|
Post by sword65 on Apr 7, 2020 8:28:36 GMT
Well im willing to say that I think our PT team next season will produce better football, better results, better fan/player relationships and a better league position than we have seen for a few years. I'm no mystic Meg but just going on nearly 40 years watching this great club. ..let's see how it all pans out. I dont care if we are full time or part time I just want to see some bloody football.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Apr 7, 2020 9:39:58 GMT
But we are told there are no benefits to being full time and paying the market rate for accomplished players. The owners took a calculated risk this season, remaining full time in order to give our management team the best chance of putting a squad together to drive the club back to the National League. It is not Terry and Oliver's fault that their gamble didn't succeed. John and Hakan underperformed, too many of the players they recruited didn't live up to expectations. Finances have forced the club to revert to part time but the idea that this will automatically result in better players, better team spirit and the rest is bonkers. I doubt PT or FT has any bearing on the things you name. It does cost less money though so there is one advantage, i guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2020 10:12:21 GMT
You are talking about better quality players who were with us when we were in the National League. That is not the same thing as trying to be full-time in the division below. I am of the mind that you need to be full-time in the National League, but we're not in that division, are we? Players like Lewis, Joe Piggot, Zav Hines etc. would never have signed for us, and certainly not on the money that would have been offered, if we'd been in this division. Your comparison is, therefore, totally irrelevant. Stuart Lewis played for Northfleet in the NLS. Only because they were paying him silly money. As I said in my post, players like Stu wouldn't have played for us in NLS "...not on the money that would have been offered..." I do think there is a crossover point at our level where the ability of players at the lower end of the full-time professional pool and the part-time pool is pretty close. In the 'old days' it was always argued that full-time pros are fitter but these days that distinction isn't so marked as training methods and diets have come such a long way, most part-time footballers should be able to get through a tough 90 minute game without running out of steam.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 7, 2020 11:14:26 GMT
It's not part-time/full-time that really matters, it's money.
Quite simply, money buys you better players. Some of those players may prefer to be part-time, but will still be NL standard, most will be full-time. Not because full-time is inherently better, but simply because they can afford to be.
Look at any club that's gone up through the NL and done well in the EFL, and the common theme is the same - money, and plenty of it. Without that additional money, you can still do well, with luck, or an exceptional manager - as we proved - but the effect will only ever be short-term. To make the grade AND do well you need money.
And we don't have that money.
And until we do ,we will struggle to do well at NL level - whatever we call the way we train and pay the players.
|
|
|
Post by jackster on Apr 7, 2020 11:14:43 GMT
But we are told there are no benefits to being full time and paying the market rate for accomplished players. The owners took a calculated risk this season, remaining full time in order to give our management team the best chance of putting a squad together to drive the club back to the National League. It is not Terry and Oliver's fault that their gamble didn't succeed. John and Hakan underperformed, too many of the players they recruited didn't live up to expectations. Finances have forced the club to revert to part time but the idea that this will automatically result in better players, better team spirit and the rest is bonkers. I doubt PT or FT has any bearing on the things you name. It does cost less money though so there is one advantage, i guess. You may doubt it, but check out with Terry and Oliver why they maintained a full time squad. There is only a single advantage of going part time and that is it costs less money. So we can agree on something. But the idea that part-time players automatically produce better football, better results and a better league position is simply 'for the fairies'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2020 13:19:13 GMT
I doubt PT or FT has any bearing on the things you name. It does cost less money though so there is one advantage, i guess. You may doubt it, but check out with Terry and Oliver why they maintained a full time squad. There is only a single advantage of going part time and that is it costs less money. So we can agree on something. But the idea that part-time players automatically produce better football, better results and a better league position is simply 'for the fairies'. As far as I am aware, nobody said having part-time players "automatically' produces better football. What I and others have argued is that the very best semi-pros are no worse than the shower we had this season who were on full-time wages. We can go round and round this same argument until the cows come home, but there is one fact that cannot be denied. We have a number of players at our club on a full-time wage who are not deserving of it. To argue against that is to suggest that our league results were satisfactory, despite having a full-time team in a mostly part-time division. Some will blame the managers but that isn't the answer. Whatever good or poor decisions Hak and John made, it's clear to anyone who watched the Stones this season that a number of individual players turned in performances that were mediocre. Several were very inconsistent which is a problem when they are professionals. Surely the single main benefit of staying full-time is supposed to be that it gives you an advantage over the rest of the clubs in your division who are part-time. Based on the season just ended, what benefit are you seeing exactly?
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Apr 7, 2020 13:56:43 GMT
As before, the answer is money.
In our situation, we can afford the best part-timers, but only scrape the barrel with full-timers.
The end result is a (relatively) expensive full-time squad, that regularly gets beaten by much less expensive part-time squads. (Unless you are lucky enough to have the sort of manager that HH and JS2 apparently weren't.)
So, in an ideal world, we wouldn't go full-time, unless we can afford a better squad. But, when we get back in the NL, we'll presumably have to go full-time again anyway.
So don't expect much difference to last time.
|
|
|
Post by Fed up with PC views only on Apr 7, 2020 14:31:17 GMT
As before, the answer is money. In our situation, we can afford the best part-timers, but only scrape the barrel with full-timers. The end result is a (relatively) expensive full-time squad, that regularly gets beaten by much less expensive part-time squads. (Unless you are lucky enough to have the sort of manager that HH and JS2 apparently weren't.) So, in an ideal world, we would'nt go full-time, unless we can afford a better squad. But, when we get back in the NL, we'll presumably have to go full-time again anyway. So don't expect much difference to last time. Definitely feels like Groundhog day - in life, with lockdown, and on this forum now, same old circular debates. We really are missing football! Lets pray that Boris gets better, the death rate drops, the AWFUL Coronavirus Bill gets reversed and we all get back to "normal" (Whatever that will be!) BTW Has anyone read the Coronavirus Bill and seen what Draconian, Totalitarian powers it gives UK government over the population - for TWO years? nws? You examine in minute detail government agendas and actions - surely you must be agog at this one - it makes Brexit look like a Vicars tea party in comparison!
|
|
|
Post by sword65 on Apr 7, 2020 14:37:37 GMT
I doubt PT or FT has any bearing on the things you name. It does cost less money though so there is one advantage, i guess. You may doubt it, but check out with Terry and Oliver why they maintained a full time squad. There is only a single advantage of going part time and that is it costs less money. So we can agree on something. But the idea that part-time players automatically produce better football, better results and a better league position is simply 'for the fairies'. Having seen some of our players playing this year,we already have thr fairies.
|
|
|
Post by shamstone on Apr 7, 2020 14:40:38 GMT
As before, the answer is money. In our situation, we can afford the best part-timers, but only scrape the barrel with full-timers. The end result is a (relatively) expensive full-time squad, that regularly gets beaten by much less expensive part-time squads. (Unless you are lucky enough to have the sort of manager that HH and JS2 apparently weren't.) So, in an ideal world, we would'nt go full-time, unless we can afford a better squad. But, when we get back in the NL, we'll presumably have to go full-time again anyway. So don't expect much difference to last time. Definitely feels like Groundhog day - in life, with lockdown, and on this forum now, same old circular debates. We really are missing football! Lets pray that Boris gets better, the death rate drops, the AWFUL Coronavirus Bill gets reversed and we all get back to "normal" (Whatever that will be!) BTW Has anyone read the Coronavirus Bill and seen what Draconian, Totalitarian powers it gives UK government over the population - for TWO years? nws? You examine in minute detail government agendas and actions - surely you must be agog at this one - it makes Brexit look like a Vicars tea party in comparison! Brexit. Oh, the good old days ........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2020 16:57:03 GMT
As before, the answer is money. In our situation, we can afford the best part-timers, but only scrape the barrel with full-timers. The end result is a (relatively) expensive full-time squad, that regularly gets beaten by much less expensive part-time squads. (Unless you are lucky enough to have the sort of manager that HH and JS2 apparently weren't.) So, in an ideal world, we would'nt go full-time, unless we can afford a better squad. But, when we get back in the NL, we'll presumably have to go full-time again anyway. So don't expect much difference to last time. Exactly JDL. That's it in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Apr 7, 2020 18:21:26 GMT
Jayser, what did you mean when you say that inconsistent individual performances are a problem when you are professional? It means something to you but nothing to me. If you have nothing better to do please explain your rationale.
|
|
|
Post by Stonethecrow on Apr 7, 2020 20:28:24 GMT
Ok Steve 40 years counts for a lot. It's about 33 years more than me. But I dont understand why you say a part time team will play better football. I watched the promotion teams under Jay Saunders and to be honest I never thought Stones ever played the beautiful game exactly. But given the levels the various Stones teams played at the time, they all had a winning mentality and the ability to grind out results. Other less successful teams often played better football but we somehow managed to turn them over by the odd goal. In truth it's always down to the manager through his choice of players and style of football that dictates how a team performs. Nothing to do with the players being full time or part time.
|
|
|
Post by steveh21 on Apr 7, 2020 20:54:16 GMT
Of course it's down to the manager but you need to factor in that the best footballers are not always fulltime. Many can earn more playing PT plus the day job.
Remember DD who had a great job in the city?? Just an example of my point..not saying he was amazing. Some of best NLS players have their own businesses or family commitments.
Many of the FT players we can afford are just young lads who may or may not make it in the proper pro game.
The bottom line though is we are in a PT league. So if money is tight why the hell do we need to be FT?
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 7, 2020 21:04:02 GMT
We dont need to be Steve, the owners felt that staying full time gave us the best chance of getting back to the National League. In truth too many of the players recruited were disappointing and that was mainly down to John Still. Our budget for next season looks like it will only support part time players so fair enough. But is Hak the man to do the business ?
|
|