Season 2019/2020 Conclusion?

tovid wrote:Personally I would rather not have play offs if it was going to bankrupt the club. My understanding is that the club had already overspent this season before the lockdown.
The whole point of community ownership is that it has to be sustainable.
Could we raise £20K for the play offs?

Completely agree, I can't get behind this position at all. I am hoping that the phrase "subject to safety and realistic affordability" has been included as a get-out clause, so that the board can demonstrate its "ambition" (my least favourite word in the football language) to supporters while still being able to put financial sustainability first when push comes to shove!

Agree with Tovid. The last 2 years in the National League nearly bankrupted the club.  The vital re development failed to get planning permission and now we have Covid. Who is going to pay for the testing? Perhaps those in favour of the play offs can sponsor testing? As has been said I thought most people wanted a sustainable club and this is going against that.

This is a really difficult one I think.

If we do decide not to take part in the playoffs - and I totally accept the financial arguments for not doing so - it does rather make the whole of last season a bit pointless. What is the point of playing for a prize that you don’t actually want to win?

It is also clear from the article in the non-league paper and his recent posts on Twitter and Facebook that Jerry wants us to go for it. I wonder if he would stay if we showed that we don’t actually want the thing that he has been working towards all the time he has been here.

If we do take part it will also be interesting to see what sort of side we could put together, because if we are going to commit to the £20k we don’t really want to get knocked out in the first game.

Hopefully this saga is coming to an end and by Thursday we should know if the playoffs are on or not, but there have been so many twists and turns that I wouldn’t bet on it!

Personally, I do not want to support a Club that has no ambition, so therefore it saddens me to hear that a few of you do not want the Club to be promoted, even if you only mean it for this year.
Every week we watch our beloved team trying their best to win matches - we love it whenever we do win, and we are sad whenever they don't. I think it is inexcusably negative to use money as the main reason for not wanting our team to play at the next level. I have been supporting City for 20 years, and in each of those years we have lost money. Recently the amounts we have 'lost' have increased, but I have always believed that these deficits were caused by spending more than we could really afford on attaining the quality of player that could elevate us to that next level - speculating to accumulate. If we had not overspent I do not think that we would be playing at the level we are at!
I believe that we have made great strides towards this goal in the last three years - a very good playing management team has helped - the fan base has noticeably increased - the accumulated debt was going to be 'dealt with' as part of the new development (which we all hope a new plan for is just round the corner) - and I think that the current board is far more street-wise today, than it was ten years ago, when it comes to managing our money.

In short, I think that we are far better placed to face up to playing at the next level, compared to 2010/2011. Of course, whenever we get there, we must be as confident as we can be that we can make ends meet. but remember that two thirds of our losses in those two years were made in the second of those years when we were throwing silly money at 'senior' more expensive players in a vain attempt to stay up. Lesson learnt - If we do get similarly relegated I am sure that it will not lead to such losses again. At the end of the day, if the city of Bath does not want a football club that is capable of playing at higher levels I would still like to think that we have done everything possible to achieve that ambition!

Even if the play-offs go ahead and we end up taking part, my question is will we be able to put out a competitive team?
Will we be able to use the loan signings that did so well for us through the season (Hartridge, Chilvers, Bowry, Pearson, etc) and will their parent clubs allow them to play, even if they wanted to?

I can’t support a Club with no ambition. Our players go out to win.

These will be one off costs which we can fundraise to find.

Right decision by the Board. Imagine how our players and manager would have felt.

The amendment isn’t likely to succeed anyway so those who are rightly concerned about sustainability don’t realistically have to worry.

Imagine if the Board had said no - next season might have been much more difficult.

This debate does raise the issue of the Club’s strategy. During the bid I thought we enshrined ‘sustainability’ or no new debt?

If we did go up we would have to live within our means.

To confirm, in case you haven’t heard from elsewhere, the clubs received the resolutions to vote on from the League at 8pm yesterday.

I won’t enter this debate at the moment but I’ll certainly share with the Board the various arguments made on here and social media to help us reach the required decisions. They will only be made regarding our taking part in the play offs, should they be approved by the clubs, once we have all the details and cost implications.

I accept the points re ambition but I think you need to consider the position the club and country is in.
Over the past years Bob has done a fantastic job getting sponsorship and he has done this on a completely voluntary basis. He now needs to step back a bit and it is highly unlikely the club will find someone to raise £100k per year on a voluntary basis so if you have to pay someone £30k to do this the £100k becomes £70k to the club.
With the situation most business will find themselves in they are going to have to save money so sponsorship is going to take a hit anyway. Also many people who are on furlough will likely find there is no job to go back to so money will be short and football will be a luxury they cannot afford.
We don't even know what the situation is gong to be with regard to next season i.e . when will it start, possible restrictions on bars still in force meaning another financial hit.
The costs of testing has already been mentioned and the planning permission for the redevelopment which the club itself made clear was vital to secure the future of the club has been turned down.
I am not unambitious for the club but there are so many issues that point to promotion this season (ok got to win play offs first) being a poison chalice I don't think it should be considered. Gamble the future of the club on one possible season in Conference National, not for me.

comrade powell wrote:To confirm, in case you haven’t heard from elsewhere, the clubs received the resolutions to vote on from the League at 8pm yesterday.

I won’t enter this debate at the moment but I’ll certainly share with the Board the various arguments made on here and social media to help us reach the required decisions. They will only be made regarding our taking part in the play offs, should they be approved by the clubs, once we have all the details and cost implications.

Are you able to shed some light on the voting process please Martin? I understand that clubs in NLS (as in NLN) get 4 votes between them and wondered how this is decided on. Do the 22 clubs discuss it between them and agree which way the 4 votes go, or do they each send their votes in individually with them then being totted up so that if say 13 were in favour and 9 against the 4 overall votes would go that way?

Fully understand your view Steve and sympathetic on many points about the Club’s position but I hold with the strong view that the Club has to back its players and manager. To vote against a chance of promotion would have sent an awful signal to the community.

We need as fan owners to agree the Club’s strategy. I’ll get behind whatever’s agreed democratically

LB wrote:
Are you able to shed some light on the voting process please Martin? I understand that clubs in NLS (as in NLN) get 4 votes between them and wondered how this is decided on. Do the 22 clubs discuss it between them and agree which way the 4 votes go, or do they each send their votes in individually with them then being totted up so that if say 13 were in favour and 9 against the 4 overall votes would go that way?

The bit I've highlighted, LB. I understand that if there was a 50/50 split there would be 2 votes in favour and 2 against.

comrade powell wrote:

LB wrote:
Are you able to shed some light on the voting process please Martin? I understand that clubs in NLS (as in NLN) get 4 votes between them and wondered how this is decided on. Do the 22 clubs discuss it between them and agree which way the 4 votes go, or do they each send their votes in individually with them then being totted up so that if say 13 were in favour and 9 against the 4 overall votes would go that way?

The bit I've highlighted, LB. I understand that if there was a 50/50 split there would be 2 votes in favour and 2 against.  

Thanks Martin. That was what I had assumed would happen, but in view of how the league have conducted this so far I don't think it wise to assume anything!

To be clear I didn't mention promotion - I was talking about the additional cost of playing in the play offs which is over and above what the club would have budgeted for at the start of the season.
Of course we wanted to achieve promotion if we could during the season played and financed it at a loss. But that was before this situation.
To suggest we did not want promotion because we can't afford it now is twisting the argument.