sir andy

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

If a Leeds fan said that (for instance) about PL Bournemouth you guys would be all over it like a rash,similarly the Seasiders stint in the PL could have gone on indefinitely with the cash available there. Burnley and Leicester are in the same boat indeed all of these clubs can punch above their weight because of 'false' incomes,but thats how it works nowadays and folk cant complain when they're willing to drink from the same chalice.

Andy Pilley has stuck his money in his local club like others have done and is running it within ffp regs,so in that instance he's doing nothing wrong and theres nothing artificial about it. You can look down your nose at FT but they're being run properly and until the PL consolidatary money stops
then there really is no issue.

If you guys feel so strongly about it then ask Mr Sadler to send your PL money back and survive on gate receipts and merchandising, as to criticise Fleetwood for taking their opportunity is simply hypocritical.

Firstly, this is a Blackpool Forum and, if I'm not mistaken, this is a thread relating to Andy Pilley and Fleetwoord Town FC. If you want a discussion that is Leeds United 'centric' then perhaps you are in the wrong place?

Secondly, I haven't suggested that Andy Pilley has done anything wrong.... I have suggested that he seems to want it both ways...(i.e. to firstly gain advantage over other clubs through his ability to 'outspend' them and secondly to now change the rules to very much suit his specific circumstances)

As for the PL money, that is revenue which has been generated by the club as a direct result of the Clubs success and endeavours... Obviously a good de3al of it has been taken out of the Club in any case, but nonetheless, it is money generated through the normal day to day business of the Club....Not money loaned to the Club from a benefactor.

I have no problem with owners choosing to invest money into Clubs by the way, though I do recognise that it does give Clubs like Fleetwood a bunk up the ladder of success. What I do have a problem with is this idea that someone can capitalise on excessive spending to the extent that Fleetwood has and then be so utterly hypcritical to try and shut up the shop on anyone else.

 

[Victorsponge]

How come non playing staff are expected to take a pay cut, but players are "encouraged" to defer a portion of their wages, ie. they will get it eventually?

 

[poolseasider]

Fleetwood don't even own there own fuckin ground the club ain't worth one single penny not a thing yet the owner comes out with this bull.

 

[Wizaard]

Don;t be ridiculous, there's nothing 'sustainable' about it...The Club is fundamentally centred around one individual and intrinsically linked to the success or failure of the associated businesses. Fleetwood Town could not be run as a seperate sustainable business in it's own right ..

Which was exactly my point about Poolfoot. Pilley leaves and the whole shebang goes boom.

 

[Plumbs]

There is quite a big difference between a financial windfall that arises because of success on the pitch (Blackpool) and something that happens the other way round (Fleetwood).

If you seriously think there is "nothing artificial" about Fleetwood and their recent history Plumbs, I think the issue is one of your judgement, and there is not much point in debating the point.

The success at BR was because of one mans intervention and that included the South Stand.Factor in that the West and North stands were made possible by a grant and its clear to see that 'artificial' means were employed by Blackpool football club at some stage,but for some reason that doesnt count down the road at Fleetwood.That aside since FT came into the league they've had to comply with financial rules and regs that knocks your assertion about 'doing a Man City' into the proverbial dustbin,albeit with a glancing blow off the lid.

Firstly, this is a Blackpool Forum and, if I'm not mistaken, this is a thread relating to Andy Pilley and Fleetwoord Town FC. If you want a discussion that is Leeds United 'centric' then perhaps you are in the wrong place?
No because I was using it as an example which folk do when its the other way round

I have suggested that he seems to want it both ways...(i.e. to firstly gain advantage over other clubs through his ability to 'outspend' them and secondly to now change the rules to very much suit his specific circumstances)
He is complying with ffp and is only investing what he's permitted.The fact he uses his business to circumvent that to a degree is a relevant but the O's did that at BR and no-one complained,in fact they said it was good business and helped keep the club afloat.

As for the PL money, that is revenue which has been generated by the club as a direct result of the Clubs success and endeavours... Obviously a good de3al of it has been taken out of the Club in any case, but nonetheless, it is money generated through the normal day to day business of the Club....Not money loaned to the Club from a benefactor.
What about Belekon then? What about the millions he invested in players and the stadium which is exactly what AP is doing now?

I have no problem with owners choosing to invest money into Clubs by the way, though I do recognise that it does give Clubs like Fleetwood a bunk up the ladder of success. What I do have a problem with is this idea that someone can capitalise on excessive spending to the extent that Fleetwood has and then be so utterly hypcritical to try and shut up the shop on anyone else.

I'm not sure that AP is being a hypocrite as he's done everything a decent owner should do and uses his resources wisely. He's not shutting any shop and is quite within his rights to demand fair play on spending,of which he's been a great example of how to build and sustain a provincial club.

 

[Plumbs]

Which was exactly my point about Poolfoot. Pilley leaves and the whole shebang goes boom.

Pilley owns Poolfoot not FTFC but you're working on that basis that he will leave at some point,which doesnt have any basis given his business is based in Fleetwood and he enjoys the publicity from owning a football club. When OO took over at BR most fans thought it was great that a successful media personality was getting involved, and for the best part of 30 years his tenure was welcome and lauded.
Someone actually posted something on here like 'as long as the O's are doing ok then so will we',which seemed to be accepted as wise and sage advice.

Seems to one rule for Pilley just because its a local rival imo.

 

[poolseasider]

Bullshit Plumbs he's fiddling the books like others are.
Loans given to the club so no tax paid.
Shirt sponsorship by his own company paying way over the gowing rate.
Office space rented at Highbury by his company paying high rent in Fleetwood FFS.

That's just three off the top of my head, Robbie is correct no better than City.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

The success at BR was because of one mans intervention and that included the South Stand.Factor in that the West and North stands were made possible by a grant and its clear to see that 'artificial' means were employed by Blackpool football club at some stage,but for some reason that doesnt count down the road at Fleetwood.That aside since FT came into the league they've had to comply with financial rules and regs that knocks your assertion about 'doing a Man City' into the proverbial dustbin,albeit with a glancing blow off the lid.

Blackpool FC success was achieved on one of the lowest budgets in the league....The investment, which was in part the introduction of capital following the release of 20% stake in the club, was miniscule when compared to the level of investment made by other Clubs. By contrast, Fleetwood and AFC Fylde have substantially outspent other Clubs at pretty much every level, with the spending advantage being the a fundamental reason for their achievement. The difference between the two clubs couldn't be more stark.

I'm not sure that AP is being a hypocrite as he's done everything a decent owner should do and uses his resources wisely. He's not shutting any shop and is quite within his rights to demand fair play on spending,of which he's been a great example of how to build and sustain a provincial club.

You're entitled to your opinion...I do think it is hypocritical for an owner to have maxed their advantage through spending and then seek to prevent others from doing the same, whilst simultaniously retaining the full benefit of their previous substantial spending. It feels very much like having your cake and eating it... First you spunk millions to gain your league status, next you ask to be bailed out financially due to your own unsustainable budget, next you want to retain everything you gained from your former spending, then you want to eradicate the ability for lesser clubs to do the same as you or greater clubs to gain benefit from their ability to generate revenue from bigger attendances (just because you have small attendances).

Maybe he should get first pick of the best players, a free prematch massage paid for by the EFL and a 1 nil lead in every home game?

 

[basilrobbie]

"I do think it is hypocritical for an owner to have maxed their advantage through spending and then seek to prevent others from doing the same, whilst simultaniously retaining the full benefit of their previous substantial spending."

It's thinking that isn't too far removed from that employed by Gartside at Bolton, which was roundly (and rightly) reviled at the time.

Everything about his blueprint is designed to protect what Fleetwood have bought, to neutralise all the clubs that are bigger than them (practically everybody) , and make it impossible for anyone else to come along and do what he has. His wider interest in the game in general ends at the Lindel Road tram stop.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Everything about his blueprint is designed to protect what Fleetwood have bought, to neutralise all the clubs that are bigger than them (practically everybody) , and make it impossible for anyone else to come along and do what he has. His wider interest in the game in general ends at the Lindel Road tram stop.

He's like the kid who doesn't want to play 'Fly Goalies' until he's in nets..

 

[Plumbs]

Blackpool FC success was achieved on one of the lowest budgets in the league....The investment, which was in part the introduction of capital following the release of 20% stake in the club, was miniscule when compared to the level of investment made by other Clubs. By contrast, Fleetwood and AFC Fylde have substantially outspent other Clubs at pretty much every level, with the spending advantage being the a fundamental reason for their achievement. The difference between the two clubs couldn't be more stark.


You're entitled to your opinion...I do think it is hypocritical for an owner to have maxed their advantage through spending and then seek to prevent others from doing the same, whilst simultaniously retaining the full benefit of their previous substantial spending. It feels very much like having your cake and eating it... First you spunk millions to gain your league status, next you ask to be bailed out financially due to your own unsustainable budget, next you want to retain everything you gained from your former spending, then you want to eradicate the ability for lesser clubs to do the same as you or greater clubs to gain benefit from their ability to generate revenue from bigger attendances (just because you have small attendances).

Maybe he should get first pick of the best players, a free prematch massage paid for by the EFL and a 1 nil lead in every home game?

Like I've said elsewhere FT have to abide by the strict financial criteria that are in place and they do,plus make a fist of it on the playing front which is commendable. The accusations of simply chucking money at it are baseless because the rules wont allow it,and where other owners utilise sponsorship,external investment and full use of the facilities as means to fund the club.

I'm quite aware that Pilley stuck a huge wedge in to achieve league status and he did it from scratch to get the club up to speed,but at present the way FT operates is compliant and sustainable given the PL consolidarity payments* from satellite TV that you all contribute to.

*around £1.5 million for League One. This is why FT and other clubs who maximise their other incomes can compete.

 

[Wizaard]

Like I've said elsewhere FT have to abide by the strict financial criteria that are in place and they do,plus make a fist of it on the playing front which is commendable. The accusations of simply chucking money at it are baseless because the rules wont allow it,and where other owners utilise sponsorship,external investment and full use of the facilities as means to fund the club.

I'm quite aware that Pilley stuck a huge wedge in to achieve league status and he did it from scratch to get the club up to speed,but at present the way FT operates is compliant and sustainable given the PL consolidarity payments* from satellite TV that you all contribute to.

*around £1.5 million for League One. This is why FT and other clubs who maximise their other incomes can compete.

And no clubs ever get round it by manipulating the sponsorship for starters. I don't get why people think Fleetwood can ever be sustainable at this level on their gates, given they have a backroom squad of over 100 for starters.

There again, some people believe Donald Trump is the greatest President America has ever had, and that Brexit is good for this country

 

[poolseasider]

What money do they actually bring in for every £100 they spend 128 goes out.

Out of the 100 how much is his money anyway from his companies.

Just bending the rules ever so slightly(cough).

 

[poolseasider]

And no clubs ever get round it by manipulating the sponsorship for starters. I don't get why people think Fleetwood can ever be sustainable at this level on their gates, given they have a backroom squad of over 100 for starters.

There again, some people believe Donald Trump is the greatest President America has ever had, and that Brexit is good for this country

But someone will pop up in a bit Wiz to say you only need to sell a Jamie Vardy now and again to make money.
Totally not realising those days are gone and rarely happens the power is with the big clubs who snap up youth and you get left years down the line any sell on clauses for a few grand you have added.

Tony Weston our next case in point.

 

[Plumbs]

And no clubs ever get round it by manipulating the sponsorship for starters. I don't get why people think Fleetwood can ever be sustainable at this level on their gates, given they have a backroom squad of over 100 for starters.

There again, some people believe Donald Trump is the greatest President America has ever had, and that Brexit is good for this country

The point is that Fleetwood DON'T have to be sustainable on gates because of the TV money but generally folk (inc some LU fans) cant get their heads around it. The rules on FFP dont allow any 'getting around it'* and for instance ensured that Birmingham had a significant points deduction last season.

All FT have to do is keep going on a Cup run once in a while,sell the occasional player and take advantage of whatever TV money comes their way,as do the Seasiders and anyone else who can manage their finances wisely.By comparison Sunderland who had a huge turnover 4 years ago are hamstrung by the FFP and resources in L1,who's fans think they're as big or as capable as local rivals Newcastle.
Its all about how you run your club and maximise opportunities when the arrive which is simply what AP had done.

*Villa and Sheff Weds to be concluded

**at no point in this point were irrelevant references made to Trump or Brexit

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

The point is that Fleetwood DON'T have to be sustainable on gates because of the TV money but generally folk (inc some LU fans) cant get their heads around it. The rules on FFP dont allow any 'getting around it'* and for instance ensured that Birmingham had a significant points deduction last season.

All FT have to do is keep going on a Cup run once in a while,sell the occasional player and take advantage of whatever TV money comes their way,as do the Seasiders and anyone else who can manage their finances wisely.By comparison Sunderland who had a huge turnover 4 years ago are hamstrung by the FFP and resources in L1,who's fans think they're as big or as capable as local rivals Newcastle.
Its all about how you run your club and maximise opportunities when the arrive which is simply what AP had done.

*Villa and Sheff Weds to be concluded

**at no point in this point were irrelevant references made to Trump or Brexit

Take your head out of your backside Plumbs..

 

[poolseasider]

Take your head out of your backside Plumbs..

He's making it up as he goes along
6 million loss last season.

 

[Plumbs]

Take your head out of your backside Plumbs..

Aye ok go down that route if you wish but clubs usually turn over a loss and providing it falls within profit and sustainability rules its permissible. Blackpool FC may fall into that category if SS put all his purchase price and inherited liabilities into that,but I'm sure he follows the same criteria as AP.

The facts are there as testament to what's gone on with regards to recent history with both of the Fyldes professional clubs.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Aye ok go down that route if you wish but clubs usually turn over a loss and providing it falls within profit and sustainability rules its permissible. Blackpool FC may fall into that category if SS put all his purchase price and inherited liabilities into that,but I'm sure he follows the same criteria as AP.

The facts are there as testament to what's gone on with regards to recent history with both of the Fyldes professional clubs.

WHAT!!

Why on earth would you EVER include the 'purchase price' ?... You are just being ridiculous now. As for the 'inherited liabilities' well they are just part of the ongoing cost of running the Club and would be included in the accounts.

Fleetwood Town posted a near £6M Loss in their last published accounts. Their 'declared' annual turnover was just shy of £5.5M.. That's expenditure more than twice your annual turnover.

If you cannot see the blatant hypocrisy in suddenly wanting to change the rules so fundamentally in their favour after having taken such extensive advantage of the system they want to abandon now that the shit has hit the fan, then so be it.

I'm not sure it could be more blatant....

 

[Plumbs]

WHAT!!

Why on earth would you EVER include the 'purchase price' ?... You are just being ridiculous now. As for the 'inherited liabilities' well they are just part of the ongoing cost of running the Club and would be included in the accounts.

Fleetwood Town posted a near £6M Loss in their last published accounts. Their 'declared' annual turnover was just shy of £5.5M.. That's expenditure more than twice your annual turnover.

If you cannot see the blatant hypocrisy in suddenly wanting to change the rules so fundamentally in their favour after having taken such extensive advantage of the system they want to abandon now that the shit has hit the fan, then so be it.

I'm not sure it could be more blatant....

I'm just making a point on what constitutes a financially viable club where at the mo SS is knee deep in obligations having just taken over his club,and where Pilley could probably wipe out all his debts in one swoop by getting promoted.

Look at it another way-the O's ran it with losses every year for a very long time,and disposed of assets like the Travelodge land. The EFL and others held them in high regard and KO even made the board that adjudicated on poorly performing clubs,but many locally knew it was a smoke and mirrors tenure and were eventually vindicated.

FT are doing very well by comparison and are complying with FFP, so in reality any criticism is purely gossip borne from rivalry.

Sorry but that's how I genuinely see it.

 

[Big_Flag_Man]

Fleetwood should be minted now after charging £4 for a pie the robbing twats . and no I did'nt buy one in fact I bought bugga all.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

Another good daily watch.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I'm just making a point on what constitutes a financially viable club where at the mo SS is knee deep in obligations having just taken over his club,and where Pilley could probably wipe out all his debts in one swoop by getting promoted.

Look at it another way-the O's ran it with losses every year for a very long time,and disposed of assets like the Travelodge land. The EFL and others held them in high regard and KO even made the board that adjudicated on poorly performing clubs,but many locally knew it was a smoke and mirrors tenure and were eventually vindicated.

FT are doing very well by comparison and are complying with FFP, so in reality any criticism is purely gossip borne from rivalry.

Sorry but that's how I genuinely see it.

Well you're making the point very badly!

How on earth is spending twice what you earn 'Financially Viable' ... It's the epitome of Financially Non-Viable!

Given your choice of analogy of wiping out debts based on gambling on an outcome....Remind me...How well did that go for Leeds under David O'Leary? I'd say the Club is still recovering!!

As for SS...I'm not sure he's knee deep in obligations at all...There's certainly no evidence at all to suggest that he is in any way out of his depth financially.

I'm not sure what your point is with regard to the Oystons....? Blackpool has historically been run within very tight budgetary constraints..

FT are doing very well and have spent Millions to get there...That's fine, but don;t come out with your begging bowl when it goes tits up....And don;t expect the rest of us to dance to your new tune.

 

[Plumbs]

Well you're making the point very badly!

How on earth is spending twice what you earn 'Financially Viable' ... It's the epitome of Financially Non-Viable!

Given your choice of analogy of wiping out debts based on gambling on an outcome....Remind me...How well did that go for Leeds under David O'Leary? I'd say the Club is still recovering!!

As for SS...I'm not sure he's knee deep in obligations at all...There's certainly no evidence at all to suggest that he is in any way out of his depth financially.

I'm not sure what your point is with regard to the Oystons....? Blackpool has historically been run within very tight budgetary constraints..

FT are doing very well and have spent Millions to get there...That's fine, but don;t come out with your begging bowl when it goes tits up....And don;t expect the rest of us to dance to your new tune.

One of just isnt listening (smiley)

Have a look around the clubs and see what the turnover to wages ratio is-Reading for instance running at 122% -and its clear that the universal football business model is running at a loss,although some owners (cough,cough) might be using the club to mitigate their own tax position.

Yup-doing a Leeds has become doing a Sunderland,or a Blackburn or even a Birmingham,but even so clubs still operate at a loss and have had to be reprimanded several times now-maybe Derby will suffer after this season?

Regarding SS-point me to where I said he his 'way out of depth' because I havent said that,but pointed out at that present he's had to buy a club,prop up any 'black holes' left by the O's and also provide Grayson with a budget last summer.I'm not sure that the ST monies and ticket sales will have balanced that,irrespective of the virus stuff since.Its not a criticism on my part just simply pointing out the situation.

I agree that AP wont have a moral leg to stand on if his 'business plan' falls down but at present his club satisifies FFP criteria,and thats set against a majority of clubs who are far worse off than Fleetwood

*Pilley has put in 17 million but it'd be interesting to see how much of that was a tax write off,or sunk into a 'pension pot' like he has with Poolfoot.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

One of just isnt listening (smiley)

Have a look around the clubs and see what the turnover to wages ratio is-Reading for instance running at 122% -and its clear that the universal football business model is running at a loss,although some owners (cough,cough) might be using the club to mitigate their own tax position.

Yup-doing a Leeds has become doing a Sunderland,or a Blackburn or even a Birmingham,but even so clubs still operate at a loss and have had to be reprimanded several times now-maybe Derby will suffer after this season?

Regarding SS-point me to where I said he his 'way out of depth' because I havent said that,but pointed out at that present he's had to buy a club,prop up any 'black holes' left by the O's and also provide Grayson with a budget last summer.I'm not sure that the ST monies and ticket sales will have balanced that,irrespective of the virus stuff since.Its not a criticism on my part just simply pointing out the situation.

I agree that AP wont have a moral leg to stand on if his 'business plan' falls down but at present his club satisifies FFP criteria,and thats set against a majority of clubs who are far worse off than Fleetwood

*Pilley has put in 17 million but it'd be interesting to see how much of that was a tax write off,or sunk into a 'pension pot' like he has with Poolfoot.

One just isn't communicating one's point very well OR seemingly making a point that is largely irrelevent!

What point are you making by mentioning Reading? Are you suggesting that because other Clubs are spending significantly more than they are earning then that makes it OK?

Any owner that allows debts in a Club to reach a level that is not sustainable based upon normal day to day revenue is putting the future of the Club at risk. Fleetwood are reliant upon a) The owner remaining & his businesses remaining financially viable b) The goodwill of the owner should he remain financially viable.

We have seen with other Clubs that owners can get into difficulty and then look to recall debt from the Club and so IMHO there's no excuse for it. If an owner wants to 'invest' his money, then it should be gifted to the club, not lent.

Yet again, I'm striuggling to understand your point with regard to SS....I haven't seen him on Youtube asking for changes to the game to exclusively benefit Blackpool F.C. Have you? I also very much doubt that any 'spending' will have exceeded a level that is not sustainable within the normal revenue expectations. He's certainly not placed the Club anywhere near a level of debt that could threaten it's long term survival.

You seem to be missing the point regarding Fleetwood and AP.... This thread and my points on it are prompted by AP advocating wholesale changes to Football, which are uniquely generous and beneficial to his / Fleetwood Towns specific circumstances. He's bemoaning the fact that he and some other Clubs find themselves in a Financial predicament of their own making. Of course, nobody expected Covid 19, but then nobody asked you to spend way above your means either. The precarious position these clubs now find themselves in, is in no small part down to their own poor financial management. So he's maxed the benefit of one set of rules and now the shit has hit the fan, he wants bailing out and changing the rules to maximum advantage again.....More front than Harrods springs to mind.


I don't see the relevance of Tax write off's or Pension Pots.... Fleetwood Town FC has a debt of circa £16M...If AP's business was hit by the proverbial bus, that debt would be the end of the Club. It simply doesn't have access to the revenue streams required to pay it back. To that extent it is a totally unsustainable business in it's own right.

I'm going to leave it there...CBA going round in circles

 

[dangermouse]

Bullshit Plumbs he's fiddling the books like others are.
Loans given to the club so no tax paid.
Shirt sponsorship by his own company paying way over the gowing rate.
Office space rented at Highbury by his company paying high rent in Fleetwood FFS.

That's just three off the top of my head, Robbie is correct no better than City.

as far as I was aware and please correct me if I,m wrong but you can,t loan money to clubs you can only give it to them with a guarantee of no return

 

[todayistheday]

Another good daily watch.

Can you put a link up please.

 

[Wizaard]

One of just isnt listening (smiley)

Have a look around the clubs and see what the turnover to wages ratio is-Reading for instance running at 122% -and its clear that the universal football business model is running at a loss,although some owners (cough,cough) might be using the club to mitigate their own tax position.

Yup-doing a Leeds has become doing a Sunderland,or a Blackburn or even a Birmingham,but even so clubs still operate at a loss and have had to be reprimanded several times now-maybe Derby will suffer after this season?

Regarding SS-point me to where I said he his 'way out of depth' because I havent said that,but pointed out at that present he's had to buy a club,prop up any 'black holes' left by the O's and also provide Grayson with a budget last summer.I'm not sure that the ST monies and ticket sales will have balanced that,irrespective of the virus stuff since.Its not a criticism on my part just simply pointing out the situation.

I agree that AP wont have a moral leg to stand on if his 'business plan' falls down but at present his club satisifies FFP criteria,and thats set against a majority of clubs who are far worse off than Fleetwood

*Pilley has put in 17 million but it'd be interesting to see how much of that was a tax write off,or sunk into a 'pension pot' like he has with Poolfoot.

as far as I was aware and please correct me if I,m wrong but you can,t loan money to clubs you can only give it to them with a guarantee of no return

Sponsorship is double whammy. He gets money into the club he can write off at my expense. That'll be me, the taxpayer.

 

[poolseasider]

as far as I was aware and please correct me if I,m wrong but you can,t loan money to clubs you can only give it to them with a guarantee of no return

Just look at last years account and tell me that ain't bent when your only supposed to spend 60% of turnover for FFP.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1247765503671562242

 

[Plumbs]

Sponsorship is double whammy. He gets money into the club he can write off at my expense. That'll be me, the taxpayer.

Yup and Ken Bates took it to a whole new level
Glad someone has bumped Kierans tweet and I've been looking at FTs accounts earlier,which btw are for Fleetwood Wanderers -previous name but they kept the company going.

Does anyone know who The Football Stadia Improvement Fund Limited are because they have a charge over FT? On the accounts they show no tax due but operating income went from £5 million to £422,000-wages were pretty much the same.
The staff seems top heavy with over 160 employed too but I guess Poolfoot has something to do with this,and would be of genuine concern if the staff were employed by the club at a centre thats not FT owned.