As a rule I don’t post on the Forum, but having read a few of the recent comments on the topic of Ground share, I need to nail some of the inaccurate statements made so far. I’ve covered some of these in my programme notes for Tuesday’s MCDFA game against 1874, and will gladly take any and all questions at Thursday’s Fans Forum (kick off 7.30pm). In the meantime, however…
Nobody actually wants to share their home ground, and we are no different. However if you want your club to have the sound financial footing from which to progress on the field and in terms of facilities, it would be almost impossible to raise this kind of money through anything other an a ground share. To put this into context, the sum this will bring us in each season is equivalent to more than three times what our single largest sponsorship has brought in each of the last two years. Put another way, the amount is equivalent to more than 120 additional fans paying through the turnstiles at every single home game.
Having shared Wincham Park with Vics and Runcorn Linnets previously, we know the pro’s and cons of such arrangements. Consequently we have been looking for a ground share partner for the last three years, during which time we have spoken to 1874, Vics and a 3rd, football league club. Whichever way you look at it, there is a very small number of clubs willing, or able, to locate their reserve or youth teams away from their home bases at the price we need to charge to make doing so worthwhile. Man City and Utd have their own complexes, Stoke now use Macclesfield and the Mersey clubs have various arrangements closer to home. The pool of candidate tenants is, therefore, limited.
Ground shares have been explored with both 1874 and Vics on two separate occasions. 1874, for perfectly sound reasons, decided to opt for Winsford, and then to remain there.
This year, NVFC’s offer was accepted by the Witton board unanimously. However we consulted with several leading shareholders and with our volunteers before taking negotiations forward. Our magnificent ground staff, as well as their colleagues in other departments, recognised like us that whilst we might not want to ground share, we need to if we are to plan for the future and to alleviate the weekly slog of finding the money to field a team that can compete at Step 3 - let alone Step 2. We’ve been through relegation before - none of us liked it very much.
This is a ‘no pay, no play’ contract. If Vics breach the terms of the agreement which has been approved by the NPL, they will be unable to play at Wincham park and may be subject to sanction by the league for failure to fulfil a fixture, the penalties for which include relegation. We have also negotiated further securities, both corporate and personal, to safeguard our position including a lump sum which will be ring fenced for pitch maintenance.
We know, virtually to the penny, what the costs of operating the stadium on match days are. The utility costs do increase, but not double, and the fee negotiated takes every cost incurred into consideration. Vics will have their own office on-site, the costs of which will be borne by them.
Northwich Victoria do NOT owe Witton Albion money from any previous ground share. The circumstances around the ground-share-that-wasn’t in 2011 have been taken into account when securing the securities mentioned above.
This arrangement is purely business. When you run a football club, you have to have a plan based on moving forward - not stagnating. You also have to make the most of all your assets. Above all, directors’ primary legal duty is to ensure the stability and security of the business. In football, planning for ‘status quo’ usually means failing to plan, and planning to fail. I’ve never done that in my life, and don’t intend to start now.
I apologise if any of the above is seen as patronising or confrontational; it is not intended to be. I simply want to put across the facts. I’m always available on match days to talk; as most Wittoners know, you’ll get a straight answer to your question, even though you might not like that answer.
Onwards and upwards and see you later in the week.
Thanks Mr Chairman for that information and I certainly don’t think your post is patronising or confrontational in any way. I do not agree with the ground share with Northwich Victoria 2007 infact I vehemently oppose it. That club are an utter disgrace to the integrity of non league football and are very very fortunate to still exist following the failed CVA of which they (well the 2004 incarnation anyway) paid not one single penny piece.
I cannot understand where the money to furnish the ground share is coming from, they have only just staved of yet another winding up order by someone having paid off HMRC at the last minute, and at Flixton the crowds must be making them unsustainable there.
We are such a proud club and deservedly so by the way we are run on a sustainable and prudent basis, having to offload players when we can’t afford them and refusing to “chase the dream” since our own 100% CVA (paid, not failed).
My proudest moment as a Witton supporter was the playoff final win at Curzon Ashton it still sends a shiver down my spine and brings a tear to my eye to recall what happened that day, so much more so than Wembley in 1992.
This agreement with Northwich Vics, in my opinion, taints our wonderful club with their failures. It saddens me greatly and I wish we were not doing this.
Yours
An old Wittonner (who can’t make Thursday due to work, but can be there Tuesday for the cup tie vs 1874)
Thank you Mark. I for one am fully behind your and the boards decision on this and the majority of Wittoners I know are too. Whilst I don’t particularly want to share with Vics I do want to see the future of our club prolonged and I fully understand the reasoning behind this very difficult decision. UTA
[quote=“Chairman” post=56933]Afternoon all
As a rule I don’t post on the Forum, but having read a few of the recent comments on the topic of Ground share, I need to nail some of the inaccurate statements made so far. I’ve covered some of these in my programme notes for Tuesday’s MCDFA game against 1874, and will gladly take any and all questions at Thursday’s Fans Forum (kick off 7.30pm). In the meantime, however…
Nobody actually wants to share their home ground, and we are no different. However if you want your club to have the sound financial footing from which to progress on the field and in terms of facilities, it would be almost impossible to raise this kind of money through anything other an a ground share. To put this into context, the sum this will bring us in each season is equivalent to more than three times what our single largest sponsorship has brought in each of the last two years. Put another way, the amount is equivalent to more than 120 additional fans paying through the turnstiles at every single home game.
Having shared Wincham Park with Vics and Runcorn Linnets previously, we know the pro’s and cons of such arrangements. Consequently we have been looking for a ground share partner for the last three years, during which time we have spoken to 1874, Vics and a 3rd, football league club. Whichever way you look at it, there is a very small number of clubs willing, or able, to locate their reserve or youth teams away from their home bases at the price we need to charge to make doing so worthwhile. Man City and Utd have their own complexes, Stoke now use Macclesfield and the Mersey clubs have various arrangements closer to home. The pool of candidate tenants is, therefore, limited.
Ground shares have been explored with both 1874 and Vics on two separate occasions. 1874, for perfectly sound reasons, decided to opt for Winsford, and then to remain there.
This year, NVFC’s offer was accepted by the Witton board unanimously. However we consulted with several leading shareholders and with our volunteers before taking negotiations forward. Our magnificent ground staff, as well as their colleagues in other departments, recognised like us that whilst we might not want to ground share, we need to if we are to plan for the future and to alleviate the weekly slog of finding the money to field a team that can compete at Step 3 - let alone Step 2. We’ve been through relegation before - none of us liked it very much.
This is a ‘no pay, no play’ contract. If Vics breach the terms of the agreement which has been approved by the NPL, they will be unable to play at Wincham park and may be subject to sanction by the league for failure to fulfil a fixture, the penalties for which include relegation. We have also negotiated further securities, both corporate and personal, to safeguard our position including a lump sum which will be ring fenced for pitch maintenance.
We know, virtually to the penny, what the costs of operating the stadium on match days are. The utility costs do increase, but not double, and the fee negotiated takes every cost incurred into consideration. Vics will have their own office on-site, the costs of which will be borne by them.
Northwich Victoria do NOT owe Witton Albion money from any previous ground share. The circumstances around the ground-share-that-wasn’t in 2011 have been taken into account when securing the securities mentioned above.
This arrangement is purely business. When you run a football club, you have to have a plan based on moving forward - not stagnating. You also have to make the most of all your assets. Above all, directors’ primary legal duty is to ensure the stability and security of the business. In football, planning for ‘status quo’ usually means failing to plan, and planning to fail. I’ve never done that in my life, and don’t intend to start now.
I apologise if any of the above is seen as patronising or confrontational; it is not intended to be. I simply want to put across the facts. I’m always available on match days to talk; as most Wittoners know, you’ll get a straight answer to your question, even though you might not like that answer.
Onwards and upwards and see you later in the week.[/quote]
Great post Mark!
As most people know, I currently help Neil manage the finances, and as a former Treasurer of the club, I fully understand the pros & cons of such an arrangement. The arrangements/agreements that Mark and the Board have made can only be a massive mill stone around the necks of VICS, and a massive WIN WIN for the ALBS! Please show patience with this decision, and I am convinced it will bear fruit, and be the detriment to VICS and a massive boost to us.
Respect for the Chairman to come on here, most helpful as I also have a prior engagement so won’t be at Thursdays meeting. :clap
I stand by my earlier statements and do worry about the long term implications, but a number of £27,600 per season is massive, and hopefully that’s going on infrastructure rather than the day to day.
Regarding the ethics well football lost its soul many years ago - the fit and proper person test and Financial Fair Play are both jokes at the top level so we’ve no chance at non-league level.
As the chairman once said, when he shakes a certain local football chairman’s hand he always looks down to see how many fingers he has left, so the club know the animal its dealing with and I wish them good luck with it!
I must admit, like Andy, despite saying this is a ‘no brainer’ in business terms, my initial stance was the same worry about the long term implications of giving a rival a route back to market. From a business perspective you have to weigh up the pros and cons and make the decision that is best for the club. Yes there is a risk in letting them back into town but I suspect that if we hadn’t they would have found another way and at least this way we benefit and have a lot of control over them.
I must also admit, like Marston Mauler, I wonder their cash comes from but despite the rumours I don’t actually know where it comes from and that kind of thing should be covered by the fit and proper person test.
I’ve been reading about the FA rules on a groundshare agreement between two clubs. I’m sure someone from the club will correct me if I’m wrong.
In any groundshare agreement, the senior club takes priority over home fixture arrangements. This applies even if the stadium is owned by the lower ranked club. Example: when Coventry played at Northampton, Coventry got priority due to being in a higher league.
So, if Vic’s get promoted, they will get priority over home fixtures.
IF they get promoted they get home priority ? Not sure even if it happens that makes any difference to us, we will still have to play our home games being the only team on our pitch didn’t stop us having 4 games in 7 days at a crucial time so if that’s what happens we just have to get on with it, we still get the rental money from them to try and win our way back to the premier, the most important things right now are appointing the right manger, assembling a squad and Wittoners staying behind our club ! remember we were in Div 1 north when we had some of our finest days ! UTA
Don’t worry in 3 years time we won’t fully own the ground, V*cs will be the senior club in town and we’ll do exactly what JR tells us, so no problem or issue with fixture priorities either!!!
1 year deal as discussed not a problem for me, but 3 years is commercial suicide!
Out of 300000 shares (a number of which are inactive rough numbers are - The Warrenders 50,000 shares, The Worthingtons 50,000 shares, Doug Lloyd 27,000 shares - none of whom have any real interest in the club anymore - so the rest of us who have 100-2000 shares are absolutely incidental in any decision Colin I’m afraid. Anyway just my opinion and I hope I’m wrong!
This is something else I have a beef about. Very nice to have a groundshare and bring in some extra income but it is JR and we all know what he’s like. A 3 year deal is bad I agree with Chad a 1 year deal would have been fine with a clause to renew if everthing had gone ok in the year. The other thing is as I understand it the money from the groundshare is mostly going back into the infrastructure so all you fans out there expecting us to go for top scorers like the lad Aaron Burns, or Kilheeley will have to think again it simply won’t happen. I just hope we can get a decent manager an older experienced manager with a young coach would be a really good option. Lets hope its someone who just gets on with it rather than the two we’ve just experienced who kept telling us they were sorting it but never did!!
I do actually think the best thing with the groundshare money is to pay down debt and perhaps provide facilities to bring in income, both of those things are sustainable ways to increase income. Pissing money on players wages doesn’t work, we know that 750,000 times over.
BUT, and this is the reason for my vehement objection to THIS groundshare, because we have let Rushe’s green slime in other darker forces will now be circling with their dodgy finances and development opportunities with a bit of “laundering” thrown in. THOSE are the forces which will destroy us.
