|
Post by Stonethecrow on Apr 2, 2020 12:33:28 GMT
Try again in a different direction ? During the past few years the club has recruited the best players it could on the budget available. So we will now have a substantially reduced budget and hey presto we will automatically recruit higher calibre players because we are going to pay them less. Follow that logic through and maybe the best team will be one that charges players to play.
|
|
|
Post by hongkongstone on Apr 2, 2020 13:18:35 GMT
Before we ever go full time again at some stage in the future, the club need to understand why it was of little benefit the first time round. Why have other clubs managed the transition so much better? Or we need to accept that due to the size of clubs these days, we are a yo-yo club and will always be a small fish in the National League. I know I have said this before but how can teams like Wycombe, Accrington, Stevenage, Cheltenham and Macclesfield, who on the face of it have neither have a greater support base than us nor a sugar daddy manage to achieve the heights they have? Please feel free to correct me on the 'sugar daddy' point if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by butlerisalegend on Apr 2, 2020 13:29:47 GMT
Try again in a different direction ? During the past few years the club has recruited the best players it could on the budget available. So we will now have a substantially reduced budget and hey presto we will automatically recruit higher calibre players because we are going to pay them less. Follow that logic through and maybe the best team will be one that charges players to play. Not quite as simple as that. There are many very good part time players that have well paid jobs and would rather stay part time. I know this is guesswork but I would have thought as full time clubs go we are probably paying the lower end whereas if we went part time I would expect us to be one of the top payers. Are we currently recruiting players that 1) can’t get full time anywhere else or young unproven players that can’t believe they have been offered full time football (eg Olutade) Our recruitment this season has done nothing to suggest we couldn’t find better players on good part time contracts. If you have the right manager and scouts etc.
|
|
|
Post by pigbag on Apr 2, 2020 14:18:00 GMT
If we go part time we will be choosing from a smaller pool of players. By necessity they would have to live reasonably close for training and depending on their job may not always be available for matches. The problem with having PT players in the National League is the travel especially midweek travelling to the other end of the country. Players with no intention of being full time professional would not want this. I would like to know what the difference in wages is between the squad we had this year and a top PT squad. There were probably 5 players on a decent wage but I wonder if the young players would be paid any more than a PT player. Under 23 players at league clubs are not paid a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 2, 2020 17:33:42 GMT
Our owners and management would like to be able to stay with a day time training squad, but we cannot afford it. Their judgement is that higher calibre players become available on that basis but it assumes that we can afford the wages bill. There have been a few regular posters pleading for a return to a proper part time set up. Well it looks like it's going to happen, but is it just guesswork or hunches that the team will be stronger as a result ? Presumably the talented localish players we can now recruit are already playing for Kent clubs at the same level or in lower leagues. I'm sure Hak will appreciate a few player recommendations.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Apr 2, 2020 17:44:14 GMT
Try again in a different direction ? During the past few years the club has recruited the best players it could on the budget available. So we will now have a substantially reduced budget and hey presto we will automatically recruit higher calibre players because we are going to pay them less. Follow that logic through and maybe the best team will be one that charges players to play. Not quite as simple as that. There are many very good part time players that have well paid jobs and would rather stay part time. I know this is guesswork but I would have thought as full time clubs go we are probably paying the lower end whereas if we went part time I would expect us to be one of the top payers. Are we currently recruiting players that 1) can’t get full time anywhere else or young unproven players that can’t believe they have been offered full time football (eg Olutade) Our recruitment this season has done nothing to suggest we couldn’t find better players on good part time contracts. If you have the right manager and scouts etc. How can you start off by claiming something as a fact and then admitting that it is just your guesswork ? No evidence to back up the claim at all and yet you say Nick's post was simplistic. Who the hell are all these "very good players" who will only want to train in the evening ? Guesswork can win you a lottery jackpot but what are the odds ?
|
|
|
Post by steveh21 on Apr 2, 2020 19:28:24 GMT
We can go part time with the same budget as last year or slightly lower and we will probably have the highest part time budget in the league rather than one of the lowest full time budgets. Part time seemed to serve Weymouth and Dartford ok this season.
Im still waiting for someone to tell me one benefit we gained from going full time three (?) Years ago?
|
|
|
Post by jackster on Apr 2, 2020 20:44:29 GMT
I believe 3 years ago we got promoted to the National League with a team of part timers. If only we had stayed part time and reaped the benefits of recruiting local players with other day time jobs. Can someone remind me about those benefits please.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Apr 2, 2020 20:51:32 GMT
Its probably more about the wages bill than whether you train on a couple of evenings or 3 mornings. The Favershams, Chatham and Folkestones find that the part time set up is absolutely right for them. It's all about what you can afford, and where you set your ambitions. Good players want to earn their market value, less good players will turn up for peanuts.
|
|
|
Post by butlerisalegend on Apr 2, 2020 21:56:38 GMT
Not quite as simple as that. There are many very good part time players that have well paid jobs and would rather stay part time. I know this is guesswork but I would have thought as full time clubs go we are probably paying the lower end whereas if we went part time I would expect us to be one of the top payers. Are we currently recruiting players that 1) can’t get full time anywhere else or young unproven players that can’t believe they have been offered full time football (eg Olutade) Our recruitment this season has done nothing to suggest we couldn’t find better players on good part time contracts. If you have the right manager and scouts etc. How can you start off by claiming something as a fact and then admitting that it is just your guesswork ? No evidence to back up the claim at all and yet you say Nick's post was simplistic. Who the hell are all these "very good players" who will only want to train in the evening ? Guesswork can win you a lottery jackpot but what are the odds ? The guesswork was the 2nd part. And there are many teams this season that have outplayed us with part time players so i think that is a fair assessment no??
|
|
|
Post by butlerisalegend on Apr 2, 2020 22:01:18 GMT
We can go part time with the same budget as last year or slightly lower and we will probably have the highest part time budget in the league rather than one of the lowest full time budgets. Part time seemed to serve Weymouth and Dartford ok this season. Im still waiting for someone to tell me one benefit we gained from going full time three (?) Years ago? Exactly my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 3, 2020 0:30:10 GMT
The danger with forums is that discussions like this become polarised - for or against, whatever topic is under discussion. When in fact, in most cases, the situation is much more complex than that. And this discussion is a good illustration of this.
For instance, part-time did us fine right up to promotion to the NL, so I tend to agree with those who say it is the right approach now we are one step back down again. But, on the other hand, I don't really see part-time working in the NL. So our problem isn't just which way we go, but how do we handle the transition from one to the other.
And, of course, as we found out so painfully, during that transition you go from having the best part-timers available, to having to pick from the dregs of full-time. Hoping that a mixture of young lads on their way up, older players dropping down the divisions, and a core of journeymen not good enough for the EFL, will somehow magically blend into a decent team.
So, my choice for now would be what we had at this level before - part-time. And my ideal choice for NL would be 'full-time' - although somehow, magically, with much better players. But how you make that transition, and how you successfully manage to create a decent team out of the players that are available, without much bigger gates or a sugar daddy, I have absolutely no idea.
|
|
|
Post by hongkongstone on Apr 3, 2020 1:45:41 GMT
The danger with forums is that discussions like this become polarised - for or against, whatever topic is under discussion. When in fact, in most cases, the situation is much more complex than that. And this discussion is a good illustration of this. For instance, part-time did us fine right up to promotion to the NL, so I tend to agree with those who say it is the right approach now we are one step back down again. But, on the other hand, I don't really see part-time working in the NL. So our problem isn't just which way we go, but how do we handle the transition from one to the other. And, of course, as we found out so painfully, during that transition you go from having the best part-timers available, to having to pick from the dregs of full-time. Hoping that a mixture of young lads on their way up, older players dropping down the divisions, and a core of journeymen not good enough for the EFL, will somehow magically blend into a decent team. So, my choice for now would be what we had at this level before - part-time. And my ideal choice for NL would be 'full-time' - although somehow, magically, with much better players. But how you make that transition, and how you successfully manage to create a decent team out of the players that are available, without much bigger gates or a sugar daddy, I have absolutely no idea. Better team management peut etre? As in a manager who makes the total greater than the sum of the parts.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 3, 2020 6:16:35 GMT
JDL says he has no idea how to make the transition from a successful part time outfit in NLS to a successful full time outfit in the National League. Without owners prepared to waste mega sums it will be hard, but our mate from the far east is right, ultimately it will depend upon canny team management. There are quite a few National league clubs with similar budgets to Stones who manage to consistently deliver stronger playing squads. Maybe JS1 had taken us as far as he was able to at that point in time, yet given the financial constraints he was working under, that appears to be a harsh assessment. Everything that followed Jay's reign has been of lesser quality, but Hak seems very likely to be given just one last season to prove his worth. Whether its National League, National League South, Full time or Part time, the main man to determine our destiny will be the Team Manager.
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Apr 3, 2020 6:49:30 GMT
It's all very well saying we struggled when we went full time, and that's clearly true, but it's also a completely false causal link because no one can say how we would have fared had we stayed part time. I'm fed up with people blaming all the club's woes on going full time and presenting their arguments as if they have some deep level of expertise the rest of us lack. It's just your opinion so stop telling us we're wrong.
|
|