Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

So it begins, ins and outs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why has Jack Ruddy fallen out of favour? He was superb at Hashtag in the first match of the season, and looked good in pre-season.
 
Made a bit of a rick in the league game at Cheshunt, rushing out and missing the ball to let their player in on an open goal for their second.

Think it's fair to say his form tailed off from what we saw early on but at the same time he hasn't been terrible. If Constable isn't available any time soon I can see the sense in getting another goalkeeper in to keep him on his toes, but bringing in two seems to have sparked the questions and not sure Hayrettin really answered them.
 
Am I right in thinking all first team players are contractually required to be at the ground on matchdays? I assume that’s from what, 130 or so to 6pm…?

Am I also right in assuming that there’s at least ten who won’t be in the squad each week (c30 players minus 11 starters, 7 subs)?

So you have ten lads, paid to be at the ground before kick off and during the game, with nothing to do.

And the Club is asking for people to do programmes and stuff.

I can see a very obvious solution here….
 
scousedom said:
Am I right in thinking all first team players are contractually required to be at the ground on matchdays? I assume that’s from what, 130 or so to 6pm…?

Am I also right in assuming that there’s at least ten who won’t be in the squad each week (c30 players minus 11 starters, 7 subs)?

So you have ten lads, paid to be at the ground before kick off and during the game, with nothing to do.

And the Club is asking for people to do programmes and stuff.

I can see a very obvious solution here….
Click to expand...
I've no idea whether non-contract players are paid anything when not selected, or under any sort of obligations on match days, but there certainly won't be 30 players under contract. Some will be non-contract and free to leave whenever it suits, as Lovett and Chalobah have just done. Most other clubs will have some sort of second team, whether that's U21 or academy, as we did until Gavin Rose departed. Having 30 registered players isn't excessive, the issue for us is not having a second XI to keep them all active and match fit. I'm sure we had academy players assisting with various matchday duties in the past, although some of the players omitted from the squad normally participate in the pre-match warm-up, as was the case yesterday.
 
scousedom said:
Am I right in thinking all first team players are contractually required to be at the ground on matchdays? I assume that’s from what, 130 or so to 6pm…?

Am I also right in assuming that there’s at least ten who won’t be in the squad each week (c30 players minus 11 starters, 7 subs)?

So you have ten lads, paid to be at the ground before kick off and during the game, with nothing to do.

And the Club is asking for people to do programmes and stuff.

I can see a very obvious solution here….
Click to expand...
I hope the comment about players selling programmes and stuff is tongue in cheek. If not, it’s perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen on Durban. Strange though it may seem, all player contracts are solely for playing football not doing any task the club asks them to do.

All players must report to the ground if directed to do so by the manager, in the same way they must stay away if told to do so.

Non contract players are paid when not playing if a wage has been agreed with them. However some may actually not be paid whether playing or not. They can also be released without notice.
 
liamdhfc said:
I hope the comment about players selling programmes and stuff is tongue in cheek. If not, it’s perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen on Durban. Strange though it may seem, all player contracts are solely for playing football not doing any task the club asks them to do.

All players must report to the ground if directed to do so by the manager, in the same way they must stay away if told to do so.

Non contract players are paid when not playing if a wage has been agreed with them. However some may actually not be paid whether playing or not. They can also be released without notice.
Click to expand...
A little of column A a little of column B.

They’re semi-pros at the seventh level of football. This is hardly asking Mo Salah to shift scarves in the club shop (though I suspect he’d be bang into that, as it happens).

They’re being paid by the club, or some of them are, and the club apparently has this huge need for volunteers - although maybe that need wouldn’t be so pressing if it didn’t have seventeen fullbacks or whatever it is on its books.

I’d say that a potentially good test of whether a player is a good fit for the club - team player, lack of ego - is if it’s put to him “you’re doing nothing, you could help out over there, you’ll improve the day for some fans and get to meet a few of them and generally mingle” and he jumps at the chance he’s a keeper; if he thinks it’s beneath him, well, maybe he’s not right.

At the very least it might motivate some fringe players to try a bit harder to make the matchday squad, or to move themselves on if they aren’t. Which wouldn’t be bad things.

And it might send a message to the fanbase that the club is trying to think creatively about its apparent addiction to free labour, even in the era of 3,000+ gates week in, week out.
 
scousedom said:
A little of column A a little of column B.

They’re semi-pros at the seventh level of football. This is hardly asking Mo Salah to shift scarves in the club shop (though I suspect he’d be bang into that, as it happens).

They’re being paid by the club, or some of them are, and the club apparently has this huge need for volunteers - although maybe that need wouldn’t be so pressing if it didn’t have seventeen fullbacks or whatever it is on its books.

I’d say that a potentially good test of whether a player is a good fit for the club - team player, lack of ego - is if it’s put to him “you’re doing nothing, you could help out over there, you’ll improve the day for some fans and get to meet a few of them and generally mingle” and he jumps at the chance he’s a keeper; if he thinks it’s beneath him, well, maybe he’s not right.

At the very least it might motivate some fringe players to try a bit harder to make the matchday squad, or to move themselves on if they aren’t. Which wouldn’t be bad things.

And it might send a message to the fanbase that the club is trying to think creatively about its apparent addiction to free labour, even in the era of 3,000+ gates week in, week out.
Click to expand...
Just the small matter of being clearly in breach of the standard FA contract.
In terms of motivation, I think it would only motivate players not to ever join a club that makes such ridiculous demands.
There are many ways to get players to want to move on that won’t guarantee the club a letter from an employment lawyer, the FA and PFA & won’t make it a club no player wants to join. Just because they aren’t in the team doesn’t mean they have a poor attitude or they aren’t trying.
 
liamdhfc said:
Just the small matter of being clearly in breach of the standard FA contract.
In terms of motivation, I think it would only motivate players not to ever join a club that makes such ridiculous demands.
There are many ways to get players to want to move on that won’t guarantee the club a letter from an employment lawyer, the FA and PFA & won’t make it a club no player wants to join. Just because they aren’t in the team doesn’t mean they have a poor attitude or they aren’t trying.
Click to expand...
Okay. So that tells you why you can’t tell existing players on existing contracts to do that. But it doesn’t rule out in the slightest asking them.

I’m just approaching this how any sensible business would that found it had a surplus of labour in one department and a shortage in another. Short term it would try to temporarily reallocate people from the area with too many staff to the area with too few. Longer term it would correct the hiring imbalance.

Which is really the point I’m trying to make. The club wants what, 4-5 volunteers on a matchday for say 4 hours a time? Call it 20 hours labour at LLW of £12 is £240. Call it 25 home games out of a 40 week season and that pro ratas to £150 a week cost.

Wage budget is what, £6k a week? I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong there but it’s one of those things that are transparent only to a few people. But I think that’s what it was in the last Isthmian season. £6k spread over 30 footballers averages… £200 a week.

In other words if the club could make do without its thirtieth best player, it could pay for those volunteers. Emphasising again that a club getting 3,000 on the regular has no business not paying people to do work it wants done.
 
scousedom said:
Okay. So that tells you why you can’t tell existing players on existing contracts to do that. But it doesn’t rule out in the slightest asking them.

I’m just approaching this how any sensible business would that found it had a surplus of labour in one department and a shortage in another. Short term it would try to temporarily reallocate people from the area with too many staff to the area with too few. Longer term it would correct the hiring imbalance.

Which is really the point I’m trying to make. The club wants what, 4-5 volunteers on a matchday for say 4 hours a time? Call it 20 hours labour at LLW of £12 is £240. Call it 25 home games out of a 40 week season and that pro ratas to £150 a week cost.

Wage budget is what, £6k a week? I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong there but it’s one of those things that are transparent only to a few people. But I think that’s what it was in the last Isthmian season. £6k spread over 30 footballers averages… £200 a week.

In other words if the club could make do without its thirtieth best player, it could pay for those volunteers. Emphasising again that a club getting 3,000 on the regular has no business not paying people to do work it wants don
Click to expand...
A player contract is a standard FA form that cannot be varied, therefore it rules out asking them until such time as the FA think your idea is a good one.

A business that is operating within its budget would not feel it has a surplus of labour, it would feel it had cover for all eventualities. The team needs no more than 18 players for any game and 16 for most, in your opinion how many players should it have to ensure it never has less than that?

In terms of volunteers it has generally sought 50/50 sellers, programme sellers & media work. Should the TRust pay people to operate the shop or should the club pay them? If they get paid, should their entrance cost be deducted from their salary or should that be a perk?

Programme & 50/50 sellers are pre match when the players will be part of the build up and likely to be warming up, undergoing physio etc. Or maybe the player has been told to stay away, should they instead be told to come in and volunteer?

The media role requires a particular skillset and so should the club ask every player if they have skills as a commentator, cxamera operator or editor when signing them? Should we not employ analysts because the "spare" players can do the job?

The truth is that the manager is set a budget and is able to assess the players he needs within that budget. If he feels he can pay it all to 1 player and get the rest for free, that is his prerogative. If he wants to ensure he has cover for every position, that is also his shout. Therefore, what you are really asking is for the playing budget to be reduced and spent on other forms of paid labour. Also, it is ridiculous to judge players on a 1-30 basis as their importance to the club will depend on others form and availability. If the 30th best player (as you put it) happens to be the only goalkeeper available he becomes the most important we have.

What about the club board, the articles allow for them to be paid. Considering they give up more time than most fans should they be paid? Or is that a different type of volunteering? Maybe the club should stop paying London Living Wage for jobs other clubs use volunteers or minimum wage staff to fulfill. Would you approve of that?

Volunteering is a choice and on a personal level I can say I would not wish to be paid for what I do, as I do not want to feel the club can dictate what I do when my main job may require something at the same time. However, others may feel differently. If they do, then don't do it. Players are not fans and do not have the same affinity as them. To expect otherwise is just not realistic.

I am not going to change your view so I'll stop there. However, the whole suggestion is completely unworkable legally and practically and, on that basis, is not a solution to either better playing results or reducing the need for volunteers. If roles don't get filled then it is fans & the community who are inconvenienced as the programme is not a crucial source of club income and can be taken online without any financial loss, whilstthe 50/50 income is given to various community projects and charities. If video and radio coverage are not available, it may ultimetely affect income, but will initially inconvenience current fans who may not be able to make games but want to stay in touch with the club.

I don't want to stifle debate so I will leavce my opinion at that and, as promised, ensure the board are aware of the views being expressed so they can consider your suggestion.
 
Last edited:
liamdhfc said:
A player contract is a standard FA form that cannot be varied, therefore it rules out asking them until such time as the FA think your idea is a good one.

A business that is operating within its budget would not feel it has a surplus of labour, it would feel it had cover for all eventualities. The team needs no more than 18 players for any game and 16 for most, in your opinion how many players should it have to ensure it never has less than that?

In terms of volunteers it has generally sought 50/50 sellers, programme sellers & media work. Should the TRust pay people to operate the shop or should the club pay them? If they get paid, should their entrance cost be deducted from their salary or should that be a perk?

Programme & 50/50 sellers are pre match when the players will be part of the build up and likely to be warming up, undergoing physio etc. Or maybe the player has been told to stay away, should they instead be told to come in and volunteer?

The media role requires a particular skillset and so should the club ask every player if they have skills as a commentator, cxamera operator or editor when signing them? Should we not employ analysts because the "spare" players can do the job?

The truth is that the manager is set a budget and is able to assess the players he needs within that budget. If he feels he can pay it all to 1 player and get the rest for free, that is his prerogative. If he wants to ensure he has cover for every position, that is also his shout. Therefore, what you are really asking is for the playing budget to be reduced and spent on other forms of paid labour. Also, it is ridiculous to judge players on a 1-30 basis as their importance to the club will depend on others form and availability. If the 30th best player (as you put it) happens to be the only goalkeeper available he becomes the most important we have.

What about the club board, the articles allow for them to be paid. Considering they give up more time than most fans should they be paid? Or is that a different type of volunteering? Maybe the club should stop paying London Living Wage for jobs other clubs use volunteers or minimum wage staff to fulfill. Would you approve of that?

Volunteering is a choice and on a personal level I can say I would not wish to be paid for what I do, as I do not want to feel the club can dictate what I do when my main job may require something at the same time. However, others may feel differently. If they do, then don't do it. Players are not fans and do not have the same affinity as them. To expect otherwise is just not realistic.

I am not going to change your view so I'll stop there. However, the whole suggestion is completely unworkable legally and practically and, on that basis, is not a solution to either better playing results or reducing the need for volunteers. If roles don't get filled then it is fans & the community who are inconvenienced as the programme is not a crucial source of club income and can be taken online without any financial loss, whilstthe 50/50 income is given to various community projects and charities. If video and radio coverage are not available, it may ultimetely affect income, but will initially inconvenience current fans who may not be able to make games but want to stay in touch with the club.

I don't want to stifle debate so I will leavce my opinion at that and, as promised, ensure the board are aware of the views being expressed so they can consider your suggestion.
Click to expand...

I could nitpick through this but in the spirit of mutually drawing a line I won't, I'll just say thank you for putting it forward.

To be clear though, the thing to put forward is not "Get players to do programme selling", it's "When you're getting 3,000 through the gate, it's maybe time to stop expecting people to volunteer, when they can see how much money is coming in and when they can see how much money is going out on a huge squad." Peoples' perceptions of the club have moved on from a few years ago now it's become something very different; the club's perceptions of itself need to move with that. Paying someone you don't need to do nothing while not paying people you do need to do something (and that something maybe not getting done as a result) isn't a great idea imo. And budgeting probably needs to change to reflect that.

I'd just add as well that one thing I remember most from volunteering for the big clear up day when we came back to Champion Hill was when Michael Chambers came along do help. Didn't have to, maybe wasn't asked to, certainly wasn't contracted to... But he came down to pitch in. If more players in the squad had that attitude of "what can can I do to help" maybe they wouldn't be in a relegation battle.
 
It’s interesting comparing this to the vibe I’m getting at Clapton where players regularly come down to help out. For example at a recent women’s game the first team men’s captain was serving behind the bar whilst others were helping out around the ground. Understandably it’s difficult to compare as many of these players have been involved with CCFC through thick and thin including getting the OSD up to playing standard again but it’s not something they are contracted to do, it’s just doing “the right thing”.
 
Stuart Fordyce said:
Well, given we have roughly half the 30 players not even getting onto the bench on a match day, what do they do?
Click to expand...
That's entirely up to the manager, but most will be there and have to train, others will be in for pre match treatment, some will be part of the squad but ultimtely left out. Most clubs have very similar squad sizes to ours, which will be trimmed down over time.

I am happy to take to the board that they reduce the budget and invest in paying people to do all the roles, as the club does not generate a massive surplus.

The club pays out a lot of money other than players wages (rent, rates, pitch maintenance across stadium & training ground, repairs etc). In fact, the club's player wages to income ratio is probably amongst the lowest in any semi-professional team. I believe I was told it is somewhere below 25% in a league where many will be 100% plus.
 
Paula_G said:
It’s interesting comparing this to the vibe I’m getting at Clapton where players regularly come down to help out. For example at a recent women’s game the first team men’s captain was serving behind the bar whilst others were helping out around the ground. Understandably it’s difficult to compare as many of these players have been involved with CCFC through thick and thin including getting the OSD up to playing standard again but it’s not something they are contracted to do, it’s just doing “the right thing”.
Click to expand...
As an occasional visitor to Clapton home and away games, I get that vibe too. Some of it is buying into the particular CCFC ethos & history but is some of it also that at that level it is closer to "traditional" non-league football. Is it the same at Peckham?
That's rather than the bloated upper reaches of The Pyramid where Step 7 clubs are full of players who have led a sheltered existence in the professional game for years and in cases appear to be slumming it at this level.
I'm not suggesting telling players to volunteer - if they are decent people like Chambers they might do the decent thing and if not their agent will find an excuse for them not to.
(And as a volunteer for stuff, I never sought "payment" - I reserved the right to volunteer or not. If I got a free programme or a free pint or whatever, then great.)
 
AveryDave said:
Elliot Romain is gone. Pursuing opportunities outside of football. Nailed on he scores at least two against us by the end of the season.

www.pitchero.com

PLAYER NEWS | Elliot Romain

Player Update
www.pitchero.com www.pitchero.com
Click to expand...
He had a good pedigree and formed a very effective partnership with Darren McQueen at dartford a few years ago, but he seems to have been plagued by injuries recently. He was at Chelmsford and Welling in pre-season before we landed him, and simply never fired for us in between injuries except for the crucial first goal against Concord.
 
Pink Panther said:
He had a good pedigree and formed a very effective partnership with Darren McQueen at dartford a few years ago, but he seems to have been plagued by injuries recently. He was at Chelmsford and Welling in pre-season before we landed him, and simply never fired for us in between injuries except for the crucial first goal against Concord.
Click to expand...
Had high hopes for Romain, almost falling into the 'too good to be true' category of signings at Isthmian level - and unfortunately that's turned out to be the case. Clearly unresolved issues with his fitness put pay to a move to an NLS club in the summer, and he's never looked like performing at full speed for us.

Hopefully there's an opportunity for Hayrettin to bring in a bit more mobility up top to give a different option to Mills and Clifton. We desperately need someone who can play on the last defender’s shoulder and cause problems with pace in behind.
 
Last edited:
lwrs79 said:
We have to replace Romaine. Only 2 strikers in the squad and neither convince they can play week in week out or score enough goals. Hopefully an opportunity for a great loanee from up the leagues who’s hungry and of a greater quality than what we have.
Click to expand...
What about Pingling?
 
tonysingh said:
Chris Dickson has signed for Chatham Town. We know what that means for New Years Day.....

www.chathamtownfc.com

CHATS SIGN CHRIS DICKSON - Chatham Town FC

Chatham Town are pleased to welcome the signing of Chris Dickson from Erith & Belvedere. The centre-forward has kitted out for the likes of Gillignham, Bristol Rovers and Charlton Athletic in the past.
www.chathamtownfc.com www.chathamtownfc.com
Click to expand...

Just realised I put that in wrong place. Bollocks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
Just leaving that to hang like the bad fart it is...
2 3 4
Replies
112
Views
7K
DulwichHFC
D
R
O/T it's legal to tap up managers in this league
Replies
1
Views
533
Ben Clasper
B
1927
Has Crouch/Hamlet been beaten to it?
Replies
3
Views
633
blueheaven
B
F
London senior cup 2022/23 (it's better than the Turvey...)
Replies
14
Views
2K
Stuart Fordyce
S
sleaterkinney
We hate Tooting and Mitcham
2 3
Replies
64
Views
5K
PhilDHFC
P
Back
Top Bottom