|
Post by tim on Mar 21, 2014 9:58:11 GMT
I think you'll find both Eastleigh and Salisbury don't rely on gates alone!
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Mar 21, 2014 11:55:57 GMT
I think you'll find both Eastleigh and Salisbury don't rely on gates alone! Which was totally my point, part of the 3G campaign is making clubs sustainable and not relying on "money men" coming in and bankrolling a club until the bubble bursts. Whitehawk being another classic example
|
|
|
Post by tim on Mar 21, 2014 13:58:12 GMT
I appreciate that otu, my comment was more aimed at Harry, that thought we could match Eastleigh and Salisbury because we get double the crowd! We also have to pay back a nice shiny new stadium! Which for Toons benefit I'm really happy to be in!
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Mar 21, 2014 14:04:02 GMT
I appreciate that otu, my comment was more aimed at Harry, that thought we could match Eastleigh and Salisbury because we get double the crowd! We also have to pay back a nice shiny new stadium! Which for Toons benefit I'm really happy to be in! Argh Tim, I'll get back in my box....this talk of turning pro, what players are good enough for Conf South are good enough etc....sends shivers down my spine ! Whilst I want us to progress (obviously) the jump in overheads from Ryman Prem to Conf South would be noticeable....another season in the Ryman Prem would be quite beneficial in ensuring the club had the strongest footing possible. How some clubs in the Conf South survive on those crowds is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Mar 21, 2014 14:52:40 GMT
Agreed otu, not a problem with not going up, another year or two without the 'week from L' type journeys is fine by me! I'd do a deal with the devil now, and accept the use of 3g pitches in 15/16 and still go home and away for the next 2 years and be happy! I would like to see a bit more of a plan on the pitch though!
|
|
|
Post by Sennockian69 on Mar 21, 2014 15:13:34 GMT
eeAgreed otu, not a problem with not going up, another year or two without the 'week from L' type journeys is fine by me! I'd do a deal with the devil now, and accept the use of 3g pitches in 15/16 and still go home and away for the next 2 years and be happy! I would like to see a bit more of a plan on the pitch though! I think we need players who are natural leaders on the pitch. We have too many " nice guys " in the team. We need bit of devil & determination in our team.
|
|
payno
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by payno on Mar 21, 2014 18:33:32 GMT
Give or take 2/3 of them I think by the time maidstone get promotion to the conference sth the majority of the squad of now won't be at the club anyway! It's a whole new ball game in that league and I think you' would have too get in proven players at the level, you have to plan as too the league your in! If you can recall Eastleigh in top 3 most of the season or boreham wood in the bottom half all season there was no real difference in there game plans and were both big strong organised physical units across the back and midfield with a couple of quick wingers/forwards! And that's how it rolls in that division! We wasn't a match for them on that basis so a big change in personnel would be needed!
|
|
|
Post by lucky1969 on Mar 21, 2014 19:07:56 GMT
So, on that basis, we would fill the side with replicas of personnel in all the other teams and rely on luck to get out of the division or stave off relegation? A little bit of originality might just be what is required! It would certainly make the opposition rethink how to combat the unfamiliarity of a different style of play!
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Mar 21, 2014 20:05:00 GMT
Harry - Unfortunately, the fact that clubs with much lower average gates than ours are full-time, does not mean we can afford to go full-time.
Just do the maths:
Assume av attendance at 1,800, assume average ticket £10 - av income per home game = £18,000.
23 homes games = average annual gate income of £414,000.
Assume average player salary of £30,000 - we can afford just under 14 players.
I've ignored other sources of income, but then I've also ignored ALL other costs. In reality, even with all sources of income taken into account, it is unlikely that we'd be able to afford even half a (small) full-time squad.
So any club with our sort of gates (or less), is having to fund their full time squads by other means - which almost certainly means building up debt. I would guess that only the top 4 clubs in your list can actually fund their full-time squad from income alone. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if only Luton can really afford it.
The other clubs are running up debts on the assumption that being full-time will eventually get them promoted, and get the crowds in, and enable them to pay the debt off - i.e. cloud cuckoo land.
We've been there - do you seriously want to go there again?
|
|
|
Post by harryhaddock on Mar 21, 2014 22:00:26 GMT
Just to be clear as I said in my first post, I think you've got the best chance to progress as a full time team. I didn't say we should definitely turn pro immediately! I'm simply saying that as a club with our resources it's a possibility and something the club could consider given the evidence of what teams with similar gates are choosing to do.
Both Alfreton and Nuneaton are doing great in the Conference Prem this season playing part time so there are options either way well beyond the Rymans just floating some thoughts on the forum. Not looking to take us down a road to ruin!!
|
|
|
Post by toonarmy on Mar 21, 2014 22:16:22 GMT
Let's wait and see what happens when or if we get promoted
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Mar 21, 2014 22:28:08 GMT
There was clearly a lot of scouts in the 2,296 (cough cough) crowd last Saturday, and with our stand out players on the day being Rooney and Worgan I'm over the moon to have secured the services of one of those 2 players, and yet again more great media coverage for us with Rooney going to Luton.
|
|
|
Post by pmh on Mar 22, 2014 22:00:32 GMT
Of the recent regular starting line-up, there are quite a few players who could/would be successful at player one tier higher for certain: Worgan - Yes Cox - Yes Sobers - Possibly Andrews - Not Likely Mill - Yes, but in his more usual position as left back Parkinson - Possibly in a holding midfield role, but not as a centre back Rooney - Yes Brown - Yes Flisher - Yes Atwood - Yes Collin - Possibly Stupid post mate. Collin is a former golden boot winner and then joint top scorer in the conference south for two years on the bounce. So is very much proven. As you didn't know that you really should not be judging who is good enough and who is not.
|
|
|
Post by lucky1969 on Mar 23, 2014 0:16:36 GMT
Learn to read!!!!
Past achievements have nothing to do with the assessment.
Take the last 3 months into account, which is more of an assessment of CURRENT form, and eat your words!
Who's stupid now?!!!
|
|
|
Post by preciousstone on Mar 23, 2014 6:43:17 GMT
Harry - Unfortunately, the fact that clubs with much lower average gates than ours are full-time, does not mean we can afford to go full-time. Just do the maths: Assume av attendance at 1,800, assume average ticket £10 - av income per home game = £18,000. 23 homes games = average annual gate income of £414,000. Assume average player salary of £30,000 - we can afford just under 14 players. I've ignored other sources of income, but then I've also ignored ALL other costs. In reality, even with all sources of income taken into account, it is unlikely that we'd be able to afford even half a (small) full-time squad. So any club with our sort of gates (or less), is having to fund their full time squads by other means - which almost certainly means building up debt. I would guess that only the top 4 clubs in your list can actually fund their full-time squad from income alone. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if only Luton can really afford it. The other clubs are running up debts on the assumption that being full-time will eventually get them promoted, and get the crowds in, and enable them to pay the debt off - i.e. cloud cuckoo land. We've been there - do you seriously want to go there again?
|
|