Funding Problems ?

[Foxy]

According to today's Times ("Storm Brewing over National League Clash" by Martyn Ziegler 4/1/21) the Government subsidy of £11m for the National League has been allocated in a different way than planned. It was based on attendances, so those who get bigger gates are subsidised accordingly, but instead the League has distributed it based on a flat rate. Its alleged for example that Notts County received £287000 less than they should have, whereas Borehamwood have been overcompensated by £170000.

Clearly we will be in a similar position to Notts County , and a loss of that size can only mean that we are even further disadavantaged.

[Haruki]

Originally Posted by Foxy

According to today's Times ("Storm Brewing over National League Clash" by Martyn Ziegler 4/1/21) the Government subsidy of £11m for the National League has been allocated in a different way than planned. It was based on attendances, so those who get bigger gates are subsidised accordingly, but instead the League has distributed it based on a flat rate. Its alleged for example that Notts County received £287000 less than they should have, whereas Borehamwood have been overcompensated by £170000.

Clearly we will be in a similar position to Notts County , and a loss of that size can only mean that we are even further disadavantaged.

And i am sure it is totally coincidental that Sports Minster Oliver Dowden is MP for Borehamwood

[podders]

Times are as quick with articles as the Leader, this was first talked about back in October.

https://www.thenonleaguefootballpape...cation-review/

[Alan Attack]

Any club getting more money than what is covered by their gate receipts should pay it back immediately.

This league has never been a level playing field so it shouldn't start now.

[Inside Left]

Not convinced that clubs being allocated monies should have their allocation solely based on gate income. Some at this lowly level have other football related incomes which they miss out on.
These might include training grounds with community access, Decent an popular venues that normally host community events, parties. weddings and funerals. Some clubs are hubs for their communities and any income supports semi pro football.
Just because Wrexham can attract a thousand or so extra through the gate it doesn't mean the club should attract extra revenue. There are other issues to take into account.

Some here will want a big floodlight allowance next

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Inside Left

Not convinced that clubs being allocated monies should have their allocation solely based on gate income. Some at this lowly level have other football related incomes which they miss out on.
These might include training grounds with community access, Decent an popular venues that normally host community events, parties. weddings and funerals. Some clubs are hubs for their communities and any income supports semi pro football.
Just because Wrexham can attract a thousand or so extra through the gate it doesn't mean the club should attract extra revenue. There are other issues to take into account.

Some here will want a big floodlight allowance next

It's difficult balance to strike whichever way the money is allocated.
Even if the funds were allocated on an average crowd basis, Notts County, Chesterfield, Solihull, Stockport etc would still have to rely on their "Sponsor" providing the difference between the funding and their running costs.
This is one time where we as a club are actually at an advantage, if funds are based on gates, due to our lower running costs.

[Alan Attack]

Originally Posted by Inside Left

Not convinced that clubs being allocated monies should have their allocation solely based on gate income. Some at this lowly level have other football related incomes which they miss out on.
These might include training grounds with community access, Decent an popular venues that normally host community events, parties. weddings and funerals. Some clubs are hubs for their communities and any income supports semi pro football.
Just because Wrexham can attract a thousand or so extra through the gate it doesn't mean the club should attract extra revenue. There are other issues to take into account.

Some here will want a big floodlight allowance next

It was on the understanding that the funding waould be distributed based on fans through the gate unless I have missed something.

[krux]

Originally Posted by Inside Left

Not convinced that clubs being allocated monies should have their allocation solely based on gate income. Some at this lowly level have other football related incomes which they miss out on.
These might include training grounds with community access, Decent an popular venues that normally host community events, parties. weddings and funerals. Some clubs are hubs for their communities and any income supports semi pro football.
Just because Wrexham can attract a thousand or so extra through the gate it doesn't mean the club should attract extra revenue. There are other issues to take into account.

Some here will want a big floodlight allowance next

An extra 1,000 on the gate is, what, £15,000 every game?
Thats a lot of community events. Say they do 3 a week, how much is that going to raise, £500 per week?

Nowhere near,.

[tokyored]

Originally Posted by Alan Attack

It was on the understanding that the funding waould be distributed based on fans through the gate unless I have missed something.

Yes, it was quite literally funding to replace income lost by having no fans.
Didn't the panel who decided how to allocate the money have representatives of Boreham Wood and, I think, Dover on it? 2 of the clubs that would benefit hugely from an even split.

[andy buckley]

I think we were 1 of 11 clubs that signed a letter complaining about the allocation weeks ago dunno if there was any response to it