WHAT MAKES FANS HAPPY? TRANSPARENCY IS KEY

ARE NonLeague fans happy with their club? Do they trust the people that run it? Do they want a bigger say in how their club is run? I recently conducted a survey via social media, and although the results cannot be described as definitive, given that social media is not used by everyone, it did provide some pointers to how some people feel about the game at this level. The most damning statement was concerning financial transparency, with 74 per cent believing Non-League clubs do not do enough around this discipline. Given the extraordinary number of clubs that fall into financial crisis each year, and the fairly obvious imbalances that exist, this outcome is not too surprising. Increasingly, however, there is a trend to be more open with fans, driven by supporter groups and the push to create more supporter-run clubs. The survey also revealed there is a strong appetite for more fan-owned or at least fan-influenced clubs. A resounding 77% of votes were cast in this direction, with just 14% opting for private ownership. It was pointed out that some supporter trusts had not “covered themselves in glory” but many felt that club boards should have a supporter representation. However, there was an underlying feeling that clubs “belong to the fans”, which is not strictly true in the case of those backed by an individual’s wallet. Recent events have shown that owners are not, necessarily, very popular with the people following the club. Often there seems to be friction between individuals pouring money in and those paying through the turnstiles. In truth, they are all part of the stakeholder community and need to act as a united body. There were some heated comments about Non-League wages. We asked at what level should they realistically be paid, expecting the response to lean towards none below Step 4. To my surprise, 41% said that all levels should be waged, but 48% opted for Step 4/5. Step 3 was suggested by 11% of the audience. One comment, from a National League club fan, warned that “financial overreaching is a disaster waiting to happen”. Some suggest that it occurs every season, with a large number of clubs experiencing “boom and bust”. There was more than one call for a more stringent form of Financial Fair Play to be introduced in the Non-League game. Our other question on wages polled people for their views on a wage cap and 70% were in favour, although there were concerns this would be difficult to implement and police.

Facilities

Obviously, admission prices have a big influence on wages, but looking at average gates across the lower levels of the game, there must be a disconnect between income and expenditure. I have long championed lower prices from Step 3 downwards and we used this level as the benchmark for seeking opinion of where admission should be set. It was something of a Brexit situation, with 51% looking for lower levels and 49% seemingly accepting the status quo. Given £10 seems to be the current level, 44% were content and 5% said they even would pay more. But 42% felt that the standard admission should be between £5 and £10 and 9% would be happier with £5. Food for thought here, though, is the concept of ‘pay what you like games’ which more often than not produce bigger attendances than the norm. This might indicate that while the die-hard fan will pay whatever the going rate is, floating fans are lured to the game by the prospect of a lower, more flexible charge. So what of expenditure? Fans, at the end of the day, want to see a successful team, but they also want decent facilities. Thirty-six per cent said they would like their club to prioritise expenditure towards the ground, while 27% wanted more investment in the team. A better pitch, much-needed at Non-League level in our view, drew only 17% of votes, while 20% said better social facilities were top of the agenda.