Football Focus

[south_tyne]

3 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Well the players wanted to go "professional" and it's been going downhill ever since... Though on the bright side some working class lads have ended up as millionaires...

 

Yep. I don't begrudge any of them earning what they do in a personal basis. It's a short career and if someone is willing to pay you hundreds of thousands of pounds a week then snap their hand off! The money simply doesn't trickle down through the pyramid and that is where I think change is needed. People have been saying that for decades mind and ultimately the free-market will just do it's thing 

 

3 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

At £6.756 per hour an easy afternoons work!

 

 

Not a bad gig if you can get it!

[BoD]

I blame Jimmy Hill.

[Hobby]

7 minutes ago, south_tyne said:

The money simply doesn't trickle down through the pyramid

 

Have you looked at the wages for many non league side players recently? OK not on the level of the top Prem sides but far better than most of us could earn, You create an open market and that's what happens. Businesses go under all the time and new ones start up, the way this discussion is going would seem as though football clubs going bust is something new, as far as I am aware it isn't. Sometimes it's best to let go and move on.

 

(And no, I am not jealous, if they are good enough then fair enough, but it's not just the top players that are on very good money)

[peanuts]

 

 

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

Have you looked at the wages for many non league side players recently? OK not on the level of the top Prem sides but far better than most of us could earn, You create an open market and that's what happens. Businesses go under all the time and new ones start up, the way this discussion is going would seem as though football clubs going bust is something new, as far as I am aware it isn't. Sometimes it's best to let go and move on.

 

(And no, I am not jealous, if they are good enough then fair enough, but it's not just the top players that are on very good money)

but thats just it if my club was to go bust myself and many other supporters of my club cannot countanace letting it go and moving on its in your bloody its our club the "owners " are just custodions at the time the fans are the club allways have and always will be and thats what these owners need to learn the clubs were there before them and will be long after thet are gone 

[62613]

4 hours ago, south_tyne said:

Considering the struggles of so many smaller clubs, many of which we have discussed here, the 'dilemma' faced by Gareth Bale in deciding whether to move to China for a wage of £1m a week is simply obscene...... It's not Bale's fault, someone is willing to pay him and that so why wouldn't you go if you were in his shoes, but it just lays out starkly the contrast between the 'haves' and 'have nots' in the game. My club nearly went to the wall only weeks ago for a relatively miniscule debt and was then sold for princely sum of £26,000........ Mr Bale probably makes that in an afternoon...... 

 

I don't know where £1 million comes in Gateshead terms, but I reckon that's about 3 seasons' turnover for us.

 

[62613]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

Have you looked at the wages for many non league side players recently? OK not on the level of the top Prem sides but far better than most of us could earn, You create an open market and that's what happens. Businesses go under all the time and new ones start up, the way this discussion is going would seem as though football clubs going bust is something new, as far as I am aware it isn't. Sometimes it's best to let go and move on.

 

(And no, I am not jealous, if they are good enough then fair enough, but it's not just the top players that are on very good money)

 

Go on then? At our level (Northern Premier League Premier division), I reckon it probably averages £300-£400 per week. Indeed, you hear about semi-professional players not wanting to go full-time because their part time football wage plus normal salary exceeds any full-time football wage they could get. Remember also that the vast majority of non-league players aren't on contract, and only get paid for football from August until the end of April.

[south_tyne]

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

Have you looked at the wages for many non league side players recently?

 

OK, I accept that wages at non-league level have increased but it isn't across the board and isn't very sustainable. I'll talk about my club because I know a little about it... at Gateshead over the last few years the average salary has been around £500-600 a week. That's a good wage for this part of the world..... however..... They are professional footballers. It is always a one-year deal. There is no job security. It is a short career. You couldn't get a mortgage given the contract. You will be looking anxiously to the end of the season all the time, worried about getting a new deal. Granted you're living your dream but it is far from glamorous or long-term. Our too earners have been paid about £1,000 a week - still not a massive amount given all the above caveats. This season, given our enforced demotion and significantly reduced budget the players won't be on anywhere near that too bracket. 

 

Obviously there are the Salford Citys of this world who pay megabucks, but it isn't the norm. I remember seeing them at Spennymoor about 5 or 6 years ago and the rumour was that Danny Webber was on £800 a week... in the NPL! Things have moved on to Adam Rooney levels now..... But I doubt that boom translates to other local clubs such as a Stalybridge Celtic (as just one example). Then look what happens when a club does over-reach itself, there is another local example in Hyde and even Stockport as a fallen giant. Someone with more local knowledge may say I am talking rubbish though!

 

Again in the last few years we have lost players to other local semi-pro clubs. Players can earn more by having a part-time contract at Spenny, Darlo or Blyth and then having another part-time job on the side, often in coaching or fitness. This also means you are better prepared for life after football by having career options and experience in the bag. That is a better option than being a 'professional footballer' at Gateshead. It's easier on the lifestyle too, particularly family relationships, no travelling to Torquay, Dover, Eastleigh etc. 

 

I'm playing devil's advocate a little but the non-league game is not awash with money and the life of a player at National League level is not a bad of roses. 

 

I'll stop waffling... sorry everyone  

Edited July 23, 2019 by south_tyne
Edit: it took me so long to write that post that I hadn't read 62613's excellent post above when composing mine. Very similar points though!

[south_tyne]

57 minutes ago, 62613 said:

 

I don't know where £1 million comes in Gateshead terms, but I reckon that's about 3 seasons' turnover for us.

 

 

It will have been 2 when trying to complete in the National League, but probably 3 now given our demotion and slashed budget. 

[south_tyne]

51 minutes ago, 62613 said:

. Remember also that the vast majority of non-league players aren't on contract, and only get paid for football from August until the end of April.

 

This has definitely been the case at Gateshead over the last couple of years. 

[lightengine]

5 hours ago, south_tyne said:

Considering the struggles of so many smaller clubs, many of which we have discussed here, the 'dilemma' faced by Gareth Bale in deciding whether to move to China for a wage of £1m a week is simply obscene...... It's not Bale's fault, someone is willing to pay him and that so why wouldn't you go if you were in his shoes, but it just lays out starkly the contrast between the 'haves' and 'have nots' in the game. My club nearly went to the wall only weeks ago for a relatively miniscule debt and was then sold for princely sum of £26,000........ Mr Bale probably makes that in an afternoon...... 

I wonder how many number 161's with fried rice and crackers he could get for that?

[south_tyne]

48 minutes ago, lightengine said:

I wonder how many number 161's with fried rice and crackers he could get for that?

 

With a wage like that he could fly them in from his favourite takeaway in Cardiff! 

[Hobby]

There's a lot of "owner" knocking going on but it's also worth bearing in mind that there's loads of clubs who wouldn't exist if it wasn't for some individual putting in their hard earned cash. I don't agree with this notion that supporters "own" the club. The actual owner is equally as important. 

[south_tyne]

5 hours ago, Hobby said:

There's a lot of "owner" knocking going on but it's also worth bearing in mind that there's loads of clubs who wouldn't exist if it wasn't for some individual putting in their hard earned cash. I don't agree with this notion that supporters "own" the club. The actual owner is equally as important. 

 

Agreed. There are good owners, bad owners and some indifferent ones. Sadly there are too many rogues around though. 

 

One of the things is that it comes down to the age old debate about what a club actually is. Is it the owner? The players? The fans? The infrastructure? The community? Are the current people involved simply custodians of a bigger thing, passing through and handing it on? Where does the history fit in? Are Gateshead the same club as in 1930, having twice been reformed? I don't think the supporters "own" the club but they are "stakeholders" (I normally hate that phrase but it does seem to be apt here) in whatever the football club actually is. I invest in a season ticket every year and, whilst I know way expect to be involved in any decision making, I feel that my opinion, and that of the supporters as a collective should be heard. 

[lightengine]

6 hours ago, south_tyne said:

 

With a wage like that he could fly them in from his favourite takeaway in Cardiff! 

Ooh er, Cardiff & flying.

[lightengine]

NUFC has signed a goal scorer. He hasn't scored that many but he cost a lot. Joe Linton or similar name. BBC sports correspondent thinks NUFC may sell him in 3 years for twice the money.

 

And now for something completely serious.

[Enterprisingwestern]

12 hours ago, south_tyne said:

 

Agreed. There are good owners, bad owners and some indifferent ones. Sadly there are too many rogues around though. 

 

One of the things is that it comes down to the age old debate about what a club actually is. Is it the owner? The players? The fans? The infrastructure? The community? Are the current people involved simply custodians of a bigger thing, passing through and handing it on? Where does the history fit in? Are Gateshead the same club as in 1930, having twice been reformed? I don't think the supporters "own" the club but they are "stakeholders" (I normally hate that phrase but it does seem to be apt here) in whatever the football club actually is. I invest in a season ticket every year and, whilst I know way expect to be involved in any decision making, I feel that my opinion, and that of the supporters as a collective should be heard. 

 

Whilst fully agreeing with your sentiments, I think supporters are more and more becoming interested bystanders. Except for the clubs which have been taken over by the supporters, the actual "owners" of the club carry on as though supporters don't really count in the grand scheme of things, using them varyingly as cash cows to generate a bit more income or being totally ignored as the club is globalised.

 

Mike.

[Torper]

A couple of little snippets from the lower reaches of Scottish football...........Berwick, who are playing in the Scottish League Cup notwithstanding their relegation to the Lowland League, have now conceded 40+ goals since they last scored one, and on a happier note Fort William beat Rosyth FC 6-0 in a friendly last week. (Rosyth, I should add, appear to play in something called the McBookie.com South Division, several tiers below the Highland League, but nevertheless it must have been an unusually happy day for The Fort's strikers).

 

DT

[Hobby]

51 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Whilst fully agreeing with your sentiments, I think supporters are more and more becoming interested bystanders. Except for the clubs which have been taken over by the supporters, the actual "owners" of the club carry on as though supporters don't really count in the grand scheme of things, using them varyingly as cash cows to generate a bit more income or being totally ignored as the club is globalised.

 

I feel that you've let your rose tinted glasses work overtime for you, I feel that it's always been that way, once a club became professional supporters have never meant anything other than income for the club, despite what people may think.

[Enterprisingwestern]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

I feel that you've let your rose tinted glasses work overtime for you, I feel that it's always been that way, once a club became professional supporters have never meant anything other than income for the club, despite what people may think.

 

I fully agree, but in the good old days when football wasn't awash with money at least it "seemed" as though the supporters were respected.

 

Mike.

[Hobby]

With respect when was that? If you had a rich owner in the 50s and 60s you'd benefit just as now. Clubs have been owned by rich businessmen "indulging" themselves since the early part of the 20thC and for the clubs with the rich owners they were "awash with money" though on a relative level for the times! There's been several films made with that as the story line (rugby as well as football). I agree nowadays it's more pronounced but that's as much to do with sponsorship (TV, local and national) than rich owners and has also been around for a long time... I was recently watching an early feature film about the fictional story of a speedway rider before and after WW2 and was surprised just how much money they used to make and how cynical the business was... Nothing has changed except the sports which have benefited have changed over the years.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Hobby

[Enterprisingwestern]

7 hours ago, Hobby said:

With respect when was that? If you had a rich owner in the 50s and 60s you'd benefit just as now. Clubs have been owned by rich businessmen "indulging" themselves since the early part of the 20thC and for the clubs with the rich owners they were "awash with money" though on a relative level for the times! There's been several films made with that as the story line (rugby as well as football). I agree nowadays it's more pronounced but that's as much to do with sponsorship (TV, local and national) than rich owners and has also been around for a long time... I was recently watching an early feature film about the fictional story of a speedway rider before and after WW2 and was surprised just how much money they used to make and how cynical the business was... Nothing has changed except the sports which have benefited have changed over the years.

 

I did say seemed!

Probably it was youthful ignorance, and the fact that information was harder to come by so we concentrated on the team?

 

Mike.

[Torper]

Happile, I think, the team I supprt has never had a wealthy owner - in fact, it's never had an owner as such, being run by a committee answerable to numerous small shareholders.  I don't see any likelihood of a wealthy owner becoming involved in the future, and hope that one doesn't.  In Scottish football the most infamous example of the "rags to riches" story of a wealthy owber and a small club was of course Gretna, basically a village team that played in the Northern Premier League until 2002 when it was elected into the Scottish league system.  Bouyed up by millionaire Brook Mileson's money and able to afford far better players than their league status would suggest they won the Division Three, Division Two and Division One titles in successive seasons from 2005 to 2007 and lost to Hearts in the 2006 Cup Final.  In the 2007/8 season Gretna was in the Premier League where tbey were clearly out of their depth even before Mileson, in poor health and heavily in debt, withdrew financial support and in March 2008 the club went into administration, resigning from the SFL in June and being formally liquidated shortly afterwards.

 

Subsequently a new club, Gretna 2008, was formed - not a direct continuation of the old club but a completely new set up (a bit like the Rangers situation).  Gretna 2008 plays in the Lowland League.

 

DT

[south_tyne]

9 hours ago, Hobby said:

If you had a rich owner in the 50s and 60s you'd benefit just as now. Clubs have been owned by rich businessmen "indulging" themselves since the early part of the 20thC and for the clubs with the rich owners they were "awash with money" though on a relative level for the times!

 

Way back to Preston in the 19th Century. Then there was Sunderland in the '50s who were known as the 'Bank of England Club' due to their excess spending. Then in the 1960s the two most sucessful teams were Spurs and Burnley. The latter had the infamous Bob Lord putting money in, local butcher made good, and causing controversy. 

 

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

Probably it was youthful ignorance, and the fact that information was harder to come by so we concentrated on the team?

 

 

I think you are probably right. In days past you simply didn't know what was really going on at a football club. Now in the Sky Sports News generation we demand data and facts 24/7 and seem to be able to find out every last detail about our clubs. 

 

1 hour ago, Torper said:

In Scottish football the most infamous example of the "rags to riches" story of a wealthy owber and a small club was of course Gretna, basically a village team that played in the Northern Premier League until 2002 when it was elected into the Scottish league system. 

 

The Gretna story is a fascinating one but ultimately sad in the way it ended. One man's money in the form of Mr Mileson, one man's drive and ambition too. It was never sustainable though as the support just wasn't there. Interestingly Mileson also provided sponsorship of the Northern League for many years until his passing. 

 

The non-league game has numerous examples going back years... Colne Dynamoes and Rushden and Diamonds to name but two. 

 

Heck we can even go back to Bishop Auckland, the kings of 'amateur' football in the 1950s. Serial Amateur Cup winners, Bob Hardisty and co were paid vast amounts through the 'money in the boots' system. The goalie of that famous team, Harry Sharratt, travelled from Bury to County Durham each Saturday because the money was so good. Goes to show that rich owners and big wages have always made the football world go round, at every level of the game. Human nature is nearly always just to follow the money.........

[Hobby]

I often wish we could get rid of 24/7 News...

[south_tyne]

It was great to see Leigh Griffiths back for Celtic last night and getting on the score sheet. He has clearly been through a tough time recently but he has done a marvellous job in raising awareness of depression and mental health issues by openly talking about it in the media. I for one really commend him for this. 

 

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

I often wish we could get rid of 24/7 News...

 

The above shows one positive aspect and impact of our rolling news society, but in all honestly I completely agree with you...... and also the smart ar$e$ who want to comment on everything and drone on with their own opinions!   (Firmly tongue in cheek and aimed solely at myself when I ramble on and bore everyone with my football drivel )

 

Anyway, back to painting those rail sides.........