Playing squad `24

Apparently Jerry attended the Chippenham v Welling match last night, if so then seeing as we have just played Welling maybe he was casting an eye over the Chip squad with
a view to next season? It certainly proved successful last year (Parselle & Greenslade) We could do worse than study the Chippenham model, with a smaller playing budget than
ours (apparently) they seem to be able to field a competitive team each week and then utilise their Academy to fill in for injuries & suspensions etc. It seems to work quite well
for them, for despite playing Tuesday-Friday, (like us), these last couple of months, they are currently on a 13 match unbeaten run.

If we could take a similar approach then maybe it would negate the argument regarding asking our loyal (and always willing) supporters to Crowdfund to sign "better players".
Now, please don`t read this as me taking a pop at Jerry, I appreciate the job he has done for Bath City these last few seasons, but maybe more money does not necessary guarantee
you a more successful team. eg Welling, who are full time, but still struggling in the bottom half. I know it`s not easy, but If we can find more local talent and produce two or three
from the Academy then this could save us money in the long run. It`s so frustrating (more so for Jerry) to see a team sheet showing only two or three on the bench. I know we
have had bad luck with injuries, but we can`t be the only ones who suffer this problem.

If I had a pound for every footie forum post asserting XXX NLS club is 'full time'

Interesting post, PSJR. While I’ve no idea what our present playing budget is, recent decisions and the ten year season ticket offer suggests that money is very tight. If so some of your ideas could become very valid. But it would be quite a game changer for the academy players to step up to NLS level. When was the last?

I must say I am very surprised by the 10 year season ticket idea. I can't see that this is so much different to the Leeds model where they raised money on the basis of future revenues that never materialised. I thought this method of finance was discredited. And seems equally shaky anyway as those future revenues are based on an income stream that has never been tested. Do we know how much the odd down facility makes for the council?

With football direct costs running at over half a million pounds in the accounts year ending May 22 and a loss of over £82k for that period I would suggest that cuts are necessary, maybe starting with the manager himself. I would also remind people that according to the community ownership prospectus the club should have been in profit by now. The reality is the club cannot continue like it is, throwing money at the playing budget in what seems to be an effort to get into a league we cannot afford to be in anyway.
All the club is doing is adding to the debt and, redevelopment, which was going to provide the answer is as good as dead in the water.
I am fully aware this is not what many of you want to hear, instead wanting to believe the fantasy of National League football, but I am a realist.
Changes are needed, but I fear it may be too late already.

Like you I am constantly mindful that the prospectus predicted that we would be breaking even by now. To be honest I always felt it was a pipe dream.
It was predicated on the assumption that the performance of the existing board could be improved upon. I think it shows they were actually doing a pretty good job.
The main thing that has improved is gates and that brings in more revenue that would allow the club more wriggle room if it weren't for the fact that all the teams in the league appear to be spending more money forcing us to spend just to keep up.
All our eggs therefore are in the 4G pitch basket to achieve sustainability.

To be honest the prospectus and it's financial predictions part was utter tosh and I said so at the time, it was barely financially literate as it effectively predicted increasing revenue by 25% but costs only increasing by 1% (figures plucked from the air as I can't remember them exactly), that being said I still stood on Milsom Street and tried to drum up support with others as community ownership was (is still!?) the best way of keeping the club going at that time.

Jon, I think community ownership is the best way going forward but I need some convincing that the bubble of a few years ago hasn’t burst. The take over by the Society was based on a hell of a lot of hard work by a committed group backed up by the enthusiasm and generosity of loyal supporters. It’s great that the Club has attracted new fans since and it’s time for some of those to step up to the mark as many of the former have done more than their bit for the Club.
AGMs are on the horizon (Club, Society and SC) with positions to fill. I really hope there’s a queue of interested applicants!

Can't disagree with any of that. The vastly increased crowds are amazing, but it does seem like it's the same people holding things together who've been doing it for the last decade plus!

I think the fundamental problem is that the financial stakes at all levels of English football seem to increase significantly all the time - and certainly from decade to decade. Just when everyone things the TV money in the Premier League has peaked, the next deal sees it ratchet up further. Hollywood celebs leading even Wrexham to register a £3m loss in the National League - despite significantly increased ticket sales, merchandise etc - isn't helping at all. You need more and more money every year in English football just to stand still.

Annoyingly this is also having implications upon other leagues as well. In Ireland for example the owner of Fleetwood Town has bought Waterford, the owner of Preston North End has bought Cork City, and the owner of Hull City is trying to buy Shelbourne. The financial arms race in the English game is being injected directly into other leagues (which will probably be used as feeder structures for the 'main' club back in England).

It's hard to see how any of this will end well for English football overall

This is why the games administrators must get a grip on ffp. If they are too enfeebled to slap the likes of Man City down then they will never get on top of it. The smaller clubs learn the tricks.

I was on the Society Committee for many years but left because I felt no one was really taking any notice of what I said and there seemed to be this general feeling that community ownership was going to be the answer to all the problems, which it was plain to me was not the case. Also most people seemed to think getting planning permission for the redevelopment for a forgone conclusion which again it was not.
I was frustrated and even more so now.
Some things are very difficult to alter but one of the main things I thought community ownership was about was openness, honesty and transparency. This is something that could be controlled but I don't think we have it.
I believe there could be a lot more openness and honesty bout things but this is not happening. The Society does not seem to have the influence that it should, the club is run by 2 or 3 strong characters in the board room and it is only a community club when it suits them i.e. when they want some money from supporters.
I know Pete McCormack is a good person with the interests of the club at heart but as Chair of the Society he has a very difficult job to restore a correct balance. Personally I don't want to get involved again, I feel I have more than done my bit over the years but it does seem that despite the growth in crowds there is a lack of new people coming forward to get involved and what is more existing people seem to be leaving.
The loss recorded for the year ending May 22 is just unacceptable. The Board need to be held to account over this. This sort of loss represents the same sort of position as we were in before community ownership.
As most will know I am no fan of Jerry Gill for various reasons. I think certain members of the Board have allowed him far too much influence and this needs to change. Still no news on weather he gets a new contract, I believe it is very much in the balance. I hope he goes. I think the sort of return the club has got from him in terms of results, cup progress etc could be achieved and improved upon with some one costing less and working with a lower budget and without in my opinion the baggage that comes with him.
As things stand there is absolutely no way Bath City can compete in the National League, promotion would only increase the problems immensely and could mean the end of the club as we know it.
I hope things can change, and they need to, but I don't feel that optimistic at the moment. The problems are still there and the club seems to losing just as much money as previously. A rethink is needed and I see no reason to question my original reasons for standing down.
I have said before I am a realist but honestly hope that as Chair of the Society Pete can instigate some changes.

As a former director I have a lot of respect for the Board and admire their efforts. Yes, maybe we were over optimistic following the Bid but I honestly think they’ve done a brilliant job of marketing the Club and improving its structure.
However I share many of your concerns and I’m worried that some key Board members must step down as they’re nearing the end of their terms. While I think this Society ruling was introduced for the right reasons it does depend on suitable members standing for election to take their place. Like you I’ve done my bit and it’s time for the next generation to step up.

Clearly the club, as ever, are in need of additional revenue. Installation of an artificial pitch is said to be worth £100k profit per annum. I hope that is true but, all forecasts tend to fall short for one reason or another. Gate revenue is vitally important at our level and so, the success of the BC1000 must be applauded. However, the city of Bath has a population (most recent census) of 103,000, let alone the greater catchment area. Surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that the club could potentially attract 2,000 fans. How do we achieve that? Success on the pitch is one path but, as said earlier, pumping money into the playing budget from present income might not be achievable, and success does not always follow the £s. I wonder how much investment would be needed to try and grow our fanbase. Might it be cheaper and a more profitable route? Bigger crowds = greater income + £100k per annum from pitch can lead to more investment in the playing squad.

Coming back to the original discussion, at Weymouth we again have an incomplete bench.
Surely next season City need a bigger squad to provide an adequate selection and ability to alter the game.
Competition for places rather than expensive signings

To me you can't really complain about being short of players if you have deliberately started the season with a small 'quality' squad.

You were right to put quality with quotation marks. A good defence playing in front of an excellent keeper since Christmas although of course he’s not ours and will be gone soon. A very useful attack when all available and fit. But they have received poor service from the midfield who I consider to be the worst I’ve seen for many years.

Back to the footie. Raynes Hayfield, and now Lines re signed post season, with Chip Forum lamenting further moves to us and Gloucester.

The problem as always is finance.

Very large debts have to be paid soon or, has income from the past season been increased and expenditure controlled to result in a surplus so that creditors are satisfied to either defer or accept part of payments due?

Board aims seem to be avoid relegation and try to increase revenue?

In just over a year we will see the results from 2022 / 2023 trading.

Is it just me disappointed with a contract for Chris Lines?

What happened to the plan to get players who could play the most games possible? Unless we have him on a pay for play basis it can’t be the best budget balancing for the club.

While Lines game time has to be managed he offers so much to the team I think it is logical to keep him. If he is going to remain the fulcrum of the team then the other midfielders need to bring complementary skills, not poorer imitations of the same.

I'd love us to sign just one really nuggety midfield enforcer that can wind up the opposition and get our fans going. Teams like Havant, Dover, Ebsfleet etc seem to find those characters easily enough.

As we were repeatedly told how good the squad was and the only reason they missed out on a playoffs place was down to injuries to key players, it won’t surprise me if the intention is to retain all of them. Quite how the Club’s finances fit with that I’m unsure.

Steve Whites Missus wrote:Is it just me disappointed with a contract for Chris Lines?

What happened to the plan to get players who could play the most games possible? Unless we have him on a pay for play basis it can’t be the best budget balancing for the club.

Ditto Danny Greenslade. Fine player when he occasionally plays.

Bristol end wrote: I'd love us to sign just one really nuggety midfield enforcer that can wind up the opposition and get our fans going. Teams like Havant, Dover, Ebsfleet etc seem to find those characters easily enough.

Oh for a Holloway, Hoggy or Adie Harris!