Lewes Women's Position

[dicksmith]

How did we end up where we are in women’s football? Recognizing that hindsight is easy I’ll take a shot at the answer……

The club’s decision back in 2017 to equally fund the women as the men was groundbreaking. And it still is in many ways. The argument at the time was that we were stealing from the men to fund the women’s team that couldn’t pay for itself.


The decision brought many levels of attention to the club. The Club exploited the strategy in many ways. We called It “pitching above our weight”. With the women’s position in the WCL tier two, our brand kept growing. As a result, over the last three to four years we’ve brought in multiple sponsors and funding well out of proportion to the size of our club and league positions.


Over the last few years financial balance between the men and women has shifted. Now the women’s team is bringing in the majority of our income. That is mostly due to our sponsors’ recognition of our “equal marketing” values and their desire to be identified with them. But with that strategy, half of the sponsorship income is shared with the men’s team.  As a result, the women have been significantly funding the men’s side at Lewes.


What has been happening outside of Lewes? A very successful 2019 Women’s World Cup built up a lot of interest in women’s football. On top of that, England winning the 2002 Women’s Euros probably doubled or tripled the interest. As a result, clubs everywhere started to see the women’s teams as a financially beneficial boost to their fans and clubs. The FA began to take it seriously as well and tried to more “professionalize” the women’s game by increasing the required structure of these teams and adding more personnel. This raised costs significantly to the Club. In addition, the levels of the women’s teams increased the competition to sign skilled players resulting in increased player salaries and therefore costs.


The need for increased funding took place not only in the WSL, but also in the Championship leagues. While Lewes was gaining more sponsorship funding, the other WCL clubs were growing much faster financially. Today, Lewes probably has one of the two lowest funding levels in the WCL and even lower than some of the Tier 3 or Tier 4 teams. Our player budges are probably less than half of some teams the WCL. As a result, we struggle to hold onto key players, and have a difficult time signing new talent. Also, potential Lewes players find it less attractive in its rural setting when compared to “big city” life up North. 

In all, Lewes’s women’s team has been passed by through little fault of their own. The situation is not going to get better or easier and will probably only get worse. We just lack the financial clout to compete effectively at the WCL level today.


Here’s where the “hindsight” comes in……..


Recently I’ve heard talk of funding the Lewes teams “appropriate to their level of play.” Had we been clairvoyant enough 3 years ago to adequately predict the growth in women’s football and the reasons behind it, we could have made some changes. Instead of touting “equal funding for the women’s team”, we could have modified our strategy to “equal or better funding for the women’s team”. I don’t think anyone would have noticed the difference.


Could this have produced more funding for the women? Had we done so it might have postponed the threat of regulation. Perhaps it would only have been a short-term fix. We will likely never have deep pockets the size of the other clubs. The board’s move towards the Mercury 13 proposal was the best way to help bridge the funding gap known today. Let’s hope that some other ways are found.


Meanwhile we need to be aware of the potential loss of sponsorship as we slip down the leagues. When, or if it happens, it will be very painful. The Club and the Board are in a difficult position. Do we willingly just watch and scale economically, or do we take risks to try and stabilize the situation?


Any body’s thoughts appreciated……….

[Jane R]

Perhaps all the businesses and local folk who were sponsoring players and matches shouldn't have just been discarded without a thought.
I know their support wasn't the big bucks wanted but you can't tell me that any revenue wouldn't have helped.

Plus why is nobody questioning Scott's tactics the women have never been in a relegation position or been relegated in their history and previous manager's have been given the old heave ho for a lot less and finishing much higher in the league.

[Barry Collins]

Dec 18, 2023 18:08:40 GMT dicksmith said:

Meanwhile we need to be aware of the potential loss of sponsorship as we slip down the leagues. When, or if it happens, it will be very painful. The Club and the Board are in a difficult position. Do we willingly just watch and scale economically, or do we take risks to try and stabilize the situation?


Any body’s thoughts appreciated……….

Do we take risks? In the 21/22 season, we needed donations of more than £600k to stay afloat. Last season, from the bare financials we've been provided with so far, we made a group loss of almost £400k. How much more of a financial risk do you want to take?

The simple truth is we're trying to compete well beyond our means, and so the club is now either reliant on massive donations (which are drying up) or trying to sell out to private equity, and we saw how well that went.

I was astonished that at the recent AGM there was no real mention of trying to cut costs, because we're heading to a cliff edge - whether we're relegated or not - at the current run rate. Trying to throw more money at a bid to avoid relegation will simply worsen the problem.

It's astonishing how few people realise how precarious our financial position is.

[robm99]

Maybe costs have been cut to a point where further cuts are just not viable. Having said that, I fully understand I could be talking total twaddle!

[sedlescombe]

Dec 19, 2023 8:46:03 GMT Barry Collins said:

Dec 18, 2023 18:08:40 GMT dicksmith said:

Meanwhile we need to be aware of the potential loss of sponsorship as we slip down the leagues. When, or if it happens, it will be very painful. The Club and the Board are in a difficult position. Do we willingly just watch and scale economically, or do we take risks to try and stabilize the situation?


Any body’s thoughts appreciated……….

Do we take risks? In the 21/22 season, we needed donations of more than £600k to stay afloat. Last season, from the bare financials we've been provided with so far, we made a group loss of almost £400k. How much more of a financial risk do you want to take?

The simple truth is we're trying to compete well beyond our means, and so the club is now either reliant on massive donations (which are drying up) or trying to sell out to private equity, and we saw how well that went.

I was astonished that at the recent AGM there was no real mention of trying to cut costs, because we're heading to a cliff edge - whether we're relegated or not - at the current run rate. Trying to throw more money at a bid to avoid relegation will simply worsen the problem.

It's astonishing how few people realise how precarious our financial position is.

Absolutely right.  I’d also add that the one person with an accountancy qualification - which might be useful given our current plight -failed to get elected to the Board.  Collectively we selected eleven wingers and no goalkeeper.  This at a time when we failed to replace the finance person in May, advertised in August and had to appoint a temp in September. Hence we couldn’t publish the accounts published in a time fashion.  This is a huge red flag guys.  Someone mentioned that Ed was helping which would be a huge relief but we need to be better at this.  HAVE to be better at this

[rooksfollower]

When are the finances being published?

[North Chailey Rook]

Dec 19, 2023 8:46:03 GMT Barry Collins said:

Dec 18, 2023 18:08:40 GMT dicksmith said:

Meanwhile we need to be aware of the potential loss of sponsorship as we slip down the leagues. When, or if it happens, it will be very painful. The Club and the Board are in a difficult position. Do we willingly just watch and scale economically, or do we take risks to try and stabilize the situation?


Any body’s thoughts appreciated……….

Do we take risks? In the 21/22 season, we needed donations of more than £600k to stay afloat. Last season, from the bare financials we've been provided with so far, we made a group loss of almost £400k. How much more of a financial risk do you want to take?

The simple truth is we're trying to compete well beyond our means, and so the club is now either reliant on massive donations (which are drying up) or trying to sell out to private equity, and we saw how well that went.

I was astonished that at the recent AGM there was no real mention of trying to cut costs, because we're heading to a cliff edge - whether we're relegated or not - at the current run rate. Trying to throw more money at a bid to avoid relegation will simply worsen the problem.

It's astonishing how few people realise how precarious our financial position is.

Barry, are you talking Lewes FC as a whole, or just the Women's side of things?

[dicksmith]

When I wrote that rambling long post my only idea was to point out the strategic error we made in holding onto our original 50/50 split on budgets. We "rested on our laurels", and as a result we restrained the women's team from adding new players to keep pace with the league.

It was my opinion 3 years ago that we were facing declining results. I even sent an email to a director suggesting that we change our goal from progressing to the WSL to finding a way to stay in the WCL. To me, it was apparent that the growth of the financial burden would doom us soon. That time has arrived.

I don't have any good ideas on how to solve the problem. I'd hoped to find some answers from some of you. If we don't find a solution, then the downside is significant. If in the next few years, we lose our significant sponsorships, then we are looking at a 300,000-to-400,000-pound loss of income. If you think we're hurting now, just what would we have to give up covering these losses? Basically, we are talking about cutting both team's player budgets, as well as employee's salaries, by a third to half.

And where does that leave you?

[tressell]

I know expenses go up etc but how does a club with such high attendances and all that booze sold not keep its head above water.

[Fhorum Mhember 22]

Enjoy reading your posts, Dick. Always interesting, sensible, and fair, whether I agree with everything or not.

Intrigued by this notion of the women funding the men. Is that really the case? I suspect it depends who you talk to 😎

I remember the years prior to Equality, when the deficit might have been around £50k. Now it appears to be around ten times that amount. Can all this vast increase be placed at the feet of the men's outfit?

I suppose close scrutiny of the accounts might help us here. Though I imagine, whatever side of the fence we may sit, assuming we have a side, we can use the figures to back our case accordingly - it's tricky to get a definitive, clear picture.
Unless, I suppose, we split the outfits into separate entities, with each having to stand on their own twenty two feet. That would be difficulty to achieve, given the current shared infrastructure. But if it were possible, I suspect both entities would run at a loss - but which would be greater 🤔 I'm not sure.

Anyway, we do indeed find ourselves in the stickiest situation since Black Adder IV. But we always knew this was likely. If women's football didn't take off as hoped, then we'd have backed the wrong filly. And if it did take off, as it has, we'd be gazumped by latecomers.

It's interesting what's happening at the Lionesses, as in the London City version. I'm sure the backer is a very canny woman. Does she see a gap in the market "souff of the river" (as ex chair Stu, or naughty boy BC, would say)? Does she see the big smoke as more appealing for punters and players and investors? Is there a link with Millwall (I'm not too clued up on this) which gives them potential access to decent infrastructure, in particular the possibility of playing in a high capacity stadium?

I'm intrigued also that, as far as I know, other Isthmian Premier clubs aren't saying "we need a team in the women's championship, or we're doomed". They must be getting by somehow. I suppose it's through individual benefactors in the main. Bit like us really.
Are they having to work harder than us to survive because they don't have the golden goose of a women's team in the top tiers?

It's a tricky one.
And it's a shame, as has been said, that we didn't elect a bloke who seemed to have a bit of financial nous. I don't know the guy, and the other candidates were all tickety boo, but I imagine that sort of input and experience could have been useful.

[robm99]

The whole football finance thing is a mystery. How do clubs in our division survive on <200 crowds? (Wingate & Finchley average of 168 at the moment). Just to keep the numbers easy, let's say Crowd 200. Games 20. Tickets £10. That's a total of £40,000 p.a. through the gate. About £800 a week over a season.

Sponsorship (no idea) must be huge - but who is paying and why?

My understanding - and I'm happy to be put right if I'm mistaken - Men's team - more games, bigger crowds. Ladies - TV money. The two entities can never be truly equal but hey, that shouldn't stop us being as dedicated to equality as reasonable.

[tressell]

Is it really equal when the mens club has been in existence for over a hundred years with many volunteers men and women keeping it afloat. Then in the name of equality a professional women's outfit appears and hey presto they get what they want.
It is not the fault of Lewes fc that the FA excluded women in 1921 and we cannot make up for inequality in society with a semi pro club in few years.

[wm]

Dec 20, 2023 16:06:26 GMT robm99 said:

The whole football finance thing is a mystery. How do clubs in our division survive on <200 crowds? (Wingate & Finchley average of 168 at the moment). Just to keep the numbers easy, let's say Crowd 200. Games 20. Tickets £10. That's a total of £40,000 p.a. through the gate. About £800 a week over a season.

Sponsorship (no idea) must be huge - but who is paying and why?

My understanding - and I'm happy to be put right if I'm mistaken - Men's team - more games, bigger crowds. Ladies - TV money. The two entities can never be truly equal but hey, that shouldn't stop us being as dedicated to equality as reasonable.

Don't forget to deduct the 20% vat from your gate take!

But on the overall picture...  Someone must know precisely – precisely, in great detail – just how the whole vanity project was allowed to get so hideously out of control.  That would've been tolerable if the bail-out fund left behind was bottomless, but the rationale behind the M13 yes campaign made clear that it isn't.

What was sold as an upward spiral of whatever that would lift all boats etc etc etc, now seems at significant risk instead of sinking all boats. 

It strikes me that the whole story may turn out to be a version of 'death by a thousand cuts' – every world-improving idea, gimmick, side-show, campaign, resource, distraction, paid role, and so on will have had a cost attached to it.  Maybe each line of the spreadsheet deemed affordable at the time of inception but, in aggregate, yet another millstone for the club to bear.....

If, in time, Lewes FC returns to that group of Isthmian-level football clubs that potters simply along each season, I reckon we'll be entitled to regard ourselves as fortunate.

[wm]

Dec 19, 2023 10:55:03 GMT sedlescombe said:

Someone mentioned that Ed was helping which would be a huge relief but we need to be better at this.  HAVE to be better at this

Think that was me on another thread, absolutely guessing he might be.  Zero proof......

[hunnsmererook]

Dec 20, 2023 15:47:48 GMT Fhorum Mhember 22 said:

I remember the years prior to Equality, when the deficit might have been around £50k. Now it appears to be around ten times that amount. Can all this vast increase be placed at the feet of the men's outfit?

A quick Look at the Statement for FY ending 31 May 2022 shows that the number of employees increased from 47 in 2021 to 61 in 2022.  This is a 30% increase in a very short period. This might indicate where a lot of the additional expenses are derived from.
I don't believe that the mens team has increased its backroom by that amount.