Admin Maesknoll Red Posted January 10, 2005 Admin Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Some of the posts on here over the last few days have puzzled me, the dismay at local lads leaving, even some hints at disloyalty. I would be very disappointed if every single player did not want to leave, should the offer to play at a higher level came in. If they haven't got the desire to work hard at their chosen career, bettering themselves whenever possible, why should we want them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Some of the posts on here over the last few days have puzzled me, the dismay at local lads leaving, even some hints at disloyalty. I would be very disappointed if every single player did not want to leave, should the offer to play at a higher level came in. If they haven't got the desire to work hard at their chosen career, bettering themselves whenever possible, why should we want them? ← I agree, I have no problem with the players for leaving for a better standard of football and a salary that reflects their market worth. I'd like to see the club work harder at making these players feel valued so that they don't want or need to move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted January 10, 2005 Author Admin Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I'd like to see the club work harder at making these players feel valued so that they don't want or need to move. ← I'm sure the club does what it can, but the reality is we are a 3rd division club, the finances are tight and without a sugar daddy or promotion and consoildation at a higher level, will stay that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I'm sure the club does what it can, but the reality is we are a 3rd division club, the finances are tight and without a sugar daddy or promotion and consoildation at a higher level, will stay that way. ← We're a club with Championship level attendances, therefore a Championship level turnover and therefore should be able to afford Championship level wages. The finances are tight because the board want some of the money you and I are putting into the club coffers this season to go towards debt repayment. I'm disappointed but can understand why they want to reduce the level of debt but believe that they are not going about it the right way. We have too many fringe players that seem to struggle to command a first team place when opportunities fall their way - surely it is these players that should be sacrificed to reduce payroll and not committed first team regulars like Carey and Hill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted January 10, 2005 Author Admin Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 We're a club with Championship level attendances, therefore a Championship level turnover and therefore should be able to afford Championship level wages.← Championship figures League One figures 18 of the championship clubs boast higher average attendances than us, so I'm not convinced that we can afford to pay that level of wages - also I believe they get more TV money. The finances are tight because the board want some of the money you and I are putting into the club coffers this season to go towards debt repayment. I'm disappointed but can understand why they want to reduce the level of debt but believe that they are not going about it the right way. We have too many fringe players that seem to struggle to command a first team place when opportunities fall their way - surely it is these players that should be sacrificed to reduce payroll and not committed first team regulars like Carey and Hill? ← If no enquiries are forthcoming for these fringe players, there is no other way to move them on, until their contracts run out and I thought we agreed further up the thread, Hill hasn't been sacrificed, he has gone to play at a higher level which is what each and everyone of our squad should be aimimg at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 The really interesting thing to see would be Jamie Smith's contract compared to the contract offered to Louis Carey. Smith has been playing at Championship level for pretty much all of his career (don't ask me how) and was released from a side that is now in the Premiership. Although he wasn't in the best bargaining position, he must still be on a fair whack and would have got a decent signing-on fee, too. If Smith is on anything even slightly more than Carey was offered then I think we have a major problem at the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadratinmycider Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I'm afraid the Bosman ruling has brought an end to days where players will stay at clubs for years and years. This is especially the case for lower league clubs. Clubs like us can bring youngsters through the ranks only to get a bit panicky when they get near the age of 24 knowing they could lose them for nowt. Likewise players out of contract can go on a free and get better wages or stay at their current club on less money? Doesn't take someone from Mensa to work out what they will do. I've got no problem with anyone who leaves City to better their career. Matty shouldn't get any abuse, he has always given 100% for City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 This may seem simplistic but the obvious way forward is to have a smaller squad of better players who have good availability records and are not going over the hill in age. In the summer when we decided that we could not pay Carey what he wanted, we also decided to keep a 33 year old full back who had not been a first choice last season (Bell). We then decided to give Smith a contract because Amankwaah (the definition of injury prone) wasn't available to play for several months. So we had the choice of either having Carey and one of Hill/Woodman/Fortune as our first choice full backs instead of which we now have Smith and Bell (both of whom are now over 30), I know which pairing I'd have chosen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted January 10, 2005 Author Admin Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 The really interesting thing to see would be Jamie Smith's contract compared to the contract offered to Louis Carey. Smith has been playing at Championship level for pretty much all of his career (don't ask me how) and was released from a side that is now in the Premiership. Although he wasn't in the best bargaining position, he must still be on a fair whack and would have got a decent signing-on fee, too. If Smith is on anything even slightly more than Carey was offered then I think we have a major problem at the club. ← But if the Manager didn't want to keep Carey, then surely the easiest way to get him to leave would be to offer a derisory contract - I have no idea if this was what happened in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 But if the Manager didn't want to keep Carey, then surely the easiest way to get him to leave would be to offer a derisory contract - I have no idea if this was what happened in this case. ← In that case, the manager must have reasons other than footballing ones, because Carey is a more than capable footballer. In which case you have to ask why a player with well known off-the-field problems was made captain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted January 10, 2005 Author Admin Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 In that case, the manager must have reasons other than footballing ones, because Carey is a more than capable footballer. In which case you have to ask why a player with well known off-the-field problems was made captain. ← There are a lot of unanswered questions, but IIRC Tinman did say he was going to change attitudes ( ie. remove the drinking culture etc) but this obviously cannot be done overnight. As I said, I have no idea if there were any problems with Carey that haven't been made public and it may well have been handled badly. We haven't been blessed with leadership and potential captains in the last few seasons, so perhaps it was an attempt to encourage some responsibility from Doherty. Orr or Dinning could take on the role now, but I doubt that its the done thing to replace your captain halfway through the season. (Unless he leaves - which I feel unlikely - who would want a player unable to perform for 90 minutes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Championship figures League One figures 18 of the championship clubs boast higher average attendances than us, so I'm not convinced that we can afford to pay that level of wages - also I believe they get more TV money. ← Our average attendances are similar to or better than Brighton, Burnley, Cardiff, Crewe, Gillingham, Millwall, Preston, Rotherham and Wigan. We also have a wider fan base than many of these teams which boosts other commercial activities and revenues from one-offs (play-offs, LDV etc). I'm sure you're right about TV revenue but I'm not sure how lucrative this is nowadays for Championship clubs. I see no reason why our payroll should be vastly different to these sort of clubs. If no enquiries are forthcoming for these fringe players, there is no other way to move them on, until their contracts run out and I thought we agreed further up the thread, Hill hasn't been sacrificed, he has gone to play at a higher level which is what each and everyone of our squad should be aimimg at. Hill was put in a position of seeking alternative employment because the board offered him an unacceptable contract. Being under 23, he accepted the contract provided it had the £100k clause. 5 weeks ago we admitted to him that it was a contract that did not reflect his market worth by offering an improved deal. Too late, damage done. Hill, Carey, Brown and Peacock all left having been offered contract terms that would pay them less than they would get if they went elsewhere. My point is that we MUST pay Championship wages for players capable of playing in the Championship and we MUST ensure that our team consists of players capable of playing there otherwise we're unlikely to win the games that will get us there. I realise its difficult to get rid of fringe players and we should ensure that fringe players are only paid their market worth and get short term contracts in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Boy Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I would be very disappointed if every single player did not want to leave, should the offer to play at a higher level came in. If they haven't got the desire to work hard at their chosen career, bettering themselves whenever possible, why should we want them? ← I think it's more about money and the differentials between home grown and money transfers that's caused this, as I've posted, Hill has probably double his wages at least and copped a bigger signing on fee than City offered. I don't blame them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Hill was put in a position of seeking alternative employment because the board offered him an unacceptable contract. Being under 23, he accepted the contract provided it had the £100k clause. 5 weeks ago we admitted to him that it was a contract that did not reflect his market worth by offering an improved deal. Too late, damage done. Hill, Carey, Brown and Peacock all left having been offered contract terms that would pay them less than they would get if they went elsewhere. ← The club really buggered up some of the contract negotiations back in the Summer. The likes of Carey, Hill and Aaron Brown should have been City players for the rest of their careers. Instead, we offered them joke deals, they (predictably) left us and we now have sub-standard (and probably just as expensive) replacements (or, in Aaron's case, no replacement at all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 I think it's more about money and the differentials between home grown and money transfers that's caused this, as I've posted, Hill has probably double his wages at least and copped a bigger signing on fee than City offered. I don't blame them at all. ← Or maybe it's the fact that all the hard work put in by players like Matty is undermined by teammates (homegrown and imported) who play when they feel like it and make no effort whatsoever to look after themselves. If I worked with people who messed about to the extent that my own work was suffering, I'd want to leave whether for more money or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted January 10, 2005 Admin Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 My point is that we MUST pay Championship wages for players capable of playing in the Championship and we MUST ensure that our team consists of players capable of playing there otherwise we're unlikely to win the games that will get us there. I realise its difficult to get rid of fringe players and we should ensure that fringe players are only paid their market worth and get short term contracts in the first place. ← The other side of the coin however, is that when you start paying "championship players" "championship money" to play in League One, why would they strain themselves to get promoted and face a harder task in their "work"? A defeat here, a draw there, a play-off final penalty conceded......all go a long way to ensuring that these "Championship players" don't actually have to ever play "Championship matches"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 The club really buggered up some of the contract negotiations back in the Summer. The likes of Carey, Hill and Aaron Brown should have been City players for the rest of their careers. Instead, we offered them joke deals, they (predictably) left us and we now have sub-standard (and probably just as expensive) replacements (or, in Aaron's case, no replacement at all). ← I agree entirely. I realise there's a monster thread going about the academy at the moment but in my opinion the object of growing your own talent should be that you end up with quality players. And then, regardless of where those quality players came from, you should do everything to keep them. Fouling up the negotiations with these players' contracts upsets me greatly. When life was understandably tough under the first two years of Wilson's reign, the consolation for me was the enjoyment of watching local lads break into the first team - it gave me hope for the future. But now we have to watch a team struggle to cope with an unnecessary transition forced upon it and yet see Bristol lads replaced by old unconnected journeymen. Where's the hope for the future? If the likes of Cotterill and Golbourne get to be first team regulars, will we see them feel unrewarded and disappear before reaching their prime too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Remember, it's not just clubs and players involved here. It is not in the interests of agents :@ to have players spend all their careers at one club. No transfers means no percentage for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 The other side of the coin however, is that when you start paying "championship players" "championship money" to play in League One, why would they strain themselves to get promoted and face a harder task in their "work"? A defeat here, a draw there, a play-off final penalty conceded......all go a long way to ensuring that these "Championship players" don't actually have to ever play "Championship matches"! ← That's a cynical point of view you have there Madger. You wouldn't find many motivational theorists (Herzberg, Maslow etc.) agreeing with you. Being paid what you (and others) think you are worth does not motivate in itself, but when you're underpaid it tends to demotivate. As long as you are comfortable with the level of pay and feel secure, you then look for other things that motivate you - "love", "esteem" and self-actualisation" according to Maslow. People are not typically motivated to act in a way that protects these 'safety' factors. You remind me of my granddad, rest his soul, who would annually declare "They don't wanna go up, do 'em". I think you'll find that they do. Any players exhibiting 'fear of success' should be coached accordingly by the club psychologist (oh no, he went as part of the cutbacks didn't he). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadratinmycider Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Remember, it's not just clubs and players involved here. It is not in the interests of agents :@ to have players spend all their careers at one club. No transfers means no percentage for them. ← Indeed, in the newspaper today it emerges that agents have received £5 million in the last 6 months as a result of transfers. This is up £3.6 million from the first half of 2004. That's an incredible rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 (AndyJones2004 @ Jan 10 2005, 10:29 AM) The club really buggered up some of the contract negotiations back in the Summer. The likes of Carey, Hill and Aaron Brown should have been City players for the rest of their careers. Instead, we offered them joke deals, they (predictably) left us and we now have sub-standard (and probably just as expensive) replacements (or, in Aaron's case, no replacement at all). Yep, got to agree with these sentiments. Treating Carey, Hill and Brown exactly the same way as a waster like Peacock (who we rightly wanted rid of) is all too redolent of the way Shaun Goater left when we wouldn't pay him anything near his proper worth, and look at all the trouble and expense that led to(!) The immediate impact on this season's team has been much weaker pairings, particularly defensively, on either flank so that even with a more effective front-line we are still struggling to achieve success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.