Michael Farthing wrote:
Slightly more seriously, Paul is complaining that the expenditure plans are not detailed enough. I'm asking him what more detail he wants about spending plans.
Let's start with the International budget, which represents, after administration, by far the biggest net recipient of ECF funds.
The 5 year plan showed to Council six months ago included net expenditure of £40,495 in 2015/16, rising to £50,623 in 2016/17, £65,623 in 2017/18 and £70,623 thereafter. For comparison, the figure in 2014/15, under the previous leadership, was a mere £4,727.
Council members, notably those who had engaged in consultation with their own constituents, who questioned this meteoric rise were brushed aside by the Board, although the Finance Director did say that the numbers could perhaps be rejigged.
The numbers in the latest version of the Budget, added to the Council Papers on 11th April, do indeed tell a different story.
The net expenditures from 2017/8 are now shown at a flat annual rate of £33,500. This appears to result largely from £25,500 pa of income, not previously shown, but there is no clue as to where this comes from. Is it sponsorship this is expected to be found, or already in the bag? Furthermore, is there also sponsorship which is not shown at all, being kept off balance sheet?
You can argue, as the Board has and probably will again, that this is none of Council's business. If we were told that it will not be necessary for membership fees to be used to support the national team, because sufficient sponsorship would be found, I might agree with that. Some of us, perhaps erroneously, believed that we were told that in 2015. However, for such time as membership fees continue to be required to augment sponsorship of the national team that the Board deems insufficient, I think we have a right to know more about that sponsorship.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.