Funding Distribution Debate ......in todays "Times" nespaper
#1
Posted 04 January 2021 - 04:34 PM
https://www.artsprof...-going-be-happy
FOOTBALL
Investigation urged into distribution of Lottery money to National League clubs
Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter
Sunday January 03 2021, 6.00pm, The Times
Football
Bernstein led an independent review of the financial distribution but his findings have not been shared with the clubs
LOUISA COLLINS-MARSH/PA
The culture secretary has been urged to launch an investigation into alleged conflicts of interest over the distribution of millions of pounds of Lottery money to National League clubs.
The £10 million was a rescue package to help clubs affected by the Covid crisis and was announced by Oliver Dowden in November, with the understanding that it would be distributed according to clubs’ lost gate receipts.
Instead, the National League board decided its own distribution formula based on a flat rate which has left some clubs with hundreds of thousands of pounds less than they were expecting. After initial criticism, the National League commissioned David Bernstein, the former FA chairman, to lead an independent review of the financial distribution but his findings — which are understood to have echoed some criticisms — have not been shared with the clubs.
Duncan Hart, a London FA council member and member of the Dulwich Hamlet Supporters’ Trust, has now written to Dowden asking him to step in and ensure that the next three-month block of funding, worth £11 million, is distributed differently.
Hart says that five of the nine National League board members were from clubs that benefited significantly more from the package than they would have done if it had been split according to expected gate receipts.
The letter states that Notts County received £287,000 less than they would have received if the formula had been based on average attendances, while Boreham Wood were “overcompensated” by £170,000.
“At the very least there is a clear conflict of interest for a board comprised of a small selection of National League member clubs to be charged with deciding how funding is allocated to all member clubs,” Hart writes.
PETER BYRNE/PATHE NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAIRMAN BRIAN BARWICK WAS APPOINTED OBE IN THE NEW YEAR HONOURS
Andrew Graham, the vice-chairman of Hereford FC, said he backed the calls made in Hart’s letter.
“It’s unacceptable that this is £10 million of public money and we don’t even know what the terms of reference were for the distribution model,” he said. “We were led to believe the package would cover each club’s lost gate receipts but that failed to happen.
“We have since seen clubs which usually have smaller attendances poaching strikers from what used to be seen as the bigger clubs, it’s farcical.”
Bernstein sent an open letter to the National League chairman Brian Barwick, the former FA chief executive, before Christmas expressing his unhappiness at the failure to share his report with the clubs and noting that there had been no response to his concerns about conflicts of interest and poor governance.
Bernstein told The Times: “We have had a very poor response to our report from the National League and it has not been circulated to the clubs, and nor has there been any sign of a change of governance. The model they came up with to distribute the money appeared extremely arbitrary.
“I would hope the government will listen to this. The funding and distribution for the January to March money really needs to be dealt with more independently. When it comes to dealing with public money it needs to be allocated properly and with visibility.”
It is understood the government is considering its response to the complaints.
In the National League’s top division clubs were allocated £95,000 or £84,000, and £36,000 or £30,000 in the two regional divisions.
It meant York City, with an average attendance of 2,700 in National League North, received £108,000 for October to December instead of £297,000 if allocated solely on gate receipts. Boreham Wood, with an average attendance of 724 in the National League, received £252,000 instead of £79,000.
Hart’s letter to Dowden states that Aldershot Town, Dagenham & Redbridge, Solihull Moors, Barnet and Dover Athletic all received substantially more money than if the cash had been distributed according to average usual attendances, and that those clubs all have representatives on the National League board. There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on the part of any club.
Mark Ives, who took over as the National League’s interim general manager on January 1, said that Bernstein’s report would be shared with the clubs “sooner rather than later”.
“The vast majority of clubs have not complained about the distribution,” he said.
Ives added that the funding distribution model chosen by the board had not been put together by any club representative and took into account clubs would have some similar fixed costs such as pitch maintenance and utility bills.
#2
Posted 04 January 2021 - 04:59 PM
#3
Posted 04 January 2021 - 05:12 PM
#4
Posted 05 January 2021 - 07:48 AM
azul, on 04 January 2021 - 04:59 PM, said:
Presumably because the distribution was decided by people who the 'big' clubs backed. Who did we back, and have we got the opportunity to give the Solihull Moors man a stern lecture tonight?
#5
Posted 05 January 2021 - 08:39 AM
dim view, on 05 January 2021 - 07:48 AM, said:
Don’t see that would stop clubs complaining as we did once the split was evident
Benno Spire, on 04 January 2021 - 05:12 PM, said:
Luckily (or more to the point unluckily) that rather nipped in the bud. Looks like to 2 games was about the maximum and that at reduced attendances (around 1000). So not much of advantage as loads of clubs are sitting on season ticket money.
This post has been edited by azul: 05 January 2021 - 08:43 AM
#6
Posted 05 January 2021 - 09:07 AM
Imagine being so low that you rob a 158 year old football club like Notts County of £287,000 of much needed money during a pandemic. I can't believe this report hasn't been shared with the clubs. The whole system is rotten.
#7
Posted 05 January 2021 - 09:29 AM
#8
Posted 05 January 2021 - 09:41 AM
Mr Mercury, on 05 January 2021 - 09:29 AM, said:
The Government said the money should be distributed in proportion to lost gate receipts.
The NL Board hasn't done that and yet there's 'no suggestion of any wrongdoing'. Why not?
#10 Guest_Quaker_*
Posted 05 January 2021 - 10:26 AM
This has to be investigated thoroughly, surely.
#12 Guest_Quaker_*
Posted 05 January 2021 - 10:32 AM
This has to be investigated thoroughly, surely.
#14
Posted 05 January 2021 - 10:35 AM
moondog, on 05 January 2021 - 10:16 AM, said:
This is Lottery money. Has our Company Secretary got a copy of the guidance that Dowden sent out in November?
This post has been edited by dim view: 05 January 2021 - 10:49 AM
#16
Posted 05 January 2021 - 10:59 AM
moondog, on 05 January 2021 - 10:49 AM, said:
Ha, ta.
I thought that was a reference to the framework of the formula that the NL Board had decided to adopt.
#18
Posted 06 January 2021 - 09:46 PM
https://www.bbc.co.u...otball/55564703
#19
Posted 07 January 2021 - 10:59 AM
https://podcasts.goo...GYzMDQwZmNkYjdh
#20
Posted 07 January 2021 - 11:23 AM
moondog, on 07 January 2021 - 10:59 AM, said:
https://podcasts.goo...GYzMDQwZmNkYjdh
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.