:20 GMT
Lots of questions inviting idle speculation...
They buy the ladies team for how much money?
What happens to that money? Shared evenly between men and ladies?
Retained exclusively for the ladies?
Spent exclusively on facilities for both?
Will sponsors only interested in the ladies bandwagon now be accepted (previously declined, we've been told)?
Will that reduce 'shared funds', of which previously half went to the men?
Will the only subsequent injection of cash be via the super-charged commercialisation of the ladies team?
Will those new commercialisation staff work exclusively on the commercialisation of the ladies, or also of the men?
(The only assurances of benefits of the sale to the men seem to have been re facilities.)
Can / will that extra revenue be ring-fenced exclusively for the ladies, on the basis that they generated it?
If not, how is that revenue divided between ladies and men?
Given the explicit statement already that the ladies will be paid more, how will ownership revenue be divided?
How are club / ground overheads to be allocated? Evenly, or pro-rata based on revenue generated?
Have they declared their exit strategy – it seems no VC outfit is without one?
Many of the above could / will lead to the slashing of the men's budget, I'd imagine...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2023 21:28:54 GMT
bear in mind its the same board pushing this that pushed the community club idea along with the accompanying fanfare which has now been discarded..what happens if this latest brainwave goes pear shaped at some point i trust careful note will be taken of those at the helm
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartnoel on Sept 1, 2023 6:48:15 GMT
bear in mind its the same board pushing this that pushed the community club idea along with the accompanying fanfare which has now been discarded..what happens if this latest brainwave goes pear shaped at some point i trust careful note will be taken of those at the helm The board that created the initial community club and saved it from almost certain extinction have all stepped down, some to focus on other things, others because of term limits, the last two being Charlie Dobres and Ed Ramsden in 2022. Of the existing board, I joined in 2011 but was actively involved in that first year in the ownership scheme. John Peel is the second longest sieving Director, having joined the board in 2015. So, no it’s not the same board. |
|
|
|
Post by stuartnoel on Sept 1, 2023 6:49:08 GMT
Lots of questions inviting idle speculation... They buy the ladies team for how much money? What happens to that money? Shared evenly between men and ladies? Retained exclusively for the ladies? Spent exclusively on facilities for both? Will sponsors only interested in the ladies bandwagon now be accepted (previously declined, we've been told)? Will that reduce 'shared funds', of which previously half went to the men? Will the only subsequent injection of cash be via the super-charged commercialisation of the ladies team? Will those new commercialisation staff work exclusively on the commercialisation of the ladies, or also of the men? (The only assurances of benefits of the sale to the men seem to have been re facilities.) Can / will that extra revenue be ring-fenced exclusively for the ladies, on the basis that they generated it? If not, how is that revenue divided between ladies and men? Given the explicit statement already that the ladies will be paid more, how will ownership revenue be divided? How are club / ground overheads to be allocated? Evenly, or pro-rata based on revenue generated? Have they declared their exit strategy – it seems no VC outfit is without one? Many of the above could / will lead to the slashing of the men's budget, I'd imagine... All valid questions - I hope you submitted them during the consultation period for the club to answer |
|
|
|
Post by stuartnoel on Sept 1, 2023 7:10:42 GMT
The men are very likely to be second class citizens in this scenario. Whether or not that's the case, selling off the women's side is surely too serious a matter for owners to ignore. Will one team have a higher playing budget than the other as a result of this potential investment? Yes Will the other team also see an increase in their playing budget as a result of this potential investment? Yes Will both teams benefit from better facilities, resources and infrastructure which then indirectly improves their performance? Yes Second class citizens suggests one team benefits at the expense of the other. That’s not the case. Both teams benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by Fhorum Mhember 22 on Sept 1, 2023 9:49:49 GMT
Lots of questions inviting idle speculation... They buy the ladies team for how much money? What happens to that money? Shared evenly between men and ladies? Retained exclusively for the ladies? Spent exclusively on facilities for both? Will sponsors only interested in the ladies bandwagon now be accepted (previously declined, we've been told)? Will that reduce 'shared funds', of which previously half went to the men? Will the only subsequent injection of cash be via the super-charged commercialisation of the ladies team? Will those new commercialisation staff work exclusively on the commercialisation of the ladies, or also of the men? (The only assurances of benefits of the sale to the men seem to have been re facilities.) Can / will that extra revenue be ring-fenced exclusively for the ladies, on the basis that they generated it? If not, how is that revenue divided between ladies and men? Given the explicit statement already that the ladies will be paid more, how will ownership revenue be divided? How are club / ground overheads to be allocated? Evenly, or pro-rata based on revenue generated? Have they declared their exit strategy – it seems no VC outfit is without one? Many of the above could / will lead to the slashing of the men's budget, I'd imagine... All valid questions - I hope you submitted them during the consultation period for the club to answer Good questions. So, are any discussions/views/queries made since the owners official channel deadline at 5pm on Tuesday no longer being taken into consideration or fed back to the Board? |
|
|
|
Post by stuartnoel on Sept 1, 2023 10:03:09 GMT
All valid questions - I hope you submitted them during the consultation period for the club to answer Good questions. So, are any discussions/views/queries made since the owners official channel deadline at 5pm on Tuesday no longer being taken into consideration or fed back to the Board? Not at all. The email inbox is still open. There’s a lot of very similar questions been asked so we are trying to answer some in a broader sense to cover all nuances of the questions. But we still encourage anyone to submit questions |
|
|
|
Post by mightymouse on Sept 1, 2023 10:08:16 GMT
The way i see it is this and I may be wrong,
Lewes FC would sell a controlling interest in the women's team for a lump sum investment in the women's team and our facilities. Lewes Fc would therefore retain 49%, which means it retains 49% of the profits generated from that team going forward, to decide for itself how it spends the money. If the team can hold their Championship status, the whole Lewes fc club could well see a substantial rise in income benefitting all levels. If we lose our Championship position, all budgets will need to be reduced and much of the hard work from the past few years could be undone. So if it does go to a vote, these would be my alternatives.
a- If you're really just interested in the men and want to see the best possible team we can produce you should vote for the proposal and lobby the club to get some guarantees regarding the budget spend.
b- If you like watching both the men & women's team equally, you should vote for the proposal.
c- If you're more interested in the politics than the football standard - well you've got a difficult choice. Do we stick to our stated principles and cut our cloth accordingly or do we compromise, possibly for the benefit of all.
|
|
|
|
Post by sadfaceemoji on Sept 1, 2023 14:37:50 GMT
Stuart 'The board that created the initial community club and saved it from almost certain extinction have all stepped down, some to focus on other things, others because of term limits, the last two being Charlie Dobres and Ed Ramsden in 2022.'
I have spoken subsequently to the previous owner a number of times who would strenuously deny the club was almost certainly going to go extinct. What facts do you base that on out of interest?
Everyone saying it was so does not make it a fact when the only person who would know was the previous owner surely?
|
|
