|
|
Post by jupu on Jul 22, 2016 18:14:15 GMT
We don't know what it is exactly that potential players are being put off by. We can speculate - the club has no money, the club is going under in 2 or 3 years, they're playing at a Midland Combination ground, Matt Gardiner has gone, they're favourites for relegation. I don't think they'll be concerned that the board and the supporters have different opinions on the future governance of the club. But something has been put out there, whether true or not. Our supporters haven't caused this, it's been coming, all we've done is bring it to the fore.
It sounds as if Carl couldn't foresee so many rejections, but as has been said above there will he players out there without a club as the season is about to commence. We'll have to take what we can get. It's in sharp contrast to the likes of Darlington and Telford, who have both had their pre -season team photos taken already. I suspect our pre season photo will look very different to the team we're putting out at Christmas time.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 23, 2016 7:13:49 GMT
We don't know what it is exactly that potential players are being put off by. We can speculate - the club has no money, the club is going under in 2 or 3 years, they're playing at a Midland Combination ground, Matt Gardiner has gone, they're favourites for relegation. I don't think they'll be concerned that the board and the supporters have different opinions on the future governance of the club. But something has been put out there, whether true or not. Our supporters haven't caused this, it's been coming, all we've done is bring it to the fore. It sounds as if Carl couldn't foresee so many rejections, but as has been said above there will he players out there without a club as the season is about to commence. We'll have to take what we can get. It's in sharp contrast to the likes of Darlington and Telford, who have both had their pre -season team photos taken already. I suspect our pre season photo will look very different to the team we're putting out at Christmas time. If I were a footballer looking to sign for a club at this level and say two headlines in the local paper, the first saying ''the club has 2/3 years left'' and the other saying the club needs to ''plug a ''£250k gap'', then I'd be worried even on a 1 year contract that desperate cost cutting will lose me my footballing job halfway through the season - a bit like many believe happened with Geddes last season (wanted to cut the playing budget, got rid of one of the best paid players). |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 23, 2016 8:37:59 GMT
Thats one of the reasons you're not a non-league footballer. This is how they think, "club A wants to pay me £100 a week, club B wants to pay me £300 a week, I'll join club B" I know of one player who left WCFC to join another club because he was offered another £20 a week, even though it would cost him that in petrol money to get to home games! Of course there are exceptions, and they tend to stay around for a few years, but the rest are mercenary journeymen who play for the biggest wage, and if it doesnt work out half way through the season? Well there's always another club.
And that's not what happened to Sean Geddes last season
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 10:15:38 GMT
Jem, I'll play for the city for £100 a week. Give Carl my contact details.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 23, 2016 10:35:31 GMT
I don't think we're offering 3 times as much as other clubs around our level, so the comparison doesn't really work. If we offer £300, and another club in the league (that doesn't look all doom and gloom in the local rag) offers about the same - I'd choose the other club. That said, there certainly are a few reasons why I'm not a footballer, starting off with the beer belly - though as it was pointed out by CityToon in the week, I do make a good Kyle Perry lookalike!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 23, 2016 10:54:41 GMT
I never said that we do offer three times as much as other clubs, try reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 23, 2016 10:57:53 GMT
Jem, I'll play for the city for £100 a week. Give Carl my contact details. Lord Ealing, you would PAY £100 a week to play for City!! |
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 23, 2016 10:58:05 GMT
This is how they think, "club A wants to pay me £100 a week, club B wants to pay me £300 a week, I'll join club B" I read. |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 23, 2016 11:02:00 GMT
and got it totally wrong - we are the £100 a week club in this example
|
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 23, 2016 11:08:29 GMT
So then you're trying to say that we're offering a third of the wages compared to similar levelled teams then? I doubt many in our league spend (give or take) £750k a year on a playing budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 23, 2016 11:19:18 GMT
No, I'm using that as an example of the thinking of a non-league footballer, change the figures to £50 and £150,or £500 and £1500, the concept is the same, and yes, players are offered three times what we can offer at times. And if you think we have a budget of £250,000 for players wages, dream on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 11:41:55 GMT
Jem, I'll play for the city for £100 a week. Give Carl my contact details. Lord Ealing, you would PAY £100 a week to play for City!! Would happily pay that. |
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 23, 2016 12:01:47 GMT
So really the example is a non point, because the figures are too far apart. You mentioned someone leaving before for £20, so lets use a £20 difference.
If Worcester offer a player £300, and Brackley (for the sake of argument, as they're a similarly placed team) offer £280, which would the player choose? I believe Brackley would be the more logical choice.
As for the budget, it's been confirmed the playing budget has been cut this season, At the AGM I believe it was said that the playing budget plus travel expenses was just over £300k. £250k would have sounded about right to me, especially after being told the reduction was about £50k.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 23, 2016 12:04:35 GMT
The budget wasn't even decided at the time of the AGM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 23, 2016 12:10:11 GMT
And the player would more than likely pick Worcester, welcome to the reality of non league footballers. You are aware that a lot of non-league players even have agents?
|
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 23, 2016 12:17:09 GMT
That's your belief, you're entitled to it. I'm sure you're right that some would choose the £300, I'm sure others would think twice and go for the perceived safer option at £20 a week less.
Some players at this level have agents, not all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 23, 2016 12:34:07 GMT
No its not my belief at all, its the way it is. And why would Brackley be the safe option? They are reliant on the funding of Alan Leighton! and have already gone into liquidation once in recent years.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 23, 2016 12:38:23 GMT
My mistake, you're right. All footballers are just in it for the best possible wage!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 23, 2016 13:04:20 GMT
Well done! finally got it! There are of course exceptions, and geography and the day job are factors too, but why do you think players gravitate to the clubs splashing the cash? I mean, what other reason would there be to have gone to Sittingbourne when they were nicknamed the Manchester United of non-league football? Or Nuneaton when Dennis Stocker was throwing it around like confetti? Or Gloucester City under Les Alderman and George Irvine? Andthey've all crashed and burned now. Who'd have thought Solihull Moors would have been such an attraction? any other reason than the JLR money? Remember the days when Worcester City could take players out of the football league because they offered more money? We are presently going through the pre-season crazy money-go-round, it happens every year.
|
|
