If the club is at Step 4 for the 27/28 season, the FA requirement is that it cannot remain as an unincorporated association and must move to an incorporated legal status. The settled view of the Committee and supporters, as voted for unanimously in June, is to move to being a Community Benefit Society (CBS). The Committee has re-iterated this position in the message on the club website that announced the postponement of the Club AGM which had been planned for 30 July. The continuing club commitment to the CBS is positive and is welcomed.
The mandated FA rules that the leagues in the Non-League System (in our case NPL) must follow, include rule 2.9 which applies to situations where a club is changing legal status and is transferring as a going concern (not insolvent). A separate Rule 2.9.2 applies in cases of insolvency. Rule 2.9 requires that:
- There must be a membership vote to support the transfer
- All football creditors will be paid in full or have agreed to transfer in full to the new entity
- All other creditors must be paid in full, or secured, or have agreed to transfer in full to the new entity
- A financial forecast must be in place, and there must be evidence of funding in place for the club for 12 months from the date of transfer to the new entity
- The FA must have approved the transfer
Rule 2.9.2 (insolvency) is the same as 2.9, with the exception that all football creditors must be paid in full, and all other creditors must be satisfied – transfer to the new entity not being an option.
The Club leadership say that Hallam FC is a community club. In my view as it is moving to be a CBS it should be a good example of a community club. The club should be open and transparent (subject to the need for legal and commercial confidentiality) in its dealings and operations. The club should also be open to learning lessons and to delivering change and improvement – engaging positively with questions and constructive challenge should be a part of that. These features are a key part of being a CBS club. After a difficult few months for the club, they are also key to building confidence in the future.
Some fans might believe that the above issues are not important and that they personally do not need to know how the club is being run – that’s fine, as we don’t all have to be the same. But there have been many past examples of fans at other clubs not being vigilant about how their club is being run, until the point when the club gets into serious difficulties, then it is often too late. There is a significant recent example of this in Sheffield!
In the interests of transparency and vigilance, particularly taking account of the financial difficulties and events of 25/26, I have some questions. The nine questions are set out below, some relate to information that was previously provided to 1860 Club Members, but on which there has been no further update from the Committee or Club Officers over a number of months. All of these questions could have been addressed at the AGM, but that has now been postponed.
- What was the financial out-turn for the 25/26 financial year? Does the profit and loss statement show a loss? What is that loss? How is it being covered?
- During the 25/26 year when did it first become apparent that the club might be heading for a loss for 25/26 financial year? What action was taken to try to resolve the situation?
- What is the projection for the 26/27 financial year? Has a budget for the 26/27 year been approved? If yes, what are the income and expenditure headlines and how do they compare with 25/26? If a budget has not been approved, why is that?
- At the 29 April 1860 Club meeting members were told that £24k had been loaned to the club (6k each by 4 Committee members). Is this the full total of Directors Loans? Or are there further amounts of Directors Loans? Are there any loan agreements in place in respect of those Directors Loans?
- At the 29 April 1860 Club meeting members were told that planned pre-season friendly games at home would enable the club to repay the £24K Directors Loans. Is this still the plan and is that affordable in the context of the financial position for the 26/27 year?
- At the 29 April 1860 Club meeting members were told that an organisation named Gravitas were being brought in to carry out a financial review of the club. Has that review commenced? Have there been any findings so far? When will the review be concluded and the outcomes reported?
- At the December 2025 1860 Club meeting members were told that an upgrade to the floodlights would cost £90k, that a Premier League grant would fund 70% of this and that a prize won by a club well-wisher of £20k from Budweiser/Co-op would be added to the fund. Has that PL grant been successful? Does the club still have the £20k from Budweiser/Co-op? If yes, can that £20k be used for any other purpose?
- At the 29 April 1860 Club meeting members were told that the Chairman was in active conversation with 2 potential major sponsors for the club. What progress has been made on this? If achieved would these sponsorships result in greater sponsorship income for 26/27 than was achieved in 25/26?
- At the 29 April 1860 Club meeting members were told that the club would be appointing its first employee. What role will this be and has an appointment been made?
In June I wrote privately to the Chairman with largely the same questions for him and the Vice-Chairman to respond to. I know that the questions were received by the club and shared with the Committee. I only asked for a response to be published to fans. My communication did not receive an acknowledgement and neither was a response published for fans.
I hope that in the interests of transparency it will be possible for a comprehensive response to the above questions to be provided, at least to the Club AGM. As can be seen from the mandated FA Rule 2.9 addressing issues with any creditors and having sustainable finances for the future will be critical as we move to the CBS.
I fully accept that Club Committee members are volunteers and that they give up their time to work for the club – I am grateful for their efforts and I respect them for their commitment. However, they do hold senior leadership positions at a community club, and therefore they should be open to answering questions about the running of the club without the questioning being regarded as being disrespectful or being dismissed.
If it is a true community club than fans are entitled to ask legitimate questions and to expect a reasonable response. Club Officers and Committee members need to be respected but fans need to be respected too. Those who ask questions should not be seen as ‘agitators’, ‘trouble-causers’ or told that they are damaging the club. Transparency and accountability should be alive and well in a community club and will need to be alive and well in a CBS. The best interests of the club are not served by a lack of transparency and unresponsive communications.
I hope that the contents of the above are responded to in a positive manner. Fingers crossed!
WAHAW
Steve Walmsley
Season Ticket Holder, Away Match Regular and Player Sponsor.
1860 Blog 