|
Post by Ian H Block on Oct 27, 2020 9:03:32 GMT
I've emailed Justin Madders, MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston.
Letter written by Justin Madders to the Sports Minister. Be interesting to see the reply.
"I am writing on behalf of the above constituent, who recently contacted me regarding the recent allocation of funds to National League Football Clubs to assist in covering lost gate revenue.
I understand that the allocation of such funds was completed by the National League board. I am aware that football clubs were asked to submit a financial questionnaire to estimate lost revenue however, it remains unclear what formula has been used to distribute the funding as the outcomes for clubs are quite different. For example, the monthly funding ranges from £95000 to £36000. Locally, Chester Football Club are at the lower end of the scale with a monthly payment of £36000.
I am aware of the attached spreadsheet which details the amount allocated per month to each club based upon the average number of spectators at home games in the 2019/20 season. The figures suggest that those with the highest losses are receiving some of the lowest levels of funding.
I would be grateful if you could outline what the Government intend to do to look into the distribution of the funding by the National League Board to ensure there is transparency and fairness.
Yours sincerely Justin Madders"
I’d give this post a like but that function appears to have been removed for some bizarre reason.
|
|
|
Post by Wortleyblue on Oct 27, 2020 9:17:23 GMT
Letter written by Justin Madders to the Sports Minister. Be interesting to see the reply.
"I am writing on behalf of the above constituent, who recently contacted me regarding the recent allocation of funds to National League Football Clubs to assist in covering lost gate revenue.
I understand that the allocation of such funds was completed by the National League board. I am aware that football clubs were asked to submit a financial questionnaire to estimate lost revenue however, it remains unclear what formula has been used to distribute the funding as the outcomes for clubs are quite different. For example, the monthly funding ranges from £95000 to £36000. Locally, Chester Football Club are at the lower end of the scale with a monthly payment of £36000.
I am aware of the attached spreadsheet which details the amount allocated per month to each club based upon the average number of spectators at home games in the 2019/20 season. The figures suggest that those with the highest losses are receiving some of the lowest levels of funding.
I would be grateful if you could outline what the Government intend to do to look into the distribution of the funding by the National League Board to ensure there is transparency and fairness.
Yours sincerely Justin Madders"
I’d give this post a like but that function appears to have been removed for some bizarre reason. Ian it has changed if you click on reactions in the top right you can now like or dislike anonymously
|
|
|
Post by Oaks Blue on Oct 27, 2020 9:19:45 GMT
The reactions aren't visible on my mobile device version of the forum, I need to change to desktop version to see it.
Any chance you can add the reactions to the mobile version too?
Excellent change btw, I especially like the 5th option 😀
|
|
|
Post by devadevil on Oct 28, 2020 9:57:32 GMT
letter sent to Alison McGovern MP, using many of the arguments and statistics on this thread, I await her response. Only response I got from Alison McGovern's staff has an acknowledgement of the issue and that she was working with the Chris Matheson on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Oct 28, 2020 11:11:15 GMT
Anyone who emailed the National League heard back yet? Been a week now.
|
|
|
Post by avfo on Oct 29, 2020 16:19:14 GMT
Hereford FC Chairman -
Chairman Andrew Graham has written to the National League Board, representing a group of 11 Clubs to voice their concerns and request a review of the allocation model with immediate effect.
Graham wrote ‘’I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely express how extremely grateful, each and every signatory to this letter is, for the intervention of Government in seeking to compensate us via National Lottery funding for losses incurred as a direct result of its decision to prevent supporters attending matches due to the impact of Covid-19.
“We appreciate that this is a difficult time for many people and that we are privileged to receive backing from Government.
“Recognition of this funding comes with additional recognition and thanks for the time and good intentions of those involved in the subsequent consideration for distribution of said funds.
“There is no doubt that the Government’s decision to take this unprecedented step is due to the unquestionable fact, that each and every Club plays a significant and socially irreplaceable role in sustaining local economies.
“There is also the immeasurable impact that local football clubs have on the collective well-being of those that follow them, together with the valuable work our clubs undertake in their local communities.’’
With regards to the Grant allocations, Graham continued by adding: “The one irrefutable fact is that the Government / National Lottery funding was earmarked to cover clubs’ ‘lost gate revenues’, i.e. shortfalls in income through the turnstiles as a result of Government preventing fans from returning to stadia and we cannot accept the use of any other determining factors.’’
“When Government funding was first announced on the above basis, it encouraged some clubs to agree to start the season without fans present in their grounds, because they knew they would be compensated for this very problem.
“Whilst we at Hereford are fortunate to be in a slightly stronger position than most clubs, we understand that had some clubs have known that they would effectively be operating, somewhat under economic duress, in an unsustainable manner, they may well not have wished to start the season and thereby trigger onerous contractual commitments.”
Graham and other signatories to a communication sent to the National League Board today, urged the National League Board or any independent panel otherwise instructed, to base their evaluation and decisions on the objective for the funding as per the DCMS / Culture Secretary press release on 18th October 2020 on the Gov.UK website – “Funding will be distributed to each of the 66 National League clubs to help cover their lost gate revenue from the delay to fans being permitted to return, that was originally scheduled for 1 October.”
The National League Board will meet on the 5th of November where they will review their position.
Graham concluded by adding “we will await the outcome of this meeting but will continue to pursue what we believe is the correct allocation and that is one that replaces gate receipts lost on a proportionate basis!”
|
|
|
Post by muffinthemule on Oct 29, 2020 16:34:11 GMT
Were Chester FC one of the signaturees? If not, why not
|
|
|
Post by sealandender1 on Oct 29, 2020 16:37:46 GMT
Hereford FC Chairman - Chairman Andrew Graham has written to the National League Board, representing a group of 11 Clubs to voice their concerns and request a review of the allocation model with immediate effect. Graham wrote ‘’I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely express how extremely grateful, each and every signatory to this letter is, for the intervention of Government in seeking to compensate us via National Lottery funding for losses incurred as a direct result of its decision to prevent supporters attending matches due to the impact of Covid-19. “We appreciate that this is a difficult time for many people and that we are privileged to receive backing from Government. “Recognition of this funding comes with additional recognition and thanks for the time and good intentions of those involved in the subsequent consideration for distribution of said funds. “There is no doubt that the Government’s decision to take this unprecedented step is due to the unquestionable fact, that each and every Club plays a significant and socially irreplaceable role in sustaining local economies. “There is also the immeasurable impact that local football clubs have on the collective well-being of those that follow them, together with the valuable work our clubs undertake in their local communities.’’ With regards to the Grant allocations, Graham continued by adding: “The one irrefutable fact is that the Government / National Lottery funding was earmarked to cover clubs’ ‘lost gate revenues’, i.e. shortfalls in income through the turnstiles as a result of Government preventing fans from returning to stadia and we cannot accept the use of any other determining factors.’’ “When Government funding was first announced on the above basis, it encouraged some clubs to agree to start the season without fans present in their grounds, because they knew they would be compensated for this very problem. “Whilst we at Hereford are fortunate to be in a slightly stronger position than most clubs, we understand that had some clubs have known that they would effectively be operating, somewhat under economic duress, in an unsustainable manner, they may well not have wished to start the season and thereby trigger onerous contractual commitments.” Graham and other signatories to a communication sent to the National League Board today, urged the National League Board or any independent panel otherwise instructed, to base their evaluation and decisions on the objective for the funding as per the DCMS / Culture Secretary press release on 18th October 2020 on the Gov.UK website – “Funding will be distributed to each of the 66 National League clubs to help cover their lost gate revenue from the delay to fans being permitted to return, that was originally scheduled for 1 October.” The National League Board will meet on the 5th of November where they will review their position.Graham concluded by adding “we will await the outcome of this meeting but will continue to pursue what we believe is the correct allocation and that is one that replaces gate receipts lost on a proportionate basis!” Well worded AG - but don’t tell clubs like Curzon Ashton of this!
|
|
|
Post by avfo on Oct 30, 2020 13:12:34 GMT
Were Chester FC one of the signaturees?
If not, why not Chester, Chesterfield, Dulwich Hamlet, AFC Fylde, Hereford, Kidderminster, Maidstone, Notts County, AFC Telford, Wrexham and Yeovil. The letter in full - Firstly thank you for agreeing to hold a call on Tuesday 27th October 2020, we all considered it to be a useful and polite exchange. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely express how extremely grateful, each and every signatory to this letter is, for the intervention of Government in seeking to compensate us via National Lottery funding for losses incurred as a direct result of its decision to prevent supporters attending matches due to the impact of Covid-19. We appreciate that this is a difficult time for many people and that we are privileged to receive backing from Government. Recognition of this funding, comes with an additional recognition and thanks for the time and good intentions of those involved in the subsequent consideration for distribution of said funds. There is no doubt that the Government decision to take this unprecedented step is due to the unquestionable fact, that each and every Club plays a significant and socially irreplaceable role in sustaining local economies. There is also the immeasurable impact that local football clubs have on the collective well-being of those that follow them, together with the valuable work our clubs undertake in their local communities. Although of course we agree with you that it is desirable for all our remaining 66 member clubs to survive the season, this cannot be guaranteed by an arbitrary and subjective decision on distribution of funding, as every club is operated according to different models and the reality of their situation simply cannot be sufficiently factually known for the League to play judge and jury of it. Even the clubs couldn’t be expected to know exactly how their income and cost basis would pan out when they filled in the League forms a few weeks ago. The one irrefutable fact is that the Government / National Lottery funding was earmarked to cover clubs’ ‘lost gate revenues’, i.e. shortfalls in income through the turnstiles as a result of Government preventing fans from returning to stadia. This the best basis upon which to fulfill Government instructions equitably. We were therefore disappointed, (and we cannot legally as Directors accept a situation where we have made strategically significant decisions, based on a promise to compensate us for one corporate factor), to then be faced with a ‘fait accompli’ where no set parameters were used, to determine this unacceptable outcome. In brief, the distribution, as ratified by the National League Board, has not been done on the intended basis. There appears to be no confirmation from member Clubs that their representatives were communicating with, or indeed representing them in the purest sense of the word! By virtue of using a distribution method, which largely ignored the Government guidelines, some clubs, including those represented by members of the National League Board, were handed far in excess of their actual losses of gate revenues, while other clubs were penalised and received less than half of their actual gate revenue loss. In extreme cases this resulted in some clubs receiving around five times as much funding – per absent spectator – as other clubs. This is patently unfair and, although the National League may have persuaded DCMS to accept this as a rational and diligently deliberated outcome, it contradicts the express purpose of the funding and unintentionally exposes the League Board to criticism based on conflicts of interest. We fail to see, and the call failed to explain, why the League thought it could do better than follow the Government guidelines to concentrate on ‘lost gate receipts’ and why it adopted a central-funding type ration of 60-20-20, giving the top division clubs three times as much as lower division clubs regardless of their gate receipt losses. This allocation model effectively distorts the competition, as some clubs will receive unjustified windfall payments, and creates an ‘unsustainability’ environment, with many clubs simply not receiving compensation for gate receipt losses. When Government funding was first announced on the above basis, it encouraged some clubs to agree to start the season without fans present in their grounds, because they knew they would be compensated for this very problem. Had they known they would effectively be operating, somewhat under economic duress, in an unsustainable manner, they may well not have wished to start the season and thereby trigger onerous contractual commitments. All of the above issues should have been anticipated by the National League Board in the interests of achieving a fair distribution of funding to all their member clubs in accordance with clear Government guidelines. In the event, it is clear that this was not done. We seek not to attempt to influence any decision of the Board of the National League and therefore call on the National League Board to call an emergency Board meeting before Wednesday 4th November and during that meeting discuss and determine a fair resolution to the issue of allocation of National Lottery Grant monies. It is not our intention that the first interim payments are delayed as we are aware that many Clubs will be in need of these monies to remain solvent. If it is deemed inappropriate for the Board to revise the decision due to overriding conflicts of interest then we urge you to agree to urgently appoint an independent panel to determine the method to be used to distribute this round of funding to its clubs. We urge the National League Board or any independent panel otherwise instructed, to base their evaluation and decisions on the objective for the funding as per the DCMS / Culture Secretary press release on 18th October 2020 on the Gov.UK website – ‘’ Funding will be distributed to each of the 66 National League clubs to help cover their lost gate revenue from the delay to fans being permitted to return, that was originally scheduled for 1 October.”
|
|
|
Post by devadevil on Oct 30, 2020 14:45:32 GMT
Amazed York are absent from the signatories, as they are the team hit hardest by this, probably keeping a lower profile due to their recent windfall and not wanting to appear ungrateful.
|
|
|
Post by avfo on Oct 30, 2020 15:38:25 GMT
Amazed York are absent from the signatories, as they are the team hit hardest by this, probably keeping a lower profile due to their recent windfall and not wanting to appear ungrateful. I suspect you are probably right. I think it might be apposite to remind the National League's Board of Directors of the statement they issued on September 24th, - Update on Commencement of 2020/21 Season Following a meeting of its Board of Directors this afternoon, the following update is issued on behalf of The National League: In recognition of the financial uncertainty facing its member clubs, The National League is actively engaged with Government, with the assistance of The Football Association, to secure a critical financial support package, and it is hoped this can be announced very soon. It is imperative the revenue shortfall caused by the pause to the safe return of spectators is responsibly addressed so each club can operate sustainably over the course of the forthcoming season.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Oct 30, 2020 16:25:19 GMT
It is promising perhaps that the signatories are from across all 3 leagues and not just NLN and NLS. Given the 60/20/20 split perhaps this is a little surprising.
|
|
|
Post by mcseal on Oct 30, 2020 16:40:21 GMT
It is promising perhaps that the signatories are from across all 3 leagues and not just NLN and NLS. Given the 60/20/20 split perhaps this is a little surprising. Not really. teams like Wrexham and Notts County would have received much more had the distribution been on a per spectator basis, despite the 60/20/20 split between the divisions.. Suspect it suits York to have the other better supported clubs in the league under financial duress !
|
|
|
Post by glosblue on Nov 1, 2020 18:48:09 GMT
email sent yesterday to complaints@national-lottery.co.uk. Keep up the pressure folks: I noticed your full page advertising in the national press today referring to the award of funding to the National League, obviously designed to celebrate a successful use of lottery money. I would suggest that this may be having the opposite effect to that intended. That’s because of the very significant discontent this award has generated, created by an arbitrary, unfair and potentially fraudulent allocation of that funding between the member clubs. Apparently having been determined by a small group of National League representatives behind closed doors, the grant fails to recompense clubs based on lost gate revenue – the only criteria defined in Parliament when the grant was awarded – but rather stipulates a set sum based almost entirely on league position. Thus, for example, Chester FC (average documented home attendance 2,019) get a cheque for £36,000 pcm, because they are in the Conference North. Boreham Wood FC (average documented home attendance 724) receive £84,000 pcm, because they are in the Conference. On this basis, a club like Boreham Wood will actually profit from the payout, because it will be greater than the revenue lost: 700 x £15 (say) x 2 home games a month = c. £21,000 lost gate receipts cf £84,000 income. Clubs like Chester will substantially lose – the payout will not cover actual losses eg: 2,000 x £15 x 2 = £60,000 lost cf £36,000 income. Over the 3 month period in question, therefore, a club like Chester will lose out on c.£70,000 of actual income lost; precisely the outcome the government funding was intended to prevent, and likely to lead to redundancies at such clubs that should be avoided. This might be considered as mere incompetence or laziness on the part of the National League. Obviously entirely coincidentally, the chairman of Boreham Wood, Mr Danny Hunter, met with Mr Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for DCMS recently to discuss how the money should be distributed: www.borehamwoodfootballclub.co.uk/uncategorized/wood-chairman-and-secretary-of-state-for-dcms-discuss-a-non-league-future/As the website article indicates, Mr Hunter states he is personally acquainted with the SofS, and was ‘delighted’ with the outcome of their discussions. A number of MP’s including Chris Matheson (Chester) and Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port) have written to the Sports Minister and others to raise the issue. And more recently, 11 clubs have written the letter reproduced below. This refers to a request for an extraordinary Board meeting to address the issue. I might respectfully suggest that your organization takes an interest in this, to ensure fairness and transparency is achieved. Here is the letter from the 11 clubs mentioned (not reproduced again here):
|
|
|
Post by chesterken on Nov 1, 2020 19:26:23 GMT
It is promising perhaps that the signatories are from across all 3 leagues and not just NLN and NLS. Given the 60/20/20 split perhaps this is a little surprising. Not really. teams like Wrexham and Notts County would have received much more had the distribution been on a per spectator basis, despite the 60/20/20 split between the divisions.. Suspect it suits York to have the other better supported clubs in the league under financial duress ! Don’t you think it’s a master stroke played by York if it’s turned over they get a huge slice of the cake if not then they are minted due to their cut of the transfer fee but they also have the morale high ground of not supporting the coup.
|
|
|
Post by agl on Nov 2, 2020 10:11:50 GMT
You can't blame clubs for acting in their own self interest. What annoys me most is that the close relationship between the chairman of Borehamwood and Oliver Dowden has not really been exposed. The implication is that Danny Hunter has had an influence in shaping the structure of the bail out, which followed discussions between the pair. I hope MPs who are on the case will be stressing that point. The fact that Dowden has posed with a Borehamwood shirt, bearing his name, surely raises questions about his fitness to oversee this. Our own response has been either weak, or measured, depending on how you view it. I assume we are lobbying behind the scenes rather than kicking up a stink. Only the chairman of Maidstone has been really vocal.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 2, 2020 10:53:45 GMT
We can all speculate about the influence of Hunter and Dowden on how the money was divided up. Equally they may have had no influence. Their relationship may have been only influential in getting the overall grant, and therefor of benefit. What we need are the facts and an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by scotty on Nov 2, 2020 11:08:57 GMT
We can all speculate about the influence of Hunter and Dowden on how the money was divided up. Equally they may have had no influence. Their relationship may have been only influential in getting the overall grant, and therefor of benefit. What we need are the facts and an explanation. That's the way government works. They will have been active in securing the £10M but not involved in the details of how much each club got. The way to win this is to pick your target, not use the scattergun approach that fans are using. Keep Oliver Dowden and Nigel Huddleston onside and use them to put pressure on the National League. Conspiracy theories about the amazing power of Boreham Wood over the National League board will be detrimental.
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Nov 2, 2020 11:18:16 GMT
You can't blame clubs for acting in their own self interest. What annoys me most is that the close relationship between the chairman of Borehamwood and Oliver Dowden has not really been exposed. The implication is that Danny Hunter has had an influence in shaping the structure of the bail out, which followed discussions between the pair. I hope MPs who are on the case will be stressing that point. The fact that Dowden has posed with a Borehamwood shirt, bearing his name, surely raises questions about his fitness to oversee this. Our own response has been either weak, or measured, depending on how you view it. I assume we are lobbying behind the scenes rather than kicking up a stink. Only the chairman of Maidstone has been really vocal. I'd call it measured. I don't really like clubs spouting off in public. It's kind of a Michael O'Leary/Wetherspoon's tit whose name I've forgetten thing to do, and it gives the impression of a privately owned club with a gobby spokesperson. South Shields do it all the time, and from what I gather nobody can take them seriously anymore.
|
|
|
Post by agl on Nov 2, 2020 17:39:18 GMT
We can all speculate about the influence of Hunter and Dowden on how the money was divided up. Equally they may have had no influence. Their relationship may have been only influential in getting the overall grant, and therefor of benefit. What we need are the facts and an explanation. So it's just coincidence that the formula they reached benefits Borehamwood most? Whether or not there was influence, or not, it doesn't look good. The award also flies in the face of what was initially announced...ie that clubs expected it would be linked directly to lost fan revenue. The trouble is, unless it's highlighted nothing will change.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 2, 2020 17:47:51 GMT
We can all speculate about the influence of Hunter and Dowden on how the money was divided up. Equally they may have had no influence. Their relationship may have been only influential in getting the overall grant, and therefor of benefit. What we need are the facts and an explanation. So it's just coincidence that the formula they reached benefits Borehamwood most? Whether or not there was influence, or not, it doesn't look good. The award also flies in the face of what was initially announced...ie that clubs expected it would be linked directly to lost fan revenue. The trouble is, unless it's highlighted nothing will change. I don’t know if it is coincidence or not. Facts not speculation are the only way to know. Absolutely right the distribution goes against the principle.
|
|
|
Post by penarlagblue on Nov 5, 2020 19:00:09 GMT
I'm sure I read that the National League Board were discussing the National Lottery distribution today. After receiving concerns from clubs. Keeping my eyes peeled and fingers crossed for some positive for news... we live in hope!
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Nov 5, 2020 20:17:14 GMT
... you live ten minutes up the A550 😉
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lime on Nov 9, 2020 8:24:32 GMT
Tweet from Ollie Bayliss on Friday
The National League has told clubs they’re aware that some members aren’t satisfied with the distribution of funding. An ‘independent review sub-committee’ has now been formed. The League say they’ll ‘keep the payment schedule under review'.
Don't hold your breath for common sense to prevail.
Apparently there's a debate in Parliament due at 16:30 today, to discuss the return of crowds to football and presumably other events.
|
|
|
Post by mcseal on Nov 13, 2020 16:23:31 GMT
Letter sent to National League today (and Co-signed by Chester) asking for the resignation of Brian Barwick.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Nov 13, 2020 16:31:27 GMT
We haven’t co-signed that letter, unless there is supposed to be more clubs where the white space is on page two?! Can only see Fylde, Telford, Hereford and Kiddy from our division.
Think our Chairman just wanted to appear grateful and didn’t want want to rock the boat, based on our official statement when all this came out.
|
|
|
Post by glosblue on Nov 13, 2020 16:53:13 GMT
A very good letter, and it highlights the scandal of the funding allocation, which borders on criminality. I hope a number of clubs, including hopefully our own, continue to keep up this pressure. If it isnt resolved satisfactorily, in an open and transparent way that achieves the government's intention, I believe those clubs adversely affected should decline to compete further in this year's competition.
|
|
|
Post by Blockhead on Nov 13, 2020 17:17:56 GMT
We haven’t co-signed that letter, unless there is supposed to be more clubs where the white space is on page two?! Can only see Fylde, Telford, Hereford and Kiddy from our division. Think our Chairman just wanted to appear grateful and didn’t want want to rock the boat, based on our official statement when all this came out. That version of the letter is the same as shared by Ollie Bayliss on Twitter. I'd be very disappointed if we have chosen not to sign it.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Nov 13, 2020 18:12:10 GMT
Believe there’s some talk on Twitter wrongly claiming we are one of the eight who have co-signed the letter, when actually its Chesterfield.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Nov 13, 2020 18:30:20 GMT
Now it appears the statement has been re-published with our name added on - eight becomes nine.
|
|