Jason Turner Statement

[laddo]

Proportional amount based on estimated losses Vs flat two tier amount to try and keep everyone happy.

One is the correct approach and one isn't.

If the policing costs for clubs in the league were on a basic two tier system the smaller clubs would rightly complain as they only need fraction of the policing levels and therefore the fraction of the costs to police 1000 supporters in attendance as compared to 5000. It would be unfair on them.

It really is that simple. Good on Jason for his intended actions.

[ncfcog]

I've just had a look at Dover's average attendance and it's just over 1000, and they charge £18 per full price ticket and £15 for concessions.

To make it easy, if we say that a home game for them generates £20k, and now they are getting £84k plus streaming revenue, that is probably the equivalent of 5 home games per month.

Looking at their calendar they weren't due to play 5 home games in a month (some months 4, others 3, others 2) so objectively they are now definitely better off due to Covid.

It’s typical of the NL to ask everyone for proof of their expected losses only to ignore it. It’s the losses due to not have fans attend matches that needed quantifying. There might be an argument that although Notts have the bigger attendances their losses might be less than a club with smaller attendances because under normal circumstances their overheads are much higher.

Its really simple, how much net profit would a club make from an average home game? Quantify this and structure the financial aid accordingly. Obviously way too difficult for the NL.

[nw6pie]

The better-supported nonleague teams are completely screwed over by this appropriation of funds. Boreham Wood's average crowd last season was 724, with one game against Sutton being attended by 407 fans. Even if they had three home games a month and had 1,000 fans in paying on average £20 a head, that would still only generate £60,000. Let's guess they earn an extra £5,000 in additional income on match days, so their income is £75,000. Now the NL is giving them £84,000, plus any streaming revenues, so it looks like they're actually better off playing behind closed doors under this arrangement. Crazy. (Again, a total coincidence that Boreham Wood is in the sports minister's constituency.)

I don't think anyone is saying "Sod the small clubs, give all the money to the big clubs." They just want a fairer distribution of the funds, as the government seemed to suggest and hence why clubs were asked to submit details of lost income. They're taking a ridiculously simplistic approach to the problem, which is patently unfair. Someone on Twitter did the math and worked out that Notts were receiving about £18 per spectator, the worst of all the National League sides. And poor old York were the worst affected of all, only receiving £13 per spectator in the NLN.

Just because a team like, say, Notts, Wrexham or Chesterfield gets bigger crowds, it doesn't automatically follow that they won't struggle just as much financially as a smaller club like Boreham Wood or Maidenhead (whose overheads are going to be a lot lower). How many NL clubs operate at a profit?

Plus, we're already seeing that streaming is something of a leveler: Sutton got 1,200 watching the Notts game, while both of our home games attracted 2,100 - about 3,000 fewer folks than we would expect for a normal Saturday fixture.

Jason Turner (and others who've complained - I've seen press releases so far from the likes of Maidstone, Chester and York) is 100% right to kvetch about this. However, it does seem emblematic of the National League, which seems happiest prioritising the smaller clubs over the bigger ones. I don't want that to be reversed; just for everyone to be given a fair crack of the whip.

This piece of small print from the deal made me laugh, though: "As a result of the funding conditions, clubs will also be required to provide and display National Lottery advertising on their channels."

[laddo]

Exactly ncfcog, nailed it. It's a straight financial question producing a financial answer to determine fair distribution of revenues for all clubs

It has nothing to do with feelings and sentiment of the smaller teams in the division. Financial fairness is very hard to argue against.

[KCNotts]

The more I hear from Jason Turner, the more I like what he does and says.

He seems like a reasonable chap. However, we have been awful for the entire time he has been here and he oversaw our relegation from the Football League. I wonder what role he had in the appointment of managers and players over that time...

[magpie_mania]

He seems like a reasonable chap. However, we have been awful for the entire time he has been here and he oversaw our relegation from the Football League. I wonder what role he had in the appointment of managers and players over that time...

I reckon he did a lot to keep us afloat in those dreadful last months of Hardy's tenure.

Looking at the way Hardy operated, I think he would have had little input as to who was our manager.

Why do you only post negatively about the club?

[KCNotts]

I reckon he did a lot to keep us afloat in those dreadful last months of Hardy's tenure.

Looking at the way Hardy operated, I think he would have had little input as to who was our manager.

Why do you only post negatively about the club?

No I don't. But the fact remains that he has been in charge over the worst period in our club's history. A few press releases doesn't change that. None of us know what exactly he did/does, but I shall hold fire with my adoration.

[laddo]

You do only post negative on here perfectly illustrated to everyone on here when you went M.I.A. when Notts won 3 games in a row. Didn't say one word of praise after any of those victories.

Plus never forget you gave up on watching Notts during last season way before the season was abruptly halted. Gave up, quit. Not going to watch them anymore. Yet still continually posted negatively on here even though you weren't going to the games anymore.

It's very hard to take you seriously with that track record.

[nw6pie]

Good story on the problem in The Athletic this morning, headlined “A public funding scandal - the National League revolts”. Copied here for those who don’t subscribe (it’s expensive but has some great stories)...


The collective sigh of relief was almost audible below the EFL on October 2.

Pledges of government support had finally been put in writing by the National League’s chief executive Michael Tattersall and a £10 million grant would soon be distributed to its 67 financially-stretched clubs.

Those assurances were the belated green light for the National League’s 2020-21 season to begin behind closed doors the following day but, three weeks down the line, discord and anger are rife.

“It’s a ****storm,” says one National League club chairman, bluntly.

The eruption came early on Wednesday morning with an email sent to every club in the National League, National League North and National League South. Outlined was the long-awaited detail of how that precious £10 million would be distributed and, for some, that was when the devil presented itself.

Just over 60 per cent of the funding would go to the 23 National League clubs; Chesterfield, Hartlepool United, Notts County, Stockport County, Torquay United, Wrexham and Yeovil Town were told they would receive £95,000 a month, with the 16 others assured of £84,000 a month.

National League North and South clubs, meanwhile, would bank much less. Chester, Dulwich Hamlet, Hereford, Maidstone United and York City were assured of a monthly cheque for £36,000, with every other club allotted £30,000.

Some jumped for joy at their receipt of a mini-windfall in keeping with those behind the funding, the National Lottery, but others were left feeling deeply short-changed.

“The National League had been dealt a terrible hand, and they’d played it OK,” Ben Clasper, chairman of Dulwich Hamlet (below), tells The Athletic. “Now they’ve been dealt a good hand, and boy have they cocked it up.”

The anger stems from what clubs had believed would be coming their way.

Sports minister Nigel Huddleston told the House of Commons on September 30 that a rescue package would be “absolutely be focused on gate receipts”, with all clubs asked to complete a financial questionnaire centred on their anticipated shortfall in the wake of supporters not returning amid rising COVID-19 rates.

Clarification had been a long time coming but National League clubs nevertheless felt they had a good idea how big their slice of the £10 million pie would be.

Until this.

For every club content with their lot this week, there is another fizzing with injustice.

York, who boasted an average crowd of 2,708 in 2019-20, will receive just £36,000 a month as a National League North club, while National League minnows Boreham Wood, traditionally averaging less than a third of that gate revenue, can suddenly call upon £84,000 per month.

Chester, Dulwich, Hereford and Maidstone predictably have the biggest gripes. Each averaged over 1,800 fans last season in either National League North or South but their total windfall to come over the next three months will be just £108,000.

That quartet had expected at least twice as much from the pot but must eventually settle for just £18,000 more than clubs such as Hungerford Town, Oxford City and Curzon Ashton, who would class anything north of 400 spectators at one of their matches as a pleasing gate.

“We work our average out at 2,000 at £15 a head,” says Maidstone co-owner Terry Casey, who said the formula was “utterly crass, short-sighted and stupid.

“So, with two home games, that would be £60,000 in a month. We’re getting £36,000, so we’re going to struggle. We’re going to have to lay people off. I’d consider us to be a well-run non-League club but we can’t avoid a big deficit now.”

York, the seventh best-supported non-League club last season, declined to comment when approached but their club statement on Thursday evening captured the frustrations of others.

“The board is concerned that the funding allocated to York City FC does not meet the intended objective, to compensate for loss of income from match day ticket sales, and is not commensurable with funding received by other clubs,” it read.

“We will therefore seek further information and clarity regarding the National League’s funding allocations, specifically the strategic approach and formula.”

That lack of transparency is what irritates those feeling most scorned.

“Where did the National League board members come up with this ludicrous way of distributing the money?” asks Casey. “And that’s a rhetorical question.”

The best the National League, who maintain the FA were also involved in the decision-making process, have offered was in their initial letter informing clubs of funding.

“Distribution takes into account differences in attendances within each Step and between Steps (on the non-League ladder),” they were told.

The National League declined to comment on the funding when approached by The Athletic on Friday, while the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) confirmed the distribution had been decided without their input.

COVID-19 is changing the landscape of non-League football at its highest levels.

Games are regularly postponed due to outbreaks among squads, while those that go ahead are played without supporters in attendance. The match-day experience, formally so genial and welcoming, has fast become sterile.

This weekend is traditionally among the biggest in the non-League calendar. The FA Cup fourth qualifying round is the last hurdle to clear before the first round proper offers the chance to face the likes of Sunderland, Ipswich Town or Portsmouth.

Dulwich will have to win away at Eastbourne Borough if they are to receive the cheque for £9,375 that comes with a place in the first round and the prize money now has extra significance to the south London club.

Clasper, their chairman, was livid at this week’s unexpected financial twist.

“It is abuse of public funds,” he says. “It’s outrageous. This isn’t about one club getting more than another. This is about the league not following government instructions.

“The sports minister made that statement on September 30, and that was actually the trigger for all the National League clubs confirming that they were going to go ahead with the season, and enter into contracts. We were told categorically. And if you can’t progress on the basis of a statement from the sports minister, on the basis of which the funding will be allocated, what can you do?”

Clasper estimates Dulwich’s monthly payments of £36,000 will lead to a shortfall of £250,000 this season, and he is not the only chairman ticking.

As well as York and Maidstone, Hereford, Kidderminster, Chester and AFC Telford have all made their concerns known to the National League since letters were sent out earlier in the week.

Kidderminster chief executive Neil Male was among those “extremely concerned” by the funding breakdown.

Clasper opted against such diplomacy.

“The important point on this, and the legal point, is that we were told it was based on gate receipts,” he says. “We were all asked to submit detailed counts on our lost revenue. So if you’ve got 38 clubs at Step 2 all being handed identical amounts, despite the fact that one’s got 1,500 fans and one’s got 300, you know that, first of all, the exercise they asked clubs to do was utterly pointless.

“And secondly, it is absolutely not based on gate receipts. The gate receipts are obviously five-fold different between those two clubs.

“The integrity of competition is now completely gone.”

Boreham Wood, who are based in the parliamentary constituency of Hertsmere, led by Oliver Dowden, the secretary of state for DCMS, have undeniably been non-League football’s biggest winners this week.

Despite an average attendance of 724 in 2019-20, which would perhaps equate to roughly £10,000 per home game, they can expect cheques totalling £252,000 over the next three months. A statement on their website has not been forthcoming.

“The whole idea was to compensate for lost gates and they clearly haven’t done that,” says Casey, whose Maidstone side travel Chelmsford City in the National League South today.

“There are clubs who are massive, massive winners, getting more than they could ever imagine, and there are big losers, like ourselves. It should’ve been such a simple solution. If you get £60,000 in gate receipts each month, like ourselves, then we could expect £60,000. Those commitments haven’t been met.

“There’s teams like Notts County (average gate of 5,210) as well. They’re getting £11,000 a month more than Boreham Wood. Where’s the logic? I hope it’s stupidity behind the decision and not something else.”

Clasper concurs.

“There is a complete lack of transparency,” he says. “I wrote to the league to say, ‘Please confirm the basis of the funding’ on multiple occasions over the last three weeks. And Maidstone are correct. None of us have had a response to anything. I got so concerned I asked, ‘Have any clubs made any representation to amend the distribution method that is being proposed?’ And again, no answer.

“So the fact that there’s been no transparency, and the fact that it’s just been dropped on us, at 8.45am on the day before we had to pay payroll taxes, leaves me utterly cold.”

Such is Clasper’s anger, he intends to remove the National League’s sponsors from Dulwich’s Champion Hill home.

“I’ve written to Vanarama. Their signs are coming down, everything is coming down,” he adds.

“We’ve put them on notice — this is a public funding scandal. Signs are coming down. We’re going to go for them as heavily as we are going to go for the National League. Anyone that backs this board, and backs what the league have just done, needs to be called out.

“I’m talking as a tax payer. I’m not having my money thrown around like this.”

[Bridg4d_Pie_]

I mentioned this on another thread. No, it isn't fair but if its the difference between a 'smaller' club surviving or going bust then I'm happy for the split this way. Having been on the brink of financial ruin ourselves (on more than one occasion), let's not forget how that feels - particularly as this is the result of a pandemic, not financial mismanagement by one individual.

I just hope it doesn't mean we are making a loss if this money was actually meant to cover lost earnings from attending supporters.

For me, you most certainly do not have to be a Neuro Surgeon to realise that we are making a loss, Shirley even you can see that.