[moondog]

60s 70s Spireite, on 07 January 2021 - 11:23 AM, said:

These graphics explain just how little clubs like ours receive per attending fan, v say Boreham Wood. https://www.inyourar...re-10m-bailout/

I wondered why Dulwich would have reason to complain, but it seems they average attendances of 2200 per match.

Yes they are very well supported, disappointing they don't use our figures although they are complicated by the former company secretary's decision to include ST no shows in the attendance figures, although apparently the league would have also have been provided with the "true" figure of each game, which raises more questions of the league, if correct, for tolerating it for so long.

[dtp]

moondog, on 07 January 2021 - 11:41 AM, said:

Yes they are very well supported, disappointing they don't use our figures although they are complicated by the former company secretary's decision to include ST no shows in the attendance figures, although apparently the league would have also have been provided with the "true" figure of each game, which raises more questions of the league, if correct, for tolerating it for so long.

It's a difficult one is ST no shows. After all these are seats sold and form part of match day income. Other clubs have included such figures in their numbers too and clubs can't sell the same seat twice. Then, how should the monies received by clubs that have sold STs for this season, against NL recommendations, be brought into the equation? Does every such ST count as a "no show" even though such clubs have pocketed the money and received grant money on top?

[CFC91]

moondog, on 07 January 2021 - 11:41 AM, said:

Yes they are very well supported, disappointing they don't use our figures although they are complicated by the former company secretary's decision to include ST no shows in the attendance figures, although apparently the league would have also have been provided with the "true" figure of each game, which raises more questions of the league, if correct, for tolerating it for so long.

We're likely to be worse off than clubs that sold STs too - as they will be given funding based on lost income for STs they have already sold, whereas we won't.

It sounds like the next 3 months funding will be distributed slightly differently, with some clubs much worse off, and a few better off. I am assuming we are one of the ones who will be better off, the chart 60/70s posted shows how much some clubs are taking the **** with what they've been given.

[dim view]

moondog, on 07 January 2021 - 11:41 AM, said:

Yes they are very well supported, disappointing they don't use our figures although they are complicated by the former company secretary's decision to include ST no shows in the attendance figures, although apparently the league would have also have been provided with the "true" figure of each game, which raises more questions of the league, if correct, for tolerating it for so long.

Do the 'no shows' account for the 400 discrepancy between the previous regime's given number (3100) and the current regime's number (2700)?

How mant ST's were handed out as freebies to sponsors, family members, hanger on's and others and how would they be accounted for?

I'm dreading any formula that involves us having to supply an audited number.

[moondog]

dtp, on 07 January 2021 - 01:22 PM, said:

It's a difficult one is ST no shows. After all these are seats sold and form part of match day income. Other clubs have included such figures in their numbers too and clubs can't sell the same seat twice. Then, how should the monies received by clubs that have sold STs for this season, against NL recommendations, be brought into the equation? Does every such ST count as a "no show" even though such clubs have pocketed the money and received grant money on top?

The issue is the league(s) allowing clubs to declare whatever figure they want

[Sammy Spireite]

Its being reported that that DCMS have now stated that the £11M support package is actually a loan and not a grant as initially thought.

Surely some clubs haven't got a hope in hell in repaying the sort of money they were getting/already got?!

This could well see a premature end to the season and players being out on furlough!

[hardgums]

Would be interesting to get the club's take on this

[moondog]

Clubs urged to lobby MP's, scandalous decision if correct

https://twitter.com/...7310558212?s=19

[TheMatlockFan]

Sad to see that National League clubs have now got told exactly the same thing that clubs at Step 3 to 6 got told earlier in the season. There is nothing quite like supporting your local football team and the community that forms around it but as per usual, while those at the top of the game are enjoying record viewing figures and players banking many hundreds of thousands a week, clubs such as your own and the club I support are forgotten and ignored.

This statement from the DCMS this evening along with the one earlier in the season is them basically signing the death certificate from a number of teams, they claim that "grants can only be made available in exceptional circumstances" and I'm not sure if they have noticed but we are in a global pandemic currently which surely is an exceptional circumstance, that has seen years of hard work for many clubs just washed away.

If it keeps on like this then in fifty years time there will be only ten teams left and people will think that football is just something that exists on the telly and is for the rich. The peoples game has been bastardised by the money men.

[60s 70s Spireite]

The season’s going to be curtailed if this stands.
Promotion winners will be based on Monopoly rules, last 2 still standing financially.

[moondog]

60s 70s Spireite, on 18 January 2021 - 07:01 PM, said:

The season’s going to be curtailed if this stands.
Promotion winners will be based on Monopoly rules, last 2 still standing financially.

Given our recent spending it will hit us harder than most, very worrying

[Blue5]

moondog, on 18 January 2021 - 07:09 PM, said:

Given our recent spending it will hit us harder than most, very worrying

I've lost track of things a bit.

Since the ban on spectators attending games and when the funding was announced, have clubs generally kept their transfer dealings tight or have they splashed the cash?

[moondog]

Blue5, on 18 January 2021 - 07:16 PM, said:

I've lost track of things a bit.

Since the ban on spectators attending games and when the funding was announced, have clubs generally kept their transfer dealings tight or have they splashed the cash?

This tells us, set the period to winter, we are leading the way, Barnet next then Yeovil after taking a quick look.


https://www.transfer...tern=0&intern=1

[60s 70s Spireite]

moondog, on 18 January 2021 - 07:09 PM, said:

Given our recent spending it will hit us harder than most, very worrying

Especially when the directors were saying in their recent podcast the unknown was the amount of the next grants to be received. Seemingly- nil.
21-22 season ticket sales are going to have to be brisk.

[Westbars Spireite]

They cannot move the goalposts like this. It this was known I'm pretty sure the clubs would have hibernated through 20/21 with a view to commencing football activities properly later this year.

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 18 January 2021 - 07:33 PM

[CFC91]

moondog, on 18 January 2021 - 07:09 PM, said:

Given our recent spending it will hit us harder than most, very worrying

I guess furlough would be our get out jail relatively unscathed card.

Worrying if true though, and just damn right annoying that clubs will have their hands forced instead of being able to play on.

Assume the loans amount to 250k or so which I guess wouldn’t sink us depending on the interest/repayment terms etc but would do for many others.

[moondog]

CFC91, on 18 January 2021 - 07:36 PM, said:

I guess furlough would be our get out jail relatively unscathed card.

Worrying if true though, and just damn right annoying that clubs will have their hands forced instead of being able to play on.

Assume the loans amount to 250k or so which I guess wouldn’t sink us depending on the interest/repayment terms etc but would do for many others.

Yes it hopefully would, I can't see how the season could continue given the majority of clubs agreed they wouldn't have started the season.

[Westbars Spireite]

If the league was to be voided how much in furlough could the government effectively wave goodbye to across the NLs?

[dtp]

With the NL having distributed the Grants on a basis that seemed to benefit Clubs which had low attendance numbers compared to those wiho normally attracted larger crowds is it possible that those clubs with low attendances have been better off than if crowds had been allowed in. As such, are they now in a stronger position financially than they would have been in a normal season and so less likely to be in need of a high level of loan?

[moondog]

dtp, on 18 January 2021 - 08:01 PM, said:

With the NL having distributed the Grants on a basis that seemed to benefit Clubs which had low attendance numbers compared to those wiho normally attracted larger crowds is it possible that those clubs with low attendances have been better off than if crowds had been allowed in. As such, are they now in a stronger position financially than they would have been in a normal season and so less likely to be in need of a high level of loan?

In theory yes, but to give them less will be admitting the "error" so is unlikely to happen.