Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gary Hamilton

Amateur football is dying

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BingeDrinker said:

Whilst I agree with the content of all this I have attended matches where a player is managing a team for whatever reason. Players putting goals out and subs dishing out the water. Teams can survive, only just mind you, without managers and a strong committee, but they simply can't without players 

Thats good if a player wants to step up and run it as well, however it is probably easier to find a last minute replacement player than a last minute replacement manager

If a group of mates just enjoy being together for a sunday kick about with a bit of competition then there isnt much need for a manager, committee etc, but these are the teams that tend to not last long, if a team wishes to grow, progress etc, they need a dedicated management team, and that is hard to find thesr days

I used to dread looking at my phone on a Sunday when i was working before the game, because you knew someone would drop out or the group chat would be asking if anyone has heard from such and such, absolutely brutal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s another problem with Amateur football, A group of mates playing football , it takes away players from long standing clubs, lasts about 2 / 3 years and then disappear. That ‘team’ of mates has used up a league place, taken players from other clubs , joined a league and then fold !!!!! Results are declared null and void and they’ve created havoc. That’s why proper run Leagues should only be admitting established clubs with a proven track record , not a group of Pals looking for a game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The team I play for currently charge £30 per month in subs. 

There’s boys in my team who can’t afford this. Similarly, it’s hard to attract players when you’re charging such a levy. 

The club train and play on Astroturf 3 times a week due to poorly maintained grass pitches. The cost of which amounts to around £140. 

The local council who have no intention of maintaining grass parks to the required standard, thus forcing us onto expensive artificial pitches (£80 per game, compared to £36) which require no maintenance. 

The club is looking at ways to cut the grass pitch ourselves, but would rely on the generosity of the local Junior team, which is not always forthcoming. 

I believe councils could do so much more to encourage adults into sport, starting with lowering the cost of renting facilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, october said:

That’s another problem with Amateur football, A group of mates playing football , it takes away players from long standing clubs, lasts about 2 / 3 years and then disappear. That ‘team’ of mates has used up a league place, taken players from other clubs , joined a league and then fold !!!!! Results are declared null and void and they’ve created havoc. That’s why proper run Leagues should only be admitting established clubs with a proven track record , not a group of Pals looking for a game emoji460.pngemoji460.png

That would mean nobody could ever start a new team, cause they wouldn’t have a track record, therefor wouldn’t be allowed to enter a league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with loads from above. Amateur football is struggling for loads of reasons.

Costs are certainly a factor. Firstly the costs of hiring parks etc. I don’t need to detail it but we all know its tough out there. Never mind the fact its a struggle to get the fees in sometimes. I charge £30 a month and yet i’m having to constantly remind players to pay their way.

I don’t see the commitment coming through anymore. I see young players cancelling on games for the slightest reasons. The excitement at Rangers and Celtic are impacting teams. This has definitely benefited he Saturday Morning teams. I look at the amount of teams folding at the bottom of leagues now. The minute the going gets tough, we see a lot of players decide to jump ship.

I also think that some lower league Junior teams aren’t helping the situation. I’m all for developing players but you’re sending players on who believe they are about to get a fair crack at Junior but actually they’re just 1 of 25/30 amateurs going to the same team and they’re not even getting paid. These clubs are like conveyor belts. They go through 50/60 players a year because as soon as some leave, they bring in more amateurs.

I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t think we can stop this decline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lastnameontheteamsheet said:

The team I play for currently charge £30 per month in subs. 

There’s boys in my team who can’t afford this. Similarly, it’s hard to attract players when you’re charging such a levy. 

The club train and play on Astroturf 3 times a week due to poorly maintained grass pitches. The cost of which amounts to around £140. 

The local council who have no intention of maintaining grass parks to the required standard, thus forcing us onto expensive artificial pitches (£80 per game, compared to £36) which require no maintenance. 

The club is looking at ways to cut the grass pitch ourselves, but would rely on the generosity of the local Junior team, which is not always forthcoming. 

I believe councils could do so much more to encourage adults into sport, starting with lowering the cost of renting facilities.

Sorry if I sound ignorant here, but £30 a month to play football is a cheaper deal than most clubs are looking for. When I was at Postal United our President was very understanding when players had a tough time financially and cut it from 10 a week to 5 to give them a little break, and nobody else in the team complained. I’ve found that a lot of the time these guys who say they can’t afford the money every week (or invariably say they don’t have it yet) are then spending more than that in the pub afterwards. Now I’m not saying they shouldn’t enjoy their free time, but we all know the amounts required to play amateur football - we pay it because we love the game - so if you don’t want to pay it, don’t play. I know the costs of running a team are rising and councils are ripping the soul out of football with some extortionate pricing (and also ridiculous rules about the length of time you get a let for e.g. two hours only so no changing rooms before and after) but in my opinion it’s generally players who are letting the game down. In sixteen years in Glasgow amateur football I’ve seen attitudes change dramatically. I’ve only been at two clubs and towards the demise of Postal I saw it creeping in and knew what was coming and left for Eastfield. That club doesn’t have players like that thankfully but who’s to say they won’t change in the next ten years tho I doubt Chris would allow it to happen. Clubs are dying because there’s a minority of players who just don’t give a s£&t and they let down the majority. I’m glad I got out when I did. Retirement was timely. 

Edited by TheRealNumber5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it make a difference if they banned new clubs from forming for say 3 years,a lot of established clubs with a long history have went to the wall recently and new teams pop up for a year or two then fold when things start going pear shaped.i know of a guy who has folded 4 teams in the last 2 seasons yet still been allowed into a league with his new team this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem that didn’t exist when I started and I’m 36 is free uni tuition most guys my age and older were all getting apprenticeship when we left school which usually meant working mon to Friday odd weekends so our weekend was football then pub and midweek games training wasn’t an issue making now kids are under pressure to go to uni then have to take part time jobs meaning they have to work nights midweek and weekends especially like most get jobs in retail and pubs restaurants so are more unreliable and when exam or deadlines for there uni work they haven’t got time for football 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would mean nobody could ever start a new team, cause they wouldn’t have a track record, therefor wouldn’t be allowed to enter a league. 



Not sure we need any more new teams, it’s all about saving the existing Amateur game if I’m being honest. This is why the Central Scottish have so many teams folding, they bring in a team which hasn’t been established long enough, as the league is only taking for the glory.
Caledonian League on the other hand have gone back to accepting long established clubs and 2 divisions of Stability - surely the way forward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is the number of players that a team are able to register. At a recent CSAFL meeting, we were told that the league had just over 900 players registered. With 30 teams, that's averaging 30 players for each team. With only 16 players per team getting stripped (480) , there is the same amount not participating !! that's another league in effect !!

I believe that leagues should limit the number of player able to register for any one team , say 25 per team, and this would free up the player pool by about 200 players in the case of CSAFL.

All you have to do is look at your opponents teamlines today, and you will see that most teams have about 30 players signed . Madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of the problem is the number of players that a team are able to register. At a recent CSAFL meeting, we were told that the league had just over 900 players registered. With 30 teams, that's averaging 30 players for each team. With only 16 players per team getting stripped (480) , there is the same amount not participating !! that's another league in effect !!
I believe that leagues should limit the number of player able to register for any one team , say 25 per team, and this would free up the player pool by about 200 players in the case of CSAFL.
All you have to do is look at your opponents teamlines today, and you will see that most teams have about 30 players signed . Madness.

A lot of players are only signed to help out and arent able or willing to play every week. Its not like all these teams have 14 guys every week standing watching and not getting stripped. I wouldnt read too much into how many players are registered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Amateur Footie Fan said:


A lot of players are only signed to help out and arent able or willing to play every week. Its not like all these teams have 14 guys every week standing watching and not getting stripped. I wouldnt read too much into how many players are registered.

Agree with this. We have 30ish registered. A few coaches, quite a few former players who'll help out occasionally. 8 games in i dont think we've had 16 stripped very often and if we have it's usually including coaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happened to come across mention of the Scottish Welfare FA. They once had over 500 clubs but this had sunk to 238 in 2007... 158 in 2012... and 82 today. They don't have any Saturday amateur leagues any more IIRC. So even worse decline there (although like the Glasgow argument - you could question "why have a separate Welfare FA?").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree with this. We have 30ish registered. A few coaches, quite a few former players who'll help out occasionally. 8 games in i dont think we've had 16 stripped very often and if we have it's usually including coaches.

I think you are missing the point. If they are signed with a club they can’t play as a trialist for another club. So that reduces the number of available players to teams that are struggling to field a team. Why not increase trialist games to 4 and remove the need to be signed for cups (once you play for a club in a particular cup you’re cuptied anyway). Clubs would only need 20 signed players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the point. If they are signed with a club they can’t play as a trialist for another club. So that reduces the number of available players to teams that are struggling to field a team. Why not increase trialist games to 4 and remove the need to be signed for cups (once you play for a club in a particular cup you’re cuptied anyway). Clubs would only need 20 signed players.
But if they're unavailable to play for their own club they'll also be unavailable to be a trialist for another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/09/2019 at 21:10, october said:

That’s another problem with Amateur football, A group of mates playing football , it takes away players from long standing clubs, lasts about 2 / 3 years and then disappear. That ‘team’ of mates has used up a league place, taken players from other clubs , joined a league and then fold !!!!! Results are declared null and void and they’ve created havoc. That’s why proper run Leagues should only be admitting established clubs with a proven track record , not a group of Pals looking for a game emoji460.pngemoji460.png

I don't think that is particularly fair comment. 

I'll use my sons experience as an example here. He started playing football, as most do, at the age of 5 or 6 years old. He joined a club and played for that team in his age group for 15 years. When they were too old for the Under 21's leagues they approached their club committee to see what their options were and they were told that the lads would be given a trial to see if they were good enough to play for the established amateur team within the club. Faced with the possibility of the team being broken up they decided to set up a "pals" team instead and are now in their third season. 

Now I get that this may undermine the strength of the established amateur team that was already in existence but I can also completely understand why these lads wanted to stick together and to test their ability in the amateur leagues. 

Perhaps there could and should be more scrutiny over a "pals" teams ability to complete a season but to ban them from competing is just counter productive. Surely we want to keep as many players playing for as long as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that is particularly fair comment. 
I'll use my sons experience as an example here. He started playing football, as most do, at the age of 5 or 6 years old. He joined a club and played for that team in his age group for 15 years. When they were too old for the Under 21's leagues they approached their club committee to see what their options were and they were told that the lads would be given a trial to see if they were good enough to play for the established amateur team within the club. Faced with the possibility of the team being broken up they decided to set up a "pals" team instead and are now in their third season. 
Now I get that this may undermine the strength of the established amateur team that was already in existence but I can also completely understand why these lads wanted to stick together and to test their ability in the amateur leagues. 
Perhaps there could and should be more scrutiny over a "pals" teams ability to complete a season but to ban them from competing is just counter productive. Surely we want to keep as many players playing for as long as possible. 

Isn’t that how all amateur teams are founded? Certainly why my club started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of players are only signed to help out and arent able or willing to play every week. Its not like all these teams have 14 guys every week standing watching and not getting stripped. I wouldnt read too much into how many players are registered.
Also agree with this. We have 30 players signed and could only strip 14 at the weekend for a West of Scotland Cup game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MrTumble said:


I think you are missing the point. If they are signed with a club they can’t play as a trialist for another club. So that reduces the number of available players to teams that are struggling to field a team. Why not increase trialist games to 4 and remove the need to be signed for cups (once you play for a club in a particular cup you’re cuptied anyway). Clubs would only need 20 signed players.

Somebody is definitely missing the point... and we cant use trialists. 

If any of the boys signed to help us want to play elsewhere they are released pretty much right away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...