Let’s rethink what financial sustainability means for FE   

As policymakers, providers and sector leaders take stock of the recent spending review and the Education Select Committee’s inquiry into FE and skills, one message must cut through the noise: financial sustainability in FE cannot be reduced to a conversation about cost-cutting or efficiency alone.

We need a systemic reappraisal of what it costs to run a modern, inclusive and responsive FE college and an honest recognition that current funding levels simply do not stack up. 

At Etio, we have worked extensively with FE institutions benchmarking their financial performance. Our recent submission to the committee draws on detailed analysis of college accounts, operational data and workforce structures across the sector. It presents a worrying picture: over half of general FE colleges were operating in deficit in 2022-23 despite concerted efforts to contain costs and restructure provision. 

This tells us something important. The financial fragility of the sector is not primarily a product of inefficiency or poor decision-making. It is the outcome of a long-term erosion of per-student funding, rising delivery costs, and a growing requirement for learner support that colleges are meeting with increasingly constrained resources. 

Funding per student is 11 per cent lower than in 2010-11. And yet, our benchmarking database shows that colleges have held their operational cost base remarkably steady; reducing proportional spend on teaching, support and admin from 54 per cent to 52 per cent of income over the past decade. That’s equivalent to a £1.2 million reduction at a £60 million income college. 

‘The resilience of FE has masked a deeper fragility‘

Colleges have grown class sizes, cut back remission time and shifted towards more cost-efficient delivery models, with increased use of instructor roles and flatter management structures.  

Yet the cracks are showing. Colleges that support high volumes of high-needs learners are forced to pare back business support and professional services to protect front-line student provision. It may preserve support ratios in the classroom but it comes at a cost: weaker operational resilience, overstretched back-office teams and a growing backlog in estates and IT investment. 

The energy crisis has only added fuel to the fire. In 2010-11, energy costs per square metre in college estates were typically under £14. Today, we routinely record figures more than double that. Ageing, inefficient buildings compound the issue. 

So, what needs to change? 

First, we must challenge the narrative that colleges are structurally inefficient. The data does not support it. What we are witnessing is a sector that has flexed, adapted and absorbed pressure far beyond what is sustainable. The resilience of FE has masked a deeper fragility, and that mask is slipping. 

Second, we need a funding model that reflects reality. Colleges should be resourced not just to survive but to deliver quality education that meets the needs of learners, employers and communities.

That means a more agile formula that recognises the cost pressures of high-needs delivery, allows for regional flexibility and incentivises innovation not just compliance. 

Third, we need targeted investment. Strategic capital funding to modernise college estates isn’t a ‘nice to have’ – it is essential for reducing long-term costs and improving the student experience.

Likewise, support for digital infrastructure and workforce development is vital if colleges are to meet rising expectations for blended learning and employer engagement. 

None of this should be viewed in isolation. Financial sustainability isn’t about balance sheets alone, it is about securing the future of the sector’s mission. Colleges sit at the heart of the government’s plan for change. If we want them to deliver on that potential we need to fund them accordingly. 

The education select committee inquiry offers a timely opportunity to reset the conversation. It’s a moment for sector voices to shape policy thinking and for evidence to drive action. Short-term boosts, like the additional £300 million announced in the autumn budget, are welcome but they are not enough. 

What is needed is structural reform, informed by robust benchmarking and a deep understanding of the pressures colleges face on the ground. 

FE has done more with less for too long. It is time to invest in its future. 

Northern College proposes merger after weathering ‘perfect storm’

One of England’s two independent adult residential colleges is hoping to secure a “long-term and sustainable future” by merging with a neighbouring general FE college.

Northern College has put forward a plan to merge with Barnsley College, staff were told last week.

It comes four years after the FE Commissioner set out a “perfect storm” of circumstances which put Northern College at risk of financial collapse. 

The college decided to remain a standalone institution in 2021 and has weathered the storm ever since, with its latest accounts showing an improvement in financial health. 

But there continues to be uncertainty over the funding formula for adult residential education from its majority funder – the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) – which has so far only been committed up to the 2025-26 academic year. Student recruitment also continues to pose a “big” risk.

If the merger goes ahead, Birmingham’s Fircroft College will be the only standalone adult residential college left in England.

Emma Beal, who became principal of Northern College in March 2023, and David Akeroyd, principal of Barnsley College, said in a joint statement: “Northern College and Barnsley College have been exploring ways to secure a long-term and sustainable future for Northern College. 

“Those discussions are now focused on a proposed voluntary merger with Barnsley College.”

The aim of the merger is to “protect and strengthen” Northern College’s distinct identity – retaining its brand, continuing its residential provision and ensuring delivery remains at Wentworth Castle with access to National Trust grounds.

“Our shared intention is to build on the breadth and quality of what we already offer, keeping the needs of our learners and communities at the heart of this work,” the joint statement added.

The colleges have not yet said whether any jobs will be at risk of redundancy or whether any provision will be lost if the merger goes ahead. 

Northern College employs around 70 people and had over 3,000 enrolments last year, which included a range of short community learning courses designed to re-engage adults in learning and a programme of longer accredited courses.

The college is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted and holds a financial health rating of ‘requires improvement’.

Northern College’s latest accounts, for the 2023-24 year, highlight that the methodology for funding residential provision has been under review since 2019. One has since been agreed with the Department for Education and another one of the college’s funders, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

But SYMCA, which provides 75 per cent of the college’s funding, has not yet agreed a permanent funding model for 2026-27 and beyond, according to the financial statements, which add that “if the level of residential funding reduces, this would have a significant financial impact”. 

Barnsley College employs around 850 people and teaches around 9,000 students. It is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted and has ‘outstanding’ financial health. 

Beal’s and Akeroyd’s joint statement said a series of formal steps towards a merger will now begin, although a completion date has not yet been decided. 

“A key part of the process will involve formal consultation with both internal and external stakeholders, with more information to follow in due course,” the statement said.

“A set of frequently asked questions to support staff and provide further clarity will be shared shortly and kept updated as things progress.”

Make post-16 an ‘integrated’ tertiary system – report

England should move to an integrated tertiary education system instead of making FE and HE “in competition” with each other, a report has suggested.

Following research that reviewed post-16 education across the four UK nations, the Education Policy Institute (EPI) has also called for an “urgent need” to review the pay and conditions of FE staff after finding decades-long “constrained resources” from competing with industry pay.

Authors at the EPI and the University of Oxford’s research centre SKOPE have also urged for a review of apprenticeship provision in favour of young people and better regulatory frameworks to ensure “more equitable access”.

It comes ahead of the government’s new post-16 strategy and white paper, which is due to be published imminently. 

The think tank’s report, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, found policy churn had created an “unstable environment”, confusing pathways for learners, and “dissatisfied” employers in the post-16 education sector.

Luke Sibieta, research fellow at the EPI, said while post-16 is often an “afterthought” for policymakers, the “constant” policy churn is adding to the complexity in all four nations.

“Constant policy churn emphasises the view that the [education & training] system is at best flawed and at worst failing,” the report said.

Previous EPI research pointed out that since devolution in 1999, England’s FE system has undergone six education acts, nine reviews, and eight government strategy papers.

“Policymakers must prioritise creating a stable set of high-quality post-16 institutions, with a stronger focus on tackling persistent inequalities,” Sibieta said.

The report also highlighted the differences between the four nations joining up FE and HE within a “holistic tertiary sector”.

It said the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales have a “much greater role” in coordinating the “distinctive and complementary nature” of both academic and vocational pathways.

Meanwhile in England, and Northern Ireland to a lesser extent, the report found a so-called “market logic” led to FE and HE in competition with each other as a way of responding to both student demand and employer skills demands.

Employer representatives told the think tank their ability to engage effectively was “curtailed” by being treated as customers instead of “stakeholders with active responsibilities”.

EPI analysis however found “pockets of intense competition” in Scotland and Wales and local collaboration between FE and HE providers in England.

“Our analysis suggests these kinds of policy structures across all four nations are often more complex and shaped more by local/regional dynamics than top-level policy suggests,” the report said.

Professor James Robson, director of SKOPE, said: “Across the UK nations, there is a trend towards more joined up policy approaches to education and training that emphasise greater collaboration between HE and FE, the state playing a greater role in coordinating skills supply, and a more place-based approach to the development of an integrated tertiary education system. 

“This policy approach needs to be developed further to ensure post-16 education and training is working effectively and efficiently for both the economy and society.” 

Critical work to be done on pay

The report also found that constrained resources were a recurring theme among post-16 providers across the UK, particularly in the recruitment and retention of FE staff from industry.

“A major issue emphasised was the challenge of competing with pay and conditions in industry, and as a result, ensuring staff were high quality, adequately skilled, and understand industry need,” the report said, adding the inequality between FE teacher and school teacher pay.

Employers also acknowledged that recruitment and retention issues “undermined efforts” to build meaningful relationships with education providers.

Researchers recommended an “urgent need” to conduct a full review of pay and conditions for FE staff and ensure there is “greater equity at the heart” of the sector’s workforce.

Skills minister Jacqui Smith told MPs last month that teacher pay rises in FE should “keep up” with schools over the next few years.

She said she couldn’t “really see a justification” for the pay difference between college and school teachers, which she admitted is “part of the reason” for high vacancy rates in FE colleges.

‘Urgent’ review of apprenticeship participation

Today’s report also recommended that all four nations should conduct an urgent review of apprenticeship participation, including introducing mechanisms to ensure more young people take apprenticeships.

This was after it highlighted the age of learners starting an apprenticeship has “shifted over time” to mostly over-25-year-olds.

Researchers heard young people were deeply frustrated that the best apprenticeships were being “stolen” by older learners.

The report said: “There was a sense of deep inequalities at the heart of apprenticeships, particularly in England. The challenge in finding and accessing apprenticeships was repeatedly highlighted by the young people in our research who called for better systems to find opportunities and better support structures for the application process.”

The EPI also recommended the government develop regulatory frameworks to ensure more equitable access.

The age trend has contributed to the Department for Education’s upcoming reform to “rebalance” the apprenticeship budget towards lower levels by axing funded level 7 apprenticeships for people aged 22 and older from January 2026.

The report added: “This does not need to be a zero-sum game with adult apprenticeships, particularly if adult apprenticeships show high economic returns.

“However, the number of young people taking apprenticeships is small across all four nations, despite their popularity and high returns.”

Fuel pumped up with Ofsted’s premium rating

A provider that trains over 1,000 management apprentices has scored top Ofsted marks.

Fuel Learning, which delivers to big levy-paying employers nationally, was judged ‘outstanding’ across the board in a report published today.

Inspectors praised the “tailored” learning on offer to individual apprentices, high achievement rates and “ambitious” targets that lead to “extremely satisfied” apprentices.

Ofsted did not provide any areas for improvement, which Fuel Learning CEO Ian Prentice was “absolutely thrilled” with.

He told FE Week that when his company, which is traditionally a corporate training firm, moved into apprenticeships he wanted to do it “differently” and be “very work product focused, with a really strong focus on demonstrable return investment for organisations and the individuals”. 

Prentice said “lots of people said that that wouldn’t work” because they needed a “more formulaic approach”, but this Ofsted result is a “genuine reflection” that the delivery style adopted by Fuel works.

Fuel Learning had 1,014 apprentices during the inspection week in June. Of these, 489 were studying towards the level 3 team leader apprenticeship, 343 were studying towards level 5 operations manager apprenticeship and 182 were studying the level 7 senior leader apprenticeship. All apprentices are adults over the age of 18.

Ofsted said leaders have “high expectations of staff and apprentices”, shown by setting of “ambitious targets to drive high achievement, distinction grades and attendance”.

Leaders closely monitor performance against these targets and “take decisive action to ensure staff work towards achieving them”.

Governors also use their “extensive education and sector expertise very effectively” to test leaders’ strategy to achieve high standards. A “very high” proportion of apprentices pass their apprenticeship and achieve distinction grades.

Fuel Learning’s qualification achievement rate, for the year 2023-24, was 73.9 per cent, according to government data.

Leaders were praised by Ofsted for having a “very clear rationale for the curriculums they provide”. Staff combine coaching, facilitation and online learning “skilfully so that apprentices experience a rich and extensive curriculum”, the report said.

Prentice wants to double apprentices

Staff also receive “frequent and extensive” training to continuously develop their teaching and sector skills. 

Ofsted added that the quality of education that apprentices receive is “exceptional”, and apprentices develop “substantial new knowledge, skills and behaviours that have a positive impact at work”.

Managers and staff identify apprentices with additional learning needs or disabilities, and support staff meet frequently with these apprentices to closely monitor their progress. 

Inspectors said apprentices are “extremely satisfied with the education and training they receive”. They have “very clearly defined long-term and intermediate career goals that are agreed with their employer and the provider staff”.

Prentice said he wants to grow the number of Fuel’s apprentices to around 2,000. But he admitted the government’s level 7 reforms, which defunds apprenticeships at master’s level for those aged 22 and older from January 2026, will have an impact.

He labelled the policy as a “shocking decision” and will mean a switch of level 7 delivery to commercial programmes. He said his company is also about to pivot to the level 6 chartered manager degree standard in a bid to fill the gap.

Prentice lastly praised his “small” but “highly specialist” team for being “rigorous in our standards and performance levels”.

City of Liverpool staffers awarded £100k over principal’s relative controversy

A college that unfairly dismissed two managers after they raised concerns about a relative of the principal being given special treatment has been ordered to pay over £100,000 in compensation.

City of Liverpool College was found to have forced Kerry Dowd and Stephanie Doyle to resign in early 2022 after they “fell out of favour” with principal Elaine Bowker.

In March, the tribunal ruled in favour of the two ex-staff members, who were employed as the head and deputy head of the college’s digital academy (DA) nearly four years ago.

The tribunal accepted the allegations that Bowker expected them to give “preferential treatment” and adhere to “bespoke requests” for her relative, who was enrolled on a course there.

In a remedy judgment published yesterday, the tribunal unanimously decided to award the two ex-staffers the total “maximum” compensation available.

Doyle was awarded a total £57,951 and Dowd won £47,383 after the judge made extra tax provisions, FE Week understands.

The documents show the college failed to comply with the ACAS code of practice “at all” as Dowd and Doyle’s suspension was for a “sham reason” so the judge awarded an up to 25 per cent uplift to the compensation.

Each was awarded the maximum statutory cap for unfair dismissal.

College statement to media ‘directly contradicted’ tribunal

The tribunal decision said that the college’s reasoning for Dowd and Doyle’s suspensions were “highly damaging” and had “fabricated” allegations that the two had breached safeguarding protocols.

The college’s statement to the press from March said that a “potential safeguarding issue regarding the falsification of an attendance register was identified, logged and subsequently, investigated”. 

It also said: “The falsification of this official documentation was deemed as a potential safeguarding issue and as such, the college’s HR processes and procedures were subsequently duly followed.”

Judge Barker said that the statement “directly contradicted ” his findings and considered whether it amounted to “something akin to contempt of court” as proceedings were ongoing.

“It is drafted as if the [college’s] version of events were matters of fact, even matters of fact found by the tribunal. They were not,” the document said.

It continued: “We found there was no identification of a safeguarding issue affecting either claimant; it was not investigated, and no process was followed. We found that they threatened the claimants with a possible safeguarding investigation without any proper reason for doing so, to make them resign, which they did. 

“We found that the respondent effectively knew that the claimants would do anything to avoid a safeguarding investigation, due to the damage that this would inflict on their careers.”

The college’s representative told the judge they did not write the statement.

City of Liverpool College chair, Tony Cobain, said: “The board remains entirely satisfied that its witnesses exercised their responsibilities appropriately throughout the process, acting with honesty, openness, and integrity.

“The board would like to thank the college’s dedicated staff for their continued efforts to ensure the college remains a pioneering place for students to learn and for staff to proudly work.”

‘It’s refreshing Labour isn’t thrusting random vision on sector’ – Francis

Government’s decision not to “thrust” a “random vision” for education upon the profession is “refreshing”, the chair of the curriculum and assessment review has said.

Professor Becky Francis believes education secretary Bridget Phillipson’s approach means her review will not “tip the sector over”.

Francis made the comments at the Festival of Education this morning in response to a question on whether Labour has a “strong vision” similar to that of the Conservatives in 2010.

The last curriculum review, undertaken by the coalition government in the early 2010s, resulted in a greater emphasis on knowledge, an approach promoted by the then education secretary Michael Gove and long-serving schools minister Nick Gibb.

“I think that while it’s completely legitimate to ask, whether the government have a sort of vision of education… it’s really refreshing that there isn’t some random vision being thrust upon us as a profession,” Francis said.

“Instead, [the review has been] invited to take an evidenced approach to improvement that capitalises on the work that’s been done over time.”

Francis, also the CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation, noted the “cautious approach” her review has been subsequently “welcomed”.

But it “does set out the determined guardrails around securing breadth and depth and entitlement and enriching the curriculum for all and best supporting people’s life chances”.

While it’s “not an environment of revolution”, there are “really important signals” in the review’s terms of reference “that we need to attend to social justice”.

“But I guess I’m also really grateful that I’m not needed to do a review where we tip the sector over because of the pressing challenges,” Francis added.

Ofqual scrutinising Edexcel’s A-level maths replacement paper

The exams regulator is “closely scrutinising” Edexcel’s approach to awarding A-level maths this year following complaints that it replaced a paper with a version that missed swathes of content pupils had expected to cover. 

About 2,000 students have signed a petition after sitting the pure maths “paper 2” issued by the board – part of the education giant Pearson – on June 12. They said the paper “lacked key topics … fundamental to the course”. They also reported overlaps with paper 1, sat on June 4. 

Pearson has since confirmed that the paper was a replacement for its original paper 2, but refused to say why it was forced to make the switch.  

The board insisted “all candidates received and sat the correct, intended paper for each exam”. 

The matter has now been referred to Ofqual, which told FE Week it was “aware of the concerns raised about this paper and will be closely scrutinising Pearson’s approach to awarding this qualification. 

“Our priority at this point in the exam season is the interests of students and ensuring students’ grades are a reliable indication of what they know, understand and can do.” 

The organisation also said that, once results were released and summer exams monitoring was complete, “we will determine whether there have been any issues which have arisen over the course of the series which constitute breaches of our rules”. 

In an update published by Pearson, the exam board confirmed it had replaced the original version of paper 2, which was taken by 99.8 per cent of candidates. The 0.2 per cent of the cohort needing modifications sat a different paper. 

“We always have multiple versions of each paper available for use in every series. This allows us to replace a paper at any stage if we need to.  

“Decisions to replace a paper are never made lightly and can happen for a number of reasons. When we do replace a paper, we consider carefully the student experience.” 

Pearson said two different papers, “whether an original and replacement, or papers sat in different series, will not always cover the same content.  

“We are confident that the content assessed in both versions of paper 2 is reasonable and appropriate for candidates to have accessed and effectively demonstrated their knowledge and understanding.” 

The board has tasked senior examiners with overseeing the marking of both versions of paper 2, and “to ensure fairness for all students, we will set grade boundaries separately for the two versions of paper 2.  

“This approach allows us to account for any minor differences in demand between the papers, so that students are fairly rewarded for their performance.” 

A Pearson spokesperson said both the standard and modified versions “were equally valid exam papers, written to meet the specification requirements and our own standards and quality checks.  

“We can reassure all students and teachers that they received and sat the correct intended paper and we have written to all schools and colleges that received modified versions to clarify and confirm this.” 

On the petition website change.org, pupils wrote of their dismay after sitting the paper. 

“We worked hard for two years and it seems like our efforts have gone to waste,” the organisers wrote, adding the paper “lacked key topics that are fundamental to the course”.  

“We were tested on the same topics multiple times. This oversight unfairly challenges our capacity to demonstrate the knowledge and skills we have painstakingly built.” 

They added that the lack of coverage of the topics “means that the grades we will receive on results day won’t be a true reflection of our understanding and ability in mathematics.  

“Usually, these core topics are covered extensively across examination papers, offering students a balanced opportunity to exhibit their proficiency.” 

They called on Edexcel to “consider implementing lower grade boundaries or compensatory measures for this year’s exam.  

“Students’ futures could be at stake, and it is only right that every effort is made to ensure an equitable assessment.” 

An account on X set up in the wake of the exam, – “Pearson Edexcel 2025 Maths A-Level Scandal” – said pupil performance in the qualification “cannot be fairly or validly assessed because the exam series did not test the entire pure mathematics curriculum as required by Ofqual”. 

College mulls judicial review after downgrade to ‘good’

A college is considering a judicial review after claiming its latest Ofsted inspection was “fundamentally flawed”, despite receiving five ‘outstanding’ grades.

Hampshire-based Farnborough College of Technology lost its long-held ‘outstanding’ overall rating following an inspection in March 2025. While Ofsted graded the college ‘outstanding’ in five out of eight headline areas, including for apprenticeships and high-needs provision, it rated quality of education, leadership and management and overall effectiveness as ‘good’.

College leaders believe the fall from ‘outstanding’ to ‘good’ for the education programmes for young people (EPYP) judgment was based on “misrepresenting” data and led to other key judgments being downgraded in a way that was “inconsistent” with other colleges.

Principal CEO Virginia Barrett told FE Week that the college is now consulting solicitors and is considering a judicial review after an internal complaint to Ofsted was unsuccessful.

“This is not about demanding to be ‘outstanding’,” she said. “But we fundamentally disagree with how the inspection was carried out – the disproportionate focus on A-levels, the data misinterpretation, and the lack of proper dialogue all raise serious concerns about the fairness of the process.”

The college, previously ‘outstanding’ since 2011, had 2,161 learners aged 16 to 19, 591 adult learners, 61 learners with high needs and 854 apprentices. It was one of a handful of colleges affected by the 2023 RAAC scandal, which Barrett said the college is still recovering from. 

The row centres on the college’s claim that there was a disproportionate focus on A-levels during the inspection. Barrett told FE Week: “We are a 95 per cent technical college, yet Ofsted bypassed that and spent four days looking at A-levels.”

Ofsted’s inspection report, published in late June, heaped praise on the college’s art and design, catering, and education and childcare T Level courses for young people.

But the watchdog said learners on AS-level courses “do not acquire the knowledge they need to pass their assessments and achieve their A-levels” and “the actions of leaders and managers have not ensured that learners studying education programmes for young people experience consistently high-quality education”.

The report also stated: “Too few learners on AS- and A-level courses achieve their qualifications”, and the college needed to “improve teaching and assessment of AS- and A-level courses.”

But Barrett disputes the inspection and report’s emphasis on A-levels. “A-levels account for just 5 per cent of our 16 to 18 provision,” she said. “We’re a 95 per cent technical college. Yet A-levels were observed almost exclusively. This skewed the judgment on our leadership, quality of education, and overall effectiveness.”

Barrett described the inspection as “four days of intense scrutiny, focused obsessively on a single programme area representing just 5 per cent of EPYP enrolments” and accused inspectors of dismissing college data showing that A-level results were actually 5 per cent above the national average.

She also raised concerns over how inspectors retrospectively justified the downgrade. 

“Only after we submitted a complaint did we hear for the first time about a supposed ‘25 per cent of level three provision’ being underperforming. That figure wasn’t discussed during inspection. I can’t understand how they can be allowed to rely on that,” Barrett said.

Barrett also said Ofsted had apologised for using comments from governors about “poor” English and maths outcomes as another justification.

“That is a misrepresentation of what governors said. They apologised for that.”

The college told FE Week that it will now escalate its complaint to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted (ICASO), but it is also consulting with lawyers. 

“We have engaged a solicitor because we think that actually there are a lot of issues here that we think may end up in a judicial review.”

Ofsted declined to comment.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 503

Carole Kitching

Chair of Governors, West London College

Start date: June 2025

Previous Job: Former Principal and CEO, New College Swindon

Interesting fact: Since leaving her full-time FE roles, Carole has been busy leading a strategic review of HE in Swindon and on projects to increase facilities for local neurodivergent HE learners and support their transition into careers

Paul Kett

Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive, LSBU Group

Start date: September 2025

Previous Job: Former Director General (Skills, FE and HE), Department for Education

Interesting fact: Paul used to play ultimate frisbee and competed in the World Club Championships in Australia. Today his exercise is primarily jogging in Brockwell Park or swimming in Brockwell Lido

Adrian Hutchinson

Assistant Principal Skills (Adults, Apprenticeships & HE), Bradford College

Start date: August 2025

Previous Job: Head of Adult Skills, Bradford College

Interesting fact: Adrian is a long time supporter of Morecambe Football Club and follows them all over the country. Last year he drove about 9,500 miles over the season which equated to 264 miles per point in a somewhat challenging season for the club!