The Good.
For years, I have been advocating the idea of setting up sub-committees of volunteers to help run Lewes FC and a firmer grip on utilising co-opting extra board members. I’m delighted that the current board has finally embraced this principle. Part of their new business plan includes devolving real power to regular fans—an incredibly progressive step towards democratizing the club and fostering proper fan engagement. This move, if executed correctly, could have a profoundly positive long-term impact on the future of Lewes FC. Credit where it’s due if the board turn this commitment into reality.
(This is a fourth blog in a series of 4, the first three can be accessed by the links at the end of this blog.)
That said, while the principle is solid, the envisioned scale of this plan is wildly overambitious. Nonetheless, as a starting point and as a signal of intent to secure the club’s future, it’s a step in the right direction to proper fan ownership. It’s baffling that previous boards never pursued this sensible and proven path, instead squandering countless opportunities. So, to the board of 2023-24, well done for taking this important first step.
The Bad.
While the principle is excellent, the practicality of the current plan is deeply flawed. The scale of the proposed governance structure is completely unrealistic and lacks any credible chance of working. The plan calls for a four-tiered structure, creating what would effectively be a bureaucratic quagmire without anyone with sufficient experience to oversee and manage it properly.
Here’s what’s proposed:
- A Lewes Community Football Club Non-Executive Board with 10 elected directors and 4 co-opted members.
- A Lewes FC Holding Limited Executive Board with 18 members.
- 12 Sub-Committees, which would require around 40 volunteers.
- Additional key revenue-generating roles in Commercial, Marketing, Communications, Hospitality, and Ownerships—adding another layer of paid staff.
In total, we’re looking at about 75 individuals running a football club with two teams operating in modest circumstances in a small stadium. This is complete overkill.
Here’s the glaring issue: why do we need five paid staff members when we have apparently 70 volunteers capable of running the club? Many of these volunteers could likely do a better job than the paid personnel, who collectively cost the club around £150,000? That money could be far better spent on the playing budget to push both teams toward promotion. This setup is not just impractical—it’s nonsensical.
A Practical Solution
What the club actually needs is an expanded board and a layer of sub-committees. For a club of our size, this would be sufficient to start generating extra revenue and bringing in new expertise. We don’t need an executive board, and we certainly don’t need a tier of paid staff whose contributions often yield little or no financial return. This current plan feels more like a dream wish list than anything grounded in reality.
Case Study
Let me remind you of what happened the last time Lewes FC made a big call for volunteers. When the Elliott money dried up, the club issued a rallying cry, and 60 enthusiastic volunteers turned up at the John Harvey Tavern. Within two meetings, that number had dropped to just 12, as many quickly realized the level of involvement and commitment required. Out of that group, the Supporters’ Trust was eventually formed.
While fans love the idea of helping their club, the reality often doesn’t match their initial enthusiasm. It’s easy to dream and plan over a pint, but when the hard work and commitment are laid bare, many drop out.
A Grim Reality Check
It’s bewildering to think that the board genuinely believes this governance plan has any chance of success. Where does this vast resource of volunteers come from? Kelly has claimed that there are “lots of volunteers lined up,” but to execute this plan successfully, they’d need close to 300 people registering an interest. Realistically, they don’t have anywhere near that number, and even if the 50 or so volunteers are lined up, based on past experience, only about 12 will actually stick with it.
This plan needs a drastic rethink, scaling down to something practical and achievable for a club of our size. Otherwise, it risks collapsing under its own ambition and further straining the club’s already limited resources.
The Ugly.
The harsh reality is that Lewes FC’s so-called “business plan” is not a business plan at all—it’s a wish list, full of vague goals, no detailed steps, and completely lacking credibility. Anyone with experience in the catering or entertainment industry would laugh at the scale of the proposals when compared to the club’s size, resources, and attendance numbers. It’s a pie-in-the-sky dream with no grounding in financial or operational reality. Almost as if the more grandiose the rhetoric the more credible it is supposed to be, but the verbiose and over the top presentation cannot conceal the lack of any necessary detail. At least the proposed Mercury 13 investment had a proper plan.
The first half-million pounds from the share issue is supposedly to “stabilize finances,” which in truth, just means plugging forecasted losses. In a bizarre twist, this plan actually suggests hiring more paid staff—repeating the same failed approach from the Murphy era, where money was poured into branding and sponsorship efforts that delivered little to no return. The difference now is that we’re not in the Championship, and both attendance and sponsorship revenue have declined significantly. Rinsing and repeating a failed concept, this time in even worse circumstances, is absurd.
This plan isn’t a business plan because it doesn’t outline how these goals will be achieved. There’s no strategy, no realistic timeline, no measurable targets, and no acknowledgment of the significant obstacles. The club bandies around the figure of £1 million over three years as though that will be transformative, but in reality, this plan would require at least £5 million over three years just to have a chance of success. Even then, it would demand strict management and accountability—two things this club has consistently lacked.
Here’s a breakdown of why this proposal falls flat:
1. Vague Financial Strategies
The plan talks about “increasing financial predictability” and “stabilizing cash flow” but offers no explanation of how this will be done. Are they cutting costs? Diversifying income streams? Restructuring forecasted losses? Without clear answers, this is nothing more than wishful thinking. How will they even measure “financial predictability”? This goal has no actionable steps.
2. Overly Ambitious and Ignoring Current Problems
The plan proposes hiring new marketing, hospitality, and communications staff to bring in revenue. Yet, if cash flow is already unstable, where is the money for these salaries coming from? The plan doesn’t address fundamental challenges like:
- How to secure long-term funding.
- Concrete steps to improve player and staff retention.
- The costs and specifics of enhancing welfare and player care systems.
It’s great to say you’ll do these things, but without detailed plans or budgets, it’s just hot air.
3. Unrealistic Goals
“Building sustainable competitive teams” and “consistently competing in the top 5” are nice ambitions, but there’s no detail on how this will be achieved. How will the club attract better players and coaches? What investments are required to improve performance, and where will the money come from?
Renovating facilities and creating a community hub sound wonderful but are massively expensive. What renovations are actually needed? How much will they cost? Who’s paying for this—grants, sponsors, or fundraising? These ideas are vague and impractical.
4. No Focus on Generating Income
The plan has no strategy for generating revenue. How will they attract new sponsors or members? Will they host events or sell merchandise? Simply hiring “revenue-generating roles” doesn’t guarantee results unless those roles are backed by a clear plan. The lack of focus on income generation undermines the entire proposal.
5. No Metrics or Measurable Targets
There are no specific timelines or measurable outcomes. For example:
- When will financial stability be achieved?
- How much extra revenue will be generated, and by when?
- How will “sustainable competitive teams” or “community hubs” be defined and measured? Without clear metrics, the club has no way to track progress or even determine if the plan is working.
The Reality
By not providing detailed steps, the board is dodging the obvious: this plan is unworkable, unaffordable, and unrealistic. Including actual costings would expose how outlandish it really is. Even the plan itself suggests that if only £500,000 is raised, most of it will go toward plugging financial shortfalls—essentially replacing the much-maligned “donations” Ed Ramsden used to cover.
The club needs to acknowledge that this isn’t a viable plan. It’s a wishlist with zero credibility, a lack of specifics, and no meaningful way to measure success. For a club of this size, the focus should be on practical, scaled-down solutions, like properly engaging the local community, building sponsorship relationships, and utilizing volunteers effectively—all things that don’t require millions of pounds or unattainable bureaucracy.
Without a clear, grounded plan, this approach is doomed to fail, and the board risks repeating the mistakes of the past. It’s time to stop dreaming and start facing reality.
The Rights of Fans. 