Clubs want format changed

[pineapple stu]

In simple terms, if a club can sustain a player budget of say €560k (16 players at €35k) then the issue is whether this will attract the desired players to be full time. It may of course mean a mix of full time and part time.

Look what happened Galway when they went exactly this route last season. They signed rubbish players purely because they'd go fully-pro,and ended up well adrift at the bottom of the league. Then they can't afford to pay them any more, changed the team to include local part-time players and did much better.

If a player is offered E35k to play full-time football in Ireland or to stack shelves in Tesco, he'll stack shelves. Don't be under any illusions about that.

[Ezeikial]

Look what happened Galway when they went exactly this route last season. They signed rubbish players purely because they'd go fully-pro,and ended up well adrift at the bottom of the league. Then they can't afford to pay them any more, changed the team to include local part-time players and did much better.

I'm not sure what point you are making about Galway, or how it relates to the previous post. If you are saying that the only full time players available to them were poorer quality then the part time players available, clearly this is a reflection on the manager for signing them.

In any case their player budget was clearly not realistic or sustainable if If they could not pay them. If they were paying the players an average of €35k, clearly paying them €50k would not have improved their solvency.

If a player is offered E35k to play full-time football in Ireland or to stack shelves in Tesco, he'll stack shelves. Don't be under any illusions about that.

Some would and some would not.

[pineapple stu]

Some would and some would not.

Which is exactly my point. You will need to offer people more money to be full-time footballers because of the risk involved. That's reality, which is shown by the fact that Galway tried to sign only full-time players and ended up with a rubbish squad. So when you described my post as "logical, but not necessarily the reality", I'm actually showing you that it is the reality, and has already happened.

[Ezeikial]

Which is exactly my point. You will need to offer people more money to be full-time footballers because of the risk involved. That's reality, which is shown by the fact that Galway tried to sign only full-time players and ended up with a rubbish squad. So when you described my post as "logical, but not necessarily the reality", I'm actually showing you that it is the reality, and has already happened.

No you have not shown this to be the reality. Your posts inferred that all would opt out of full time football at €35k.

While there are loads of examples where players have opted for part time football because of inadequate financial rewards, similarly there are loads of examples where players are playing full time at the level of €35k. The vast majority of full time players at Dundalk are on less then €35k.

Pay circa €50k a year and more (but not all) will opt for full time - Shane Barrett is one example that comes to mind where €50k is unlikely to entice him full time.

But the starting point is not what players would like - it's what is sustainable for the club. This, along with issues like the general economy and jobs market, determines whether a club can go full time, part time or a mix of the two.

[pineapple stu]

Your posts inferred that all would opt out of full time football at €35k.

No they haven't. Firstly, the figure I'm picking is arbitrary, and secondly, I've clearly indicated that a few will take it - see the Galway example - but that the reality is that many won't take full-time football at E35k (unless, obviously, they're unemployed or students). Also, I don't believe that the Dundalk players are all full-time on E35k.

But the starting point is not what players would like - it's what is sustainable for the club.

The starting point is absolutely what the players want; if they don't want to sign, your plan's out the window.

Actually - just looking back at your posts and mine; you actually by and large agree with me (you set a "minimum benchmark" at E50k), yet you're still arguing? Very strange person!

[A face]

I've a horrible feeling I'm missing some terribly clever pun here.

I'm sure there are loads there, and i do see the irony in my opinion given the absolutely disastrous situation we are in right now but you have to take into account that Arkaga and TNB & co are two groups of people who should never be let into a football ground not to mind run a football club. Every City fan right now will tell you that we have a whole lot of walking to do, and running isn't even on the radar when we do start.

[pineapple stu]

Read his post. You put "run before we walk" in error.

[A face]

Actually - just looking back at your posts and mine; you actually by and large agree with me (you set a "minimum benchmark" at E50k), yet you're still arguing? Very strange person!

But he is for a pro setup (from what i gather) and you are not, hence the debate.

[pineapple stu]

I'm for a pro set-up if it can be achieved too. We both agree that you'll have to pay higher to get it (he sets the benchmark at E50k; I suggested E40k).

However, full-time players aren't necessarily better than part-time players, as Galway proved.

[Ezeikial]

Actually - just looking back at your posts and mine; you actually by and large agree with me (you set a "minimum benchmark" at E50k), yet you're still arguing? Very strange person!

You very easily slot into personal stuff, and have the hard neck to warn others when they do so. Nevertheless I will try to refrain from responding at your level.

Its also hypocritical of you to accuse me of arguing. If I disagree with you, or you misrepresent me, I am entitled to respond.

Go back and re-read my post on how I defined the "minium benchmark" of €50k.

No they haven't. Firstly, the figure I'm picking is arbitrary, and secondly, I've clearly indicated that a few will take it - see the Galway example - but that the reality is that many won't take full-time football at E35k (unless, obviously, they're unemployed or students).

Your previous posts (below) spell out clearly your belief that "you" (whoever the heck that is) would take a job stacking shelves in preference to pro football at the same money. I wouldn't, and IMO the vast majority of people would play full time football given this option

If you were offered, say, a job in a shop for E35k where you knew you'd be kept for years if you wanted and a job as a footballer for E35k where you could be relegated or injured or released after one season and effectively made redundant, you'd take the safer job.

If a player is offered E35k to play full-time football in Ireland or to stack shelves in Tesco, he'll stack shelves. Don't be under any illusions about that.

Also, I don't believe that the Dundalk players are all full-time on E35k.

As usual, you will choose to believe whatever suits your thesis. What you want to believe is up to you, but the facts are that the majority of full-timers at Dundalk are on less then this money.

The starting point is absolutely what the players want; if they don't want to sign, your plan's out the window.

Complete and utter nonsense, and appears to me to be a complete 360 degree turnaround on what you have previously banged on about!

If any player won't sign at an amount that the club is able and willing to pay, the club have no sustainable option but to find an alternative player. If the starting point is player demands, clubs will continue to live beyond their means, and the Shelbourne, Cork, Drogheda, experiences will be repeated over and over again.

The starting and finishing point is what the clubs can sustain.

[dahamsta]

Lads, just drop the interpersonal stuff and concentrate in the topic in hand, both of ye, ok?

[Acornvilla]

kids these days i tells ya.... back in my day id make a fiver a week and i'd be delighted......

on a serious note 40k is complely acceptable to get for playing football regardles of risk. there are lots of people with regular jobs on less pay and have jobs which are arguably less secure at the moment

[pineapple stu]

Your previous posts (below) spell out clearly your belief that "you" (whoever the heck that is) would take a job stacking shelves in preference to pro football at the same money. I wouldn't, and IMO the vast majority of people would play full time football given this option

This, then, is our fundamental difference. I wouldn't touch a full-time football job at a wage I could get elsewhere given that -

(a) Playing full-time football doesn't build a career if your footballing career ends; even stacking shelves in Tesco offers promotion possibilities.
(b) You can't trust that, in this league, the wage you sign up to will be the wage you'll receive and
(c) I could supplement the hypothetical E35k I earn from my regular job with money from playing football part-time - in other words, playing football part-time is more often worth more than playing it full-time.

It's easy to be young and foolish and think that playing football is a dream job. Get older and get financial obligations, and you'll find people very quickly dropping out.

(BTW - dahamsta, when did you start visiting the LoI forum? )

[Ezeikial]

This, then, is our fundamental difference. I wouldn't touch a full-time football job at a wage I could get elsewhere

Great - I have no quibble with that view! In such a hypothetical situation you personally would opt for part time football.

In the real world, some will and some won't.

If clubs extend their outlay beyond what they can afford, to entice those that won't, they are headed for financial meltdown.

[gufc2000]

I agree with pineapple stu as regards as us being an example with full-timers. We found it extremely hard to entice good players to come and give up their jobs and play full-time football. Those that came were either rubbish or spent most of their time on the treatment table, besides a small minority who did well.

We are far better off this season, as the league table suggests. Full-time football isin't the be all and end all imo

[sheao]

I agree with pineapple stu as regards as us being an example with full-timers. We found it extremely hard to entice good players to come and give up their jobs and play full-time football. Those that came were either rubbish or spent most of their time on the treatment table, besides a small minority who did well.

We are far better off this season, as the league table suggests. Full-time football isin't the be all and end all imo

It is probably the only way forward for out league, we don't get the gates sadly for full time football to be sustainable.

[brianw82]

This, then, is our fundamental difference. I wouldn't touch a full-time football job at a wage I could get elsewhere given that -

(a) Playing full-time football doesn't build a career if your footballing career ends; even stacking shelves in Tesco offers promotion possibilities.
(b) You can't trust that, in this league, the wage you sign up to will be the wage you'll receive and
(c) I could supplement the hypothetical E35k I earn from my regular job with money from playing football part-time - in other words, playing football part-time is more often worth more than playing it full-time.

It's easy to be young and foolish and think that playing football is a dream job. Get older and get financial obligations, and you'll find people very quickly dropping out.

(BTW - dahamsta, when did you start visiting the LoI forum? )

I don't think most footballers in this league would give it that much thought!

[A face]

(c) I could supplement the hypothetical E35k I earn from my regular job with money from playing football part-time - in other words, playing football part-time is more often worth more than playing it full-time.

That whole post is a point well made but on the third point, you will get burnt out faster holding down a full time job and playing, travelling all over the country and your football will suffer as well.

Clubs will not be able to bring their standard of football up a level unless a manager can work with players on full time basis, and a players value, as an asset to a club, will not increase as much if still part-time. So as a result a part-time player will not realise his full potential, so like some people in other careers, they will take a hit on their wages if it means enabling them to progress within their industry.


One other thing on the topic that hasn't been said is that we all know the players playing career is a short one but they aren't rendered paralysed the minute they stop playing. They aren't on the scrapheap and only fit for the knackers yard. They have alot of opportunities when they finish up, one being they are fitter than most at the same age, which counts for alot. Also, for the most part, they are fairly well known in their home town and alot of the time they are known around the country. There is also the ability to work within a 30+ team, etc. which alot of HR managers will say is invaluable. Players can also study while they are playing, its up to themselves if their are motivated or not.

I think people make too much of this 'short playing career' thing given that nowadays people normally have 2-3 different careers during their working lifetime anyway.

[Acornvilla]

thank you a face you so eloquently put everything i wanted to say into words and better than i would have been able to! bravo!

[davidatrb]

But football has a much higher risk associated with it, for which a player needs to be compensated.

If you were offered, say, a job in a shop for E35k where you knew you'd be kept for years if you wanted and a job as a footballer for E35k where you could be relegated or injured or released after one season and effectively made redundant, you'd take the safer job.

If I was to choose between working in a shop for 35K or playing football for 10K, I would play football.

Every career you chop and change jobs. I feel a bit like an LOI footballer, dont think I've worked for the same employer for more than 2 years.