Maidstone chairman Oliver Ash has commented about the efforts to try and get a fairer distribution of recent lottery funds for clubs in the National Leagues.
He also reveals that 'the gang of four', Maidstone, Dulwich, Fylde and Hereford, are in regular contact about the problem.
For my small part I have been fighting a battle to get the National League funding distribution decision overturned. For those who aren’t aware of the detail here it is: back in October the NL Board decided on a distribution of Government funding, which had been generously provided from Lottery funds, to compensate our clubs’ lost gate receipts when playing behind closed doors. Some fine lobbying work from the NL and the FA deserves mention here.
Although such a distribution of funds to individual clubs should not have been rocket science, the Board directors contrived to ignore their Executive’s advice and chose to remunerate clubs essentially based on which division they were in, ignoring the wide variations in gates. As a result some clubs received more than five times what other clubs received, when measured in terms of absent supporters. Some clubs have received more than their season’s normal turnover within a three month period.
More worryingly clubs such as Dulwich Hamlet, Hereford, Chester and ourselves received significantly less than our gate receipt losses. We only agreed to start the season on the basis these losses would be compensated, something the National League assured us would happen. It didn’t. We are now hurting badly and indeed some clubs may not be able to carry on unless the funding scheme is revised urgently.
Together with other like-minded clubs, such as those named above, plus Fylde, Telford, Yeovil, Chesterfield and Notts County amongst others, we asked some simple but urgent questions of the Board. Why did you choose this distribution, ignoring clear Government stipulations? Why did you ignore the NL Executive’s proposed scheme, which was to make an identical base payment to all clubs and then divide the balance according to two years’ average attendances? Why did you vote on the decision, twice, when it seems clear to most objective eyes that there was a massive conflict of interest, such as foreseen by Par. 23 of the League Articles of Association?
We have never had satisfactory answers to these questions. In desperation at our legitimate requests being ignored we called for an independent review of the decision. Thankfully this was agreed by the League and we are now in the middle of this process. The Review Panel, made up of distinguished members from diverse walks of sporting and general life, have met once to hear clubs’ views and are due to meet again for the final time on Monday 14th December.
We are confident they will take into account our arguments demonstrating that the NL Board distribution decision was wrong. If so they will then be able to find a new system to be implemented urgently. This should take into account an adjustment of the £10 million funding over the autumn three month period and also factor in that some clubs will be enjoying actual gate receipts during December. All we have ever asked for here is respect of truth and fairness and proper governance by our league management. We will not rest till we are satisfied that a fair solution has indeed been adopted.
I feel I should give examples of where this funding shortage is hurting. Clearly in the overall running of the club there is a rolling loss of income. We are performing gymnastics to keep the shortfall down but if it continues into 2021 it will really start to hurt. There is also collateral damage.
Two years ago we set up the Stones Community Trust. Under the leadership of Mike Littleboy, Mike Cogger and Kay Skelton on the ground we have run some excellent community projects, particularly those helping disadvantaged young people in the local community. Its funding by the National League Trust is threatened right now. If it is cut we may not be able to fund these activities, particularly with the funding shortfall outlined above. We are fighting hard on all fronts but it is challenging to say the least.
Whilst this has been a tortuous and taxing process there have been a
few positive side effects. For instance we have become friendly with a
group of clubs who all think along the same lines. We now have a united
‘Gang of Four’ with Dulwich, Fylde and Hereford conversing regularly. I
hope this friendship continues into the future and we can all carry on
working together to improve the running and functioning of the league.
All those clubs fighting to make ends meet deserve this at the very
least.