Hey Dick - look what you started
Always enjoy reading your posts. Always fair and sensible, and you have a good handle on things for someone who, I think, is some distance away.
I guess, regarding the club, we're probably in different places, geographically and ideologically, but still we probably agree on many aspects.
It's interesting what you say about the make-up of recent Boards. As far as I can see, the new directors elected in 2022 have all left. As have those from 2021. Only Trevor seems to remain from newbies elected in 2020. You refer to recent events as a cultural change - not sure how I'd define it. Guess I see it as people being attracted to the happy-clappy, bright and shiny, positive vibe of the club, and then once they are involved realising that it's not quite so simple. Maybe the first question to candidates in October should be 'do you realise what you're getting into' - followed quickly by 'are you fully committed to putting in a three year shift, because if not I'll vote for someone else'. Though I suspect by October the happy-clappy appeal of the club will have diminished, and reality will have set in a bit for prospective candidates.
I don't like the idea of private equity. I'm more of the cut-yer-cloth way of thinking.
If this means the club has to let go some of it's good causes, then so be it. If these causes have merit, and presumably they do, then they will continue with or without us. If our club is no longer a vehicle for some causes/movements, these causes/movements will find another vehicle.
Similarly really with management and players - if we no longer fit their plans/dreams, they'll find somewhere else.
And even with some 'fans' - if the fayre produced is no longer what they expect, they'll head to pastures new.
The important thing is that the club survives, with whoever is still here - it nearly didn't around '99, and again around '09.
Not that it has to be all doom and gloom - no reason why reduced income must inevitably lead to problems on and off the field - though, of course, it might do.
Referring to some other comments.
Yes, it's true, to an extent, that the owners have had a say in terms of where we are now. But the 2016 'equality' election was indeed a strange beast. A huge influx in sign-ups from the Ladies section (as was) before the vote, which obviously had an influence on the result - maybe not really affecting the top three candidates elected, but definitely influencing the two of the remaining four who were elected. And, on the back of Ed's election address saying 'if you don't like my plan then seriously, don't vote for me', many people were saying to me 'I don't agree with Ed's plan, but if we don't vote for him then financially we're fooked'.
And no, it isn't a surprise that we are where we are - there have been plenty of people questioning what the club has been doing over the years - on here, at AGMs, whatever - but it's always been swiped away by the club, and I guess most fans/owners have indeed not really been that bothered, preferring to ride the wave.
People have been saying since the beginning of the project that we were up against it, because either women's football wouldn't take-off as hoped, and we'd have put our investment into betamax, or if it did take-off, we'd be gazumped by bigger clubs. Ed's answer at the time, to the possibility of being gazumped over time, was we had to get in quick now. So it's always been understood by everyone I think that this time now might come - I guess it was just hoped that it wouldn't.
In terms of funding for the equality project, back then Ed said he felt it should be self-financing, due to the extra interest we'd receive, but if not, he was prepared to fund it up to £200k (maybe it was £200k for 2-3 years, can't quite remember). So there was always the knowledge that the project might be funded within the club for a while - but maybe not so much for so long.
I also remember at the time asking if we were starting-up this equality project because it would help us to achieve financial sustainability, or because it was the right thing to do. Ed said it was because it was the right thing to do. Charlie disagreed, saying it was a bit of both, to which Ed responded that Charlie was right.
All I'm saying is - we've known all along it might not work out - the club were clear on that from the beginning. What's different is that the personal funding of the project has gone on longer than expected, and with much larger sums involved than could have been imagined.
It's interesting, of course, that the majority of fans/owners were happy to chase the dream. Most people aren't really bothered about the inner machinations of the club. Even that 2016 election only achieved about 18% turnout, which was a record at the time, and I think it still is - we have more people voting nowadays, having more owners, but the turnout still seems to be around the low end of the usual 12-15%.
And in terms of those of us who can be bothered actually having a say - I don't believe there was a vote in the years 2017-2020, due to insufficient candidates. Another example perhaps of a lack of serious interest from us - or maybe a feeling there was no point getting involved?
And I remember there was a call for a Vote on the proposed equality project, in 2017 I think. Ed said that wouldn't be happening as we didn't want to be the club that rejected equality. I could see what he meant - despite all the great work the club might be doing, it would be that vote that would get the headlines, and would have a negative impact. However, he was also basically saying 'we don't want to ask the owners for their opinion when we might get an answer we don't want'.
All of this 'past' makes me wonder about the future of the ownership model. I like the idea of it, but maybe it'll never work as we hope.
Lewesrook - while I remember - the increase in wages in 2020 - was that down to directors chucking money around - or a result of extra funding from the FA to help with playing budgets and backroom staff?
Sorry to have rambled on. It's always been a bad habit. For those still awake - I wonder where we are now? We say 'we knew it would come to this'. But come to what, exactly? We don't know yet. And I'll finish by saying that wherever we are, this shouldn't be a time for gloating or 'told you so'. Whatever needs to be sorted out now, I don't envy those people doing it. They'll need our support. With directors, in recent times, leaving not long after they joined, when things haven't been that bad, it must be very tempting to do the same if/when things are more difficult.
Until next time ...