https://bsky.app/profile/therightsoffans.bsky.social
For over a decade, Lewes FC has thrived on the generosity of its supporters. Donations have not only sustained the club financially but also elevated its profile as a beacon of community-led football. Yet, in a baffling pivot, the club’s leadership is now dismissing this model as inadequate, framing donations as outdated and investment as the only path to sustainability. This Orwellian shift—where long-standing virtues are rebranded as flaws—raises serious questions about the club’s intentions and strategy.
This shift is not only puzzling but also smacks of spin, aimed at filling a financial gap while conveniently ignoring the vital role donations have played in Lewes FC’s success.
The high profile Lewes FC enjoys through the rise of the women’s team was entirely funded by donations. These contributions weren’t just ‘one-off financial inflows’.They allowed the club to pursue revenue-generating projects, sustain its operations, and maintain its ethos as a community-driven organization.
If donations were sufficient to sustain the club for more than a decade, why are they now being portrayed as inadequate? This narrative feels less like a genuine assessment and more like an attempt to justify a pivot to external investment.
The Spin on Investment: A False Promise?
The board argues that raising capital through a share issue is a better, more sustainable approach than relying on donations. They claim that investment fosters “shared ownership” and creates “revenue-generating assets” while engaging owners in the club’s success. However, this narrative doesn’t hold up under scrutiny:
- Donations Already Represent Shared Ownership:
The fans who have donated at all fan owned clubs over the years are arguably the most engaged and invested in the club’s success. Their contributions are not transactional; they are expressions of commitment to the club’s values. To imply that donations lack accountability or shared ownership is an insult to the very supporters who build these club. - Revenue-Generating Assets Were Funded by Donations:
The claim that investments create revenue-generating assets ignores the fact that at Lewes FC donations have historically enabled the club to pursue such ventures. The financial freedom provided by donations allowed Lewes FC to grow the brilliant Equality FC brand. How is external investment inherently better? - Investment Risks Diluting Fan Ownership:
Unlike donations, which are given selflessly, investments come with strings attached. Investors typically expect influence, returns, or both. The proposed share issue allows individuals to invest up to £250,000, giving them disproportionate power compared to fans paying £50 annually. This risks creating a two-tier system where financial clout outweighs democratic principles. To claim one fan investing £250,000 will have less influence than a fifty pinder member is for the fairies and the Board know that.
Contradictions in the Board’s Narrative
The board’s arguments are riddled with contradictions and oversights:
- “Donations are finite, but investments scale with success.”
This is a misleading statement. Donations have sustained the club for over a decade, including contributions totaling millions of pounds. If two individuals can donate £3 million, why is it assumed that donations are inherently limited? Meanwhile, the proposed £1 million share issue falls short of the funding needed for the board’s ambitious plans, suggesting that investments are just as finite—if not more so. - “Raising capital creates vested interest and accountability.”
This assumes that financial returns are the only form of vested interest. In reality, the ethos of fan ownership is about collective responsibility and shared goals, not financial gain. Suggesting that investors are more committed than donors undermines the values that have defined Lewes FC. - “Donations don’t create long-term growth.”
This claim is flat-out false. Donations have provided the club with the financial freedom to embark on long-term, revenue-generating projects. If anything, donations have been the foundation of the club’s stability and growth.
A Poorly Presented Case
The share issue proposal feels like a rushed and poorly thought-out plan. Instead of presenting fans with multiple funding options, the board has singularly focused on external investment, pushing an agenda that contradicts the principles of fan ownership. The lack of transparency and alternative solutions is concerning, as is the dismissive tone toward donations.
This approach alienates the very fan base that has sustained the club for years. By framing donations as inadequate and unsustainable, the board risks eroding trust and goodwill among supporters.
Lewes Bonfire, The Case for Local Funding.
Lewes Bonfire Night is a shining example of how a community event, entertaining up to 80,000 people, can generate significant funding and membership from the town it represents. In stark contrast, Lewes FC, despite being a fan-owned club, admits that only 10-20% of its membership and revenue comes from within the town. Six weeks ago, the director Tom McJennett acknowledged the need to strengthen local ties, yet this strategy seems to have been abandoned since then in favour of chasing external investment.
The club’s decision to establish a holding company and raise capital through shares is a glaring contradiction to its stated goal of local engagement. Rather than addressing the root issue—building stronger local membership in a town renowned for local engagement—the board is pursuing a short-term financial fix. The £1 million share issue is insufficient to meet the club’s ambitious goals and risks alienating the loyal supporters who have sustained it for over a decade.
External investors, who will have no voting rights, may bring funds but not the sense of community and belonging that local support provides. Lewes FC’s focus on outside capital not only dilutes its identity as a fan-owned club but also overlooks the proven model of local engagement that has made Lewes Bonfire such a success. Make no mistake, it is made perfectly clear in the Board release that the agenda of owners buying shares is in the hope they will bring other external investors to the club.
The club should take inspiration from the Bonfire societies, doubling down on local membership drives, transparency, and partnerships with local businesses. Strengthening ties with the town is not only financially sustainable but also true to the values that define Lewes FC. Prioritizing external investment over community support is a betrayal of those principles—and a misstep the club cannot afford to make.
What’s Really Driving This Change?
It’s hard to ignore the possibility that this pivot to external investment is less about long-term sustainability and more about plugging a financial gap and declining income. The ambitious plans laid out by the board—will actually cost millions—are unrealistic within the constraints of the proposed £1 million share issue. If the goal is simply to fill a budget shortfall, why not engage the fan base transparently and collaboratively?
Instead, the board’s narrative feels like spin, dressing up a cash grab as a strategic shift. This undermines the trust and values that have defined Lewes FC as a fan-owned club.
A Call for Accountability
Lewes FC’s leadership must remember that this club is supposedly built on the principles of community, democracy, and equality. Any move that risks compromising these values deserves scrutiny and debate. The board owes it to the fans to:
- Acknowledge the Role of Donations: Recognize and respect the contributions of fans who have sustained the club for over a decade.
- Present Alternative Funding Options: Provide fans with a transparent overview of the club’s financial situation and explore multiple funding strategies.
- Safeguard Fan Ownership: Ensure that any external investment does not dilute the democratic principles that define Lewes FC.
Ultimately though what is this all about? With the prohibitive size of the Dripping Pan, nobody is going to invest and make money as the valuation is so high. Isn’t this maybe, and time will tell, just a new vehicle along with the recent endowment fund, for the people to generously bail out the club but actually get something in return. Kudos and an anchor with decision making. Is this just a vehicle for patching up the finances for the next three years. Is there a back door proposal of conditional financing that the club desperately needs, is there another agenda?
I’m reminded of Justice by New Model Army, one of the themes being about drug addiction: ‘Tell you what I’ll do I’ll make the firdt one free and when you want some more just come back to me.’ Is this a slippery slope into private ownership, we will look at the buiness aspects and maybe what this is all about in the next blog.
The Rights of Fans. 