Dulwich Hamlet v. Eastbourne Borough, 28th January 2023

[Bugpowder Dust]

Punchy. As mentioned elsewhere, February is an 8 game month, with three away Tuesdays in a row. Not going to be easy but a single win could change the momentum.

 

[Cyclodunc]

This has to be the greatest post ever on Urban, certainly related to DHFC

Very kind.

 

[Stuart Fordyce]

Sounds like training tomorrow night could get a bit fruity.

Interesting approach - often when a gaffer calls out his players it's for not following instructions in training. Here, he seems to be asking them - what kind of a person are you? Have you got the minerals for this, will you work for your mates? Be interesting to see how they respond to the challenge, hopefully mostly positively

 

[Al Cunningham]

Looks like focus is getting through this season by not getting relegated and get things right for next season. There is a clear imbalance in the squad in terms of playing positions and ability/fitness. I really hope we can keep the core of talent Felix, Grainger, Holland, Wood, Powell Mills and Smith. Would also like to Raymond with a good midfield partner as when he has the ball can control a game ( like at Welling) and dead balls are good.

 

[AveryDave]

Interesting comments from Ben Clasper in his programme column from the weekend, particularly on the recent discipline issues.

Chairman Column vs Eastbourne Borough, 28/1/23

Read what Ben Clasper had to say in his programme notes ahead of our National League South clash with Eastbourne Borough.

www.pitchero.com

 

[Paula_G]

That’s exactly what I’m suggesting, yes. Given, as is well documented, a large proportion of attendees don’t watch the game, it doesn’t matter if the men “sink backwards” - people will still come. And if they don’t, others will come (back) instead. So I think the risk you highlight which would be real in most other cases is minimised in ours. And also if they did sink back, then so too would playing staff costs.

Lewes actually got close to 2,400 last season against Liverpool. And they’re ** a small village in the country. We’re zone two London. If we invest and put a really good womens team together, people will come. Not enough to sustain it initially, but eventually.

See the 70-yard Lewes stunner which beat Liverpool at the Dripping Pan

This is the moment Lewes stunned champions Liverpool - with an extraordinary goal from their keeper.

www.theargus.co.uk

And just think how much more could be achieved, in difference-making terms, if the wages of just one of the expensive mens crocks was given to the womens team instead of back to the mens. The “it’s got to generate its own money” narrative has been used to hold back the womens game for years. It’s only now people are understanding there is real demand for it but in some cases the investment needs to come up front to get that demand along to games.

** Edited to clarify that Liverpool are not a small village in the country.

Unless things have changed this season, our women’s team are playing “for the love of the game” alone. When featured in the Peter Crouch documentary (sorry to bring that up again) one of the players informs him that the DHFCW players don’t even get expenses to travel to training. How that compares to our rivals in the LSEWFL I don’t know but I do know of some players getting decent pay. There is also the question of creating a decent infrastructure for future players, especially as we’re trying to create an academy from scratch whilst others are several years ahead of us.

 

[The new one]

can’t believe all this dulwich get massive crowds on Saturday s so the revenue should go to the first team mens what do people want the women to play on Saturday s instead and the men on Sundays dulwich hamlet fc mens should always come first don’t care if people turn up and don’t watch the game revenue comes first Womens team don’t get expenses for away game. Do the mens team get it don’t see a lot of coaches at away games for players. I’m sure people will say get paid enough. Don’t know yes or no can someone confirm

 

[scousedom]

Well there’s that view of course.

 

[editor]

Unless things have changed this season, our women’s team are playing “for the love of the game” alone.

That's quite shocking, if true, especially given the healthy gates the women's team attracts at home.

 

[tonysingh]

That's quite shocking, if true, especially given the healthy gates the women's team attracts at home.

The women's team are getting attendances roughly on a par with an Isthmian prem side, certainly so Division 1. Why aren't they being funded from that?

 

[scousedom]

The women's team are getting attendances roughly on a par with an Isthmian prem side, certainly so Division 1. Why aren't they being funded from that?

Higher matchday costs and lower entry fee than would be the case for a club in the Isthmian…?

 

[Roger D]

The women's reserves seem to sometimes pay for pitches and for training facilities from memory. If the first team also sometimes hire training facilities, by the time you open up the stadium, take VAT off and pay hire fees I'm guessing there's not a lot left over from the gate take at £4 adult, £2 concessions and free under 13, on alternate weekends(ish) for the first team.

You've still got kit to pay for, match day strapping etc to pay for, the medical staff - if they have them - may well be paid, player insurance, registration fees, league fees, match official fees, food provision for players and officials etc. There's probably more I've forgotten.

it's very expensive running a team or two. A good strategy would probably to copy the old banks leagues. They used to pull a good standard of player simply by really looking after them. It wasn't unknown for players to turn down paying teams at the lower steps as they felt a few quid a week wouldn't cover what they would lose by leaving the bank's league.

Don't get me wrong, I have no objections to players being rewarded if the funds are there. I'm just not sure they are at the moment.

 

[The new one]

Well there’s that view of course.

But true

 

[Al Crane]

For the club to confirm, but I expect the women's team is loss-making at present. Whilst the attendances are certainly healthy for this level, the costs - a lot of which Roger has set out above - probably outweigh the income. From memory, I recall someone suggesting an attendance of around 500 was required to break even a while back. We've not hit that attendance regularly and costs have probably gone up since then.

Given the women's team previously came from playing on a park, I'd say they're doing alright just now and are pretty well looked after. Yes, you can put forward the argument that we could fund them further and perhaps see progress up the leagues, but if you approach the women's team with the same financial model as the men they need to be pulling in bigger crowds to justify any payment of players. At the moment, income from mens team matches effectively subsidises the women's team to an extent.

It's potentially a risk to the women's team that they aren't self-sufficient although I suspect that it would need to get to pretty drastic circumstances before we as a club would consider anything like what we've seen happen at other higher level clubs (who should be able to subsidise their women's team more easily than us) where they decide to cut their losses because (a) they're probably loss making (b) they aren't prepared to invest in something which is only going to grow in the immediate future.

Should we ever move to a model where we pay the womens team then I think you'd see quite a few players leaving because they couldn't commit to the requirements of their contract / would find themselves in breach of contract.

 

[Paula_G]

As I said I have friends playing at same level as DHFC(W) first and reserve team who get expenses paid and others who also get a match fee. These are at clubs with lower match day attendances for both female and male teams. Not actually sure we’d be in such a position yet where terms of contracts would be so prohibitive as to cause players to depart. And heaven forbid we ever go down the path of some professional clubs that publicly shout out support for women’s football yet treat them worse than the youth teams in terms of funding and facilities

 

[Roger D]

If there's money there I have no issues with paying players. I don't believe Hamlet should be paying players because some bankrolled team or other does. Frankly anyone paying at the women's reserve team level is as bonkers as some of the money currently flying around the CoCo. Doesn't matter whether it's men's or women football, Clubs should not be placed at risk by paying daft money. Speculate to accumulate, within reason yes. Throw money away no.

The worst thing DHFC could do is set up any of their teams on a financially unsustainable basis, irrespective of gender.

 

[liamdhfc]

As I said I have friends playing at same level as DHFC(W) first and reserve team who get expenses paid and others who also get a match fee. These are at clubs with lower match day attendances for both female and male teams. Not actually sure we’d be in such a position yet where terms of contracts would be so prohibitive as to cause players to depart. And heaven forbid we ever go down the path of some professional clubs that publicly shout out support for women’s football yet treat them worse than the youth teams in terms of funding and facilities

Paula I think it has been more than covered why the club is not making money from the women’s team. I believe their coaching staff may be paid so that’s another cost. As the reserves play in front of no paying spectators but have kit etc provided and they pay for pitch hire, it doesn’t take a mathematician to work out that they contribute no income at all.
For the women’s first team, does the bar income cover staffing and management costs? What about the cost of stewards and security required to just open the stadium?
Does the team bring in income from match and ball sponsors? Does even the glossy programme break even?
The women’s team have 2 lots of training facilities as wel or they use a facility that I guess cost many many thousands of £ to bring to a usable condition.
In addition, are players at the level they play at even worth paying? Are they better than other players in their league that don’t get paid? Will paying them suddenly release ability they haven’t shown yet?
Why should the club pay expenses to get to training that is virtually at the stadium? What next, paying them expenses to get to a home game?
I believe it would be against HMRC rules to pay mileage for anybody travelling to and from their normal place of work. Do they all use public transport?
They get coaches to longer distance away games, in the same way the men do. That’s a sunk cost with no return.
On that basis I would expect they get far more provided than most clubs at their level of the women’s game.
I would like to know what out of that lot they received when they played in a park? My guess is that they paid subs but I am happy to be corrected if they really are hard done by in comparison with the teams they play against. And quoting Ebbsfleet as an example of a club at the same level as the men who are in the same women’s league is not a proper comparison

 

[scousedom]

Worth remembering in all this back of the envelope arithmetic that sponsors sponsor the club as a whole - all it’s teams. I don’t know what the total sponsorship / advertising hoarding etc revenue is (excluding team specific shirt deals). But if say the mens attendance averages 2500 and the womens 250, and they play roughly the same number of games, then properly speaking 1/11th of total club sponsor/advertising revenue should go on the womens team. Which of course it may do in what liamdhfc has set out above.

Seems like really to get the answer to the question of who if anyone is subsiding who and to what tune, we need an accounts-driven breakdown from the club. Wonder if that’s something that could be produced? Even if it’s just on this seasons budget, not actuals.

 

[liamdhfc]

Worth remembering in all this back of the envelope arithmetic that sponsors sponsor the club as a whole - all it’s teams. I don’t know what the total sponsorship / advertising hoarding etc revenue is (excluding team specific shirt deals). But if say the mens attendance averages 2500 and the womens 250, and they play roughly the same number of games, then properly speaking 1/11th of total club sponsor/advertising revenue should go on the womens team. Which of course it may do in what liamdhfc has set out above.

Seems like really to get the answer to the question of who if anyone is subsiding who and to what tune, we need an accounts-driven breakdown from the club. Wonder if that’s something that could be produced? Even if it’s just on this seasons budget, not actuals.

As you want to talk about back of a fag packet, where do you think I’m so wildly inaccurate? What do you think is a fair percentage of sponsors or advertisers based on the value added by a women’s team? I am pretty sure that however you cut it they aren’t making a positive financial contribution. Nobody is arguing that they shouldn’t exist just that they aren’t being unfairly treated by players receiving no money. If the club could pay money surely it would go out and get other better players not pay the ones it has already that don’t

 

[scousedom]

As you want to talk about back of a fag packet, where do you think I’m so wildly inaccurate? What do you think is a fair percentage of sponsors or advertisers based on the value added by a women’s team? I am pretty sure that however you cut it they aren’t making a positive financial contribution. Nobody is arguing that they shouldn’t exist just that they aren’t being unfairly treated by players receiving no money. If the club could pay money surely it would go out and get other better players not pay the ones it has already that don’t

Think you’re reading a lot more into that than is there Liam. I’m just saying to know definitely we would need to see numbers. Is that so controversial? I’m perfectly prepared to believe - as I literally stated in that last message where I credited you - that costs outweigh income even including a fair allocation (10% say) of overall sponsorship. But I’d like to see the actual numbers rather than peoples - yours, mine, whoever’s - guesses and estimates and “I’m pretty sures” before coming to that conclusion. Which shouldn’t really be that difficult for someone with the basics of the accounts to do.