The Next 6 Months?

Are the gov.uk suggesting that sitting inside a pub drinking is safer than sitting/standing in the open air watching football for two hours? It could be that they are more concerned about the use of public transport to get to grounds. This of course would be a huge issue for London clubs where travel to the ground is mainly via the tube.

The National League has released the following statement following the meeting today:

"Following a meeting of the 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 in the safe return of spectators is responsibly addressed so each club can operate responsibility over the course of the coming season'"  

In view of the amount of money that the Government has paid out on furlough and other schemes over the last few months football might not be a high priority for a handout, and I don't think it does the cause any good when you see that Premier League clubs paid out around 250 million pounds just in agents fees last season. I think the league and F A would be better off trying to persuade the Government that fans can return safely but in smaller numbers than before.

It seems that if there is a vote of clubs on whether to start on 3rd October it will be on the same basis as before, the NL clubs getting a vote each, but North and South only getting 4 each between them.

Journalist Ollie Bayliss is reporting that the total cost of playing behind closed doors is £3-4m a month (not clear whether this is just for NL or for all 3 leagues)

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/status/1309195059498307584

That is not a great deal of money in the grand scheme of the COVID bailouts.

Interesting to see the NLN clubs argue that, as "elite" sports clubs, they deserve a vote each

OliverH wrote:
Interesting to see the NLN clubs argue that, as "elite" sports clubs, they deserve a vote each

I’m not sure what relevance the elite definition has but I find it amazing that one third of the NL in effect make decisions which we all have to abide by. Just 17 full time clubs need to agree on something and our interests are ignored.

Interview with the Borehamwood chairman. He doesn’t hold back...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_vcIFMdv8Y

BBC Radio 5 Live: There was a comment this morning, sometime between 4am and 6am, by a reporter that from his informed source the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport has no money to support sports clubs.

So unless there was something in the Chancellors statement or the detail of the schemes then the entertainment sector, of which sport is part, will have to look after itself.

The City board meet today so look forward to a statement from them.

Interesting candid interview from Boreham Wood FC:

ONE striker costs c.£125k a year.  Would that buy City an entire eleven?

The voting structure of the National League is, in effect, a dictatorship.

The statements, 15 September and brief update yesterday, from the National League Board of Directors are very different from Boreham Wood "interpretation"...

Interesting statement by the F A today when they announced the 2QR draw:

"Following recent Government announcements, we are currently working with Government on arrangements for Emirates F A Cup ties (including spectators). We will hopefully be able to provide an update to clubs early next week".

The thought of the F A and Government working together is not really an inspiring one!

OliverH wrote:Journalist Ollie Bayliss is reporting that the total cost of playing behind closed doors is £3-4m a month (not clear whether this is just for NL or for all 3 leagues)

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/status/1309195059498307584

That is not a great deal of money in the grand scheme of the COVID bailouts.

Interesting to see the NLN clubs argue that, as "elite" sports clubs, they deserve a vote each

The trouble with bail outs is that it only kicks the can down the road. And it isn't only football with its hand out.

tovid wrote:

OliverH wrote:Journalist Ollie Bayliss is reporting that the total cost of playing behind closed doors is £3-4m a month (not clear whether this is just for NL or for all 3 leagues)

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/status/1309195059498307584

That is not a great deal of money in the grand scheme of the COVID bailouts.

Interesting to see the NLN clubs argue that, as "elite" sports clubs, they deserve a vote each

The trouble with bail outs is that it only kicks the can down the road. And it isn't only football with its hand out.

UK national debt is £2.024 trillion - as a taxpayer I'm happy for another few million to keep the non-league pyramid from collapsing, but I respect that others will have different views.

Latest update from Ollie Bayliss:

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/status/1309764673940738048

The National League has updated clubs:

They aim to start that season next weekend.

They await confirmation of financial support from the Government in order to do so.

Finances will be based on lost net gate revenue & provided monthly for the period that games are without fans.

Dropping the ‘elite’ status has been considered.

However, the elite status provides more financial certainty.

The tightening of restrictions could see fans stopped at all levels.

The elite status could offer some protection to allow the season to conclude behind closed doors.

OliverH wrote:Latest update from Ollie Bayliss:

https://twitter.com/Ollie_Bayliss/status/1309764673940738048

The National League has updated clubs:

They aim to start that season next weekend.

They await confirmation of financial support from the Government in order to do so.

Finances will be based on lost net gate revenue & provided monthly for the period that games are without fans.

Dropping the ‘elite’ status has been considered.

However, the elite status provides more financial certainty.

The tightening of restrictions could see fans stopped at all levels.

The elite status could offer some protection to allow the season to conclude behind closed doors.

I saw this as well. Presumably the statement "they await confirmation of financial support from the Government before they do so [start next weekend]" means that if they don't get it then the season won't start? The position up to now had been that they wouldn't start without fans. With the clock ticking I wonder how long they can wait?

So is it important that we’re considered ‘elite’ again?

Yes that update prompts as many questions as it answers! It sounds like the NL is playing chicken with government, telling fans that they're confident a support package will be in place so we can blame the govt if the league doesn't start.

I don't understand the point about elite status - it seems to be suggesting that it's a good thing because it would allow us to finish the season behind closed doors if crowds were banned across the board in the future - but that's exactly what would bankrupt us!

Apparently Oliver Dowden of the DCMS was on the Andrew Marr show this morning suggesting that a 'rescue package' from the PL to the EFL is soon to be agreed. Hopefully somebody will remind him that there is football below the EFL.

I do think the NL has backed itself into a bit of a corner, having always said that the season wouldn't start without fans. I tend to agree with Oliver that they seem to be hoping they can blame the government if no money is forthcoming as seems likely. Just find it hard to believe that it is this close to the season starting and no decision has been made.

Dowden was making it very clear that the Government had already baled out football during the crisis and that he was looking to the PL to lead the way in supporting the EFL. I'm sure this will go right to the wire but wonder if some clubs will simply state that they won't start whatever the NL comes out with.

The teams in NL North came out almost en masse in the week saying they didn't want to start the season, but the South (apart perhaps predictably from Havant) have been pretty quiet. It is almost like they are all waiting to see who blinks first.

I think the NLS and NLN teams should at least play their cup games, as win or lose they get some money out of the F A that way!

Les. You may be right in your view that we may as well play Winchester.
However, some folk seem to be saying that if teams start the season in the Cup that then triggers players contracts for the whole season.
If we don't start the season the players contracts don't kick in and they are free to move on.
All in all a terrible situation to be in just one week before the season is due to start.
Unfortunately I can see us still debating this on Friday night.

I was being slightly flippant when I suggested the F A Cup games should go ahead, and I have also seen it said that contracts don’t start until the first day of the season.

Hopefully we won’t still be discussing this on Friday but with the track record of the NL and FA nothing would be a surprise!

There was one consolation this week though as I managed to wind up a Havant supporter over their going to their MP to get the elite status dropped when they had taken exactly the same route a few months ago to get it so that the playoffs could take place!

Presumably we still have another month of furlough up our sleeves? I.e. if the NL pushes the season start back to 1 Nov, we could start our players' contracts but then immediately furlough them? Doesn't solve the problem but perhaps buys some time - although we'd then have to pull out of the FA Cup.

LB wrote:There was one consolation this week though as I managed to wind up a Havant supporter

That's a surprisingly easy thing to do! They're the only club in nearly 10 years of me thanking away fans for coming to take it as an insult.

comrade powell wrote:Dowden was making it very clear that the Government had already baled out football during the crisis and that he was looking to the PL to lead the way in supporting the EFL. I'm sure this will go right to the wire but wonder if some clubs will simply state that they won't start whatever the NL comes out with.

Shouldn't our club, as a supporter owned club committed to financial prudence, be at the head of this queue?

Perhaps it is.

We are not exactly a supporter owned club, though the society is the largest shareholder. The club is a limited company. Not owning the whole club meant that we could not benefit fully when the shares were purchased by the society at the outset. We need to keep this in mind as it could be a factor in the future. I know it is nice to say that we are a supporter owned club, but we are only a supporter controlled club as the largest shareholder. Hopefully one day a way can be found to purchase all of the company's shares so that we can change the status of the football club. Then we can say that we are a supporter owned club, but in the meantime we should not forget that Bath City is a limited company, like the vast majority of clubs.

City 'til we're relegated wrote:We are not exactly a supporter owned club, though the society is the largest shareholder. The club is a limited company. Not owning the whole club meant that we could not benefit fully when the shares were purchased by the society at the outset. We need to keep this in mind as it could be a factor in the future. I know it is nice to say that we are a supporter owned club, but we are only a supporter controlled club as the largest shareholder. Hopefully one day a way can be found to purchase all of the company's shares so that we can change the status of the football club. Then we can say that we are a supporter owned club, but in the meantime we should not forget that Bath City is a limited company, like the vast majority of clubs.

For what it's worth, our current majority stake does mean that we meet the Supporters Direct/FSA definition of a community-owned club, and we are generally regarded as peers by 100% fan-owned clubs like FCUM and AFC Wimbledon. But yes, Bath City FC is a limited company.

EDIT: my point is just that we're not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes or exaggerating when we say that we're community-owned, as we meet the widely-accepted definition in football. But the ambition at the moment is to eventually turn BCFC itself into a community benefit society or similar structure, which may possibly create new benefits. E.g. the recent Kruger review proposed a govt-backed "MatchTrade" programme where public money would match the trading revenues of social enterprises (this already happens a bit with lottery money).

OliverH., you have given me information that I did not know -that we meet the widely accepted definition of a community owned club, but also confirmed what I think is important, that our football club is a limited company and the sooner we can become a community owned club in every sense, and can therefore benefit from whatever benefits community benefit societies benefit from, the better. So thank you on both counts.