A couple of non league snippets

[Jon Underwood]

From what I have seen and heard this week my guess is there are a number of clubs who agree with some or all of the statement but do not seem willing to stick their neck on the line in this way at this stage.

I think some are waiting to see now what comes on Monday from NL before deciding their next course of action.

And of course there is another group who seem intent on finishing the season at whatever cost, much more so in the South than the North for some reason.

[HorshamRebel]

From Concord, post meeting...

 

Summary of meeting with Sport England If approved for any type of funding it will take 4/6 weeks at best to receive money No actual clarity on security We are to assume normal revenue commence beginning of April

 

So this leaves us all in a position of voting on the season next week totally unsure of gaining any monetary support in the near future, at the very least the @TheVanaramaNL will need to suspend for a further 4 weeks in my opinion @DCMS #GrantsNotLoans

[Reading Rebel]

'Assume normal revenue commencement beginning of April'

So what happens if normal revenues don't commence in April?

The NL are so desperate to continue with the season they will agree to anything.

Farce and a shambles at best.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Reading Rebel

[Kaiser Gibbs Batman (KGB)]

1 hour ago, Jon Underwood said:

From what I have seen and heard this week my guess is there are a number of clubs who agree with some or all of the statement but do not seem willing to stick their neck on the line in this way at this stage.

I think some are waiting to see now what comes on Monday from NL before deciding their next course of action.

And of course there is another group who seem intent on finishing the season at whatever cost, much more so in the South than the North for some reason.

As to Jon's final para, one might think that that was because they are not dependent on "normal revenue" (whatever that might constitute).

[Curtis]

Part of a statement by Chelmsford FC, which might explain why commercially some clubs who have players on season long contracts or have signed players after 31st October might want the season to be completed:-

‘The terms and length of a ‘suspension’ are unclear and cannot be guaranteed based on recent precedents. So, whilst some may argue it allows time for a rethink by DCMS, the one thing that is very clear is that the commercial implications of a cessation would be catastrophic for the club and its players. 

The club is still generating some income through streaming and the excellent efforts of the Supporters Club but has bills to pay and whilst some players could be furloughed, not all would receive monies as they joined post 31st October and furlough still leaves the clubs with some significant costs to pay, so we would have no income and continued costs. In addition, we are only 10 days away from the January payroll with no certainty of funding. Therefore, this is not a commercially acceptable solution and not one the Board is able to support on this basis.’

[Reading Rebel]

31 minutes ago, Curtis said:

Part of a statement by Chelmsford FC, which might explain why commercially some clubs who have players on season long contracts or have signed players after 31st October might want the season to be completed:-

‘The terms and length of a ‘suspension’ are unclear and cannot be guaranteed based on recent precedents. So, whilst some may argue it allows time for a rethink by DCMS, the one thing that is very clear is that the commercial implications of a cessation would be catastrophic for the club and its players. 

The club is still generating some income through streaming and the excellent efforts of the Supporters Club but has bills to pay and whilst some players could be furloughed, not all would receive monies as they joined post 31st October and furlough still leaves the clubs with some significant costs to pay, so we would have no income and continued costs. In addition, we are only 10 days away from the January payroll with no certainty of funding. Therefore, this is not a commercially acceptable solution and not one the Board is able to support on this basis.’

Probably sums up the situation at quite a few clubs. 

Take a loan or go bust.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Reading Rebel

[GlenSTFC]

Or take the loan and just go bust a bit later!

[Reading Rebel]

The Boston United Chairman giving his reasons for the season continuing.

https://www.bostonunited.co.uk/news/club-statement--29012021-2596940.html

[Curtis]

2 hours ago, Reading Rebel said:

Probably sums up the situation at quite a few clubs. 

Take a loan or go bust.

For every £100,000 borrowed at 2% over 20 years the repayment would be approximately £500 per month (£120 per week).

And clubs at our level received £30k per month for October, November & December.

If it was just about finances until fans can return this would probably be a reasonable solution.

[Windsor Rebel]

We should not take out a loan under any circumstances whatsover. No business in its right mind would borrow money to fund a project

(in this case football) which may be terminated in the near future due to the current and near future uncertainty. Consider this: we borrow

say £30,000 for one month, a new strain of Covid arrives and football is canned again. We have then wasted £30,000. As I say,

no one with a business mind would entertain such a loan. Madness. Even if it is repayed over a long term, its still dead money.

[Reading Rebel]

Marc White at Dorking giving his views. The bottom line seems to revolve around the fact that if the season is null and voided Dorking will lose in the region of 3/4 million in sponsorship money and as a club will be in serious trouble.

He makes the assumption that clubs could be entitled to a grant if they have less than 6 months cash in the bank but say's all clubs will know the exact criteria required for obtaining a grant following the meetings held this morning.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1DXGyRLvmzNJM

Edited January 29, 2021 by Reading Rebel

[Neil Baker]

2 hours ago, Curtis said:

For every £100,000 borrowed at 2% over 20 years the repayment would be approximately £500 per month (£120 per week).

And clubs at our level received £30k per month for October, November & December.

If it was just about finances until fans can return this would probably be a reasonable solution.

On the finance side of things I have a question for you Mark, if you were an owner of a business (forget football for the minute) and you were offered to take either a 100k loan at the interest rates and over the term you discussed but had no way of making any form of income in the near future, and was just going to use that money to pay staff and bills (which would only arise if you continued)  or you could close the doors until there was more certainty for the business, furlough your staff all with very little outlay, and therefore come out the other end in much better shape what would you be doing as a business owner?

If the answer is the second option, then it should not change just because we play football, especially when the league which we play in told us in August they would not play without fans or funding.

We have two huge issues in place, the overall lack of testing in a contact sport, and the lack of any funding when income has been completely starved.

Everyone has their opinions, clearly you believe that we should be doing what we can to play, and if so that is your right, however mine and many people around the club are of the opposite opinion.

All of this has made the whole non league world a little murky, but whilst we all love our football there are so many other factors in play.

I will stop with my opinions on here, and will just leave the clubs to do what they feel is necessary. What will be will be.

[Curtis]

Neil,

My answer would be very different dependent on the club.

I get the impression you, Jon, & the Club have been very prudent & conservative, made minimal financial commitments with regard to signing players & putting players on season long contracts (which was probably a reason why Wealdstone were able to sign Matt Lench after a seven day approach) & possibly a reason why the results are not as good as last season.

Is this the case?
 

If so, and the season ending does not lead to substantial ongoing expenses (with player salaries & ground expenses), and the loss of significant sponsorship revenue, be that from direct sponsorship or sponsorship via the National League then the answer is NO, purely on a commercial basis I would not personally wish to continue.

But if the costs of salaries, ground, and overheads, along with the loss of any revenue (be that from sponsorship, streaming & other revenue) exceeded £90k (higher for National Premier clubs) over the next three months in our league, then purely on a commercial basis, I would opt to take the very cheap loan & continue with the season.

There is then an issue of the group reputation of the National League set up. For many years they have been attempting to establish creditability with the Football League and secure more promotion places to League Two. What would be the potential cost of losing that credibility if the National Premier was voided and there were no promotion this season?

You tend to paint this as a single sided issue, I am just trying to point out it isn’t there are many shades of grey.

 

[Reading Rebel]

The general opinion on this forum and from what I've read on Twitter is that taking any form of a loan that would enable us to continue playing is not an option that we should consider. 

Hopefully it will never come to this but if the alternative option was to accept relegation how much income would the club lose by dropping down a division?  

[GlenSTFC]

Let’s hope the sensible choice is made and the league is cancelled as they’re obviously not going to offer grants for every club. I’d be surprised if the majority voted to continue, if they do there could be casualties...

[Sir Rebel1965]

Thankfully Curtis is not running the club or we would end up in the mess Deaner left us in!

[Neil Baker]

Just to answer one of the questions, yes it was a decision made in the summer to be prudent, and in that we made the decision to put only two players under contract, but both of those with COVID clauses in which were signed, the opinion of us as managers and the club at the time was we were not prepared to be in a situation if it stopped of having the liability of contracts, and we felt that there was a big chance that could happen.

And you are correct that is why Wealdstone were able to come and get Matt Lench via a 7 dayer, a risk we were willing to take mid pandemic.

And this is why we are being prudent in respect of not wanting to take on any loans.

 

 

[Reading Rebel]

2 hours ago, GlenSTFC said:

Let’s hope the sensible choice is made and the league is cancelled as they’re obviously not going to offer grants for every club. I’d be surprised if the majority voted to continue, if they do there could be casualties...

Wish I was as certain as you Glen.

The only certainty for me is that the NL premier will vote to continue the season.

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Reading Rebel

[Reading Rebel]

Despite being bottom of the table the Welling owner Mark Goldberg has issued a statement saying the season should carry on, respect with integrity the outcome of the current offer and with the utmost appreciation accept the loans being offered.

The mans deluded.

[Jon Underwood]

He has a track record of throwing away money on football and clearly hasn’t learned his lesson! 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/fa-cup/9781211/Former-Crystal-Palace-owner-Mark-Goldberg-lost-40million-to-game-but-says-he-feels-richer-for-it.html