Jordyn Sheerin Craigroyston

[Che Dail]

16 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

I'm not sure there's many clubs who expect players to pay subs to play at EoS level, and expect to go anywhere. It may work if all you want to do is survive, but any decent player would be enticed away fairly easily.

That said, the back pitch at Ainslie would need a rail around the pitch (not cheap), and I doubt there is space down the touchlines without moving the fence. Talking of fence, it would also need to be screened off so you just can't stand outside and watch the game through it. Dugouts also needed.  St.Marks meets these requirements.

Spartans 2018 income was £1.3m.  They can probably afford it 

[Burnie_man]

Just now, Che Dail said:

I get your point, and I agree entirely about clubs paying (or not) at a sustainable level... however, the Mission Statement for The East of Scotland Football League is "To Develop, Foster, Co-Ordinate and Sustain Association Football at Club and League level throughout Edinburgh, the Lothians, the Borders, Fife and Stirlingshire".

LEAGUE OBJECTIVE nr5. To provide opportunities for clubs, officials & supporters to participate in football for the benefit of the whole community.

Nothing in there about how clubs should generate income, or if their playing squad status should be amateur or professional.  I suspect the majority of players in the EoS Conferences will be amateur or non-contract status.  

I would say, in reality, for many clubs it is actually amateur football, but with better facilities and a more professional organisational structure.

What you're talking about might be aspirational for the league, but we can't expect clubs to go amateur if they need players to pay subs in order to survive. What will those 18-20 players do if the club folds?  Probably go ams and pay subs anyway, while giving up the opportunity to play on decent parks and against good players every week. 

As an extreme example, take Caledonia Braves in the Lowland League... I think their French players  on the Edusport programme chip in about £17k a year!  Just a different model, but one that evidently works.  Another is Queen's Park who (until recently?) were an amateur club.

 

 

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the EoS, of course they should, what I am saying is that any club who needs players to pay subs to survive need to question if they are in the right league for the long term viability of the club.

However Craigroyston don't do that as far as I am aware, so it's not really an argument.

[Burnie_man]

2 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Spartans 2018 income was £1.3m.  They can probably afford it 

I can't see them spending sizeable sums of cash for the benefit of another club to be honest!

[Che Dail]

 

7 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

I can't see them spending sizeable sums of cash for the benefit of another club to be honest!

If they're generating additional income, that would be for the benefit of their own club.  Plus, it could open up St Marks Park for their academy use which would allow the club to grow.  

On the face of it, it is an opportunity for both clubs.

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Che Dail

[Burnie_man]

1 minute ago, Che Dail said:

If they're generating additional income, that would be for the benefit of their own club.  Plus, it could opens up St Marks Park for their academy use which would allow the club to grow.  

On the face of it, it is an opportunity.

Well if we imagine for a second that Spartans spent say £25k upgrading the back pitch to EoS standards, presumably Craigroyston would still have to hire it and Spartans would be obliged, given it's a Council owned facility, not to significantly undercut other Council facilities, they'll also look for a reasonable fee in order to recover costs. So I'm not seeing how Craigroyston would come out of it significantly better than remaining where they are.

Sadly there's no easy answer to their predicament beyond a benefactor/sponsor pumping money in to cover running costs whilst they try and find a way to become self sustaining.

I wish them well in finding that someone.

[Che Dail]

11 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Well if we imagine for a second that Spartans spent say £25k upgrading the back pitch to EoS standards, presumably Craigroyston would still have to hire it and Spartans would be obliged, given it's a Council owned facility, not to significantly undercut other Council facilities, they'll also look for a reasonable fee in order to recover costs. So I'm not seeing how Craigroyston would come out of it significantly better than remaining where they are.

Sadly there's no easy answer to their predicament beyond a benefactor/sponsor pumping money in to cover running costs whilst they try and find a way to become self sustaining.

I wish them well in finding that someone.

well it's just simple arithmetic Burnie - they currently pay £3500 for their pitch.  Spartans charge £110 for a match.  If you times that by 20 (home games) you get £2200 

(PS. the benefactor/sponsor pumping money in to cover running costs model is all well and good... but not sustainable)

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Che Dail

[snowball]

6 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Well if we imagine for a second that Spartans spent say £25k upgrading the back pitch to EoS standards, presumably Craigroyston would still have to hire it and Spartans would be obliged, given it's a Council owned facility, not to significantly undercut other Council facilities, they'll also look for a reasonable fee in order to recover costs. So I'm not seeing how Craigroyston would come out of it significantly better than remaining where they are.

Sadly there's no easy answer to their predicament beyond a benefactor/sponsor pumping money in to cover running costs whilst they try and find a way to become self sustaining.

I wish them well in finding that someone.

Just need my balls (lottery that is) to drop and i'll do it

[Burnie_man]

well it's just simple arithmetic Burnie - they currently pay £3500 for their pitch.  Spartans charge £110 for a match.  If you times that by 20 (home games) you get £2200 [emoji23]

(PS. the benefactor/sponsor pumping money in to cover running costs model is all well and good... but not sustainable)

 

Plus training pitch hire, so they need still need to raise considerable sums, on very small crowds and declining sponsorship.

 

We're arguing over something that's very unlikely to happen!

 

[Che Dail]

Just now, Burnie_man said:

Plus training pitch hire, so they need still need to raise considerable sums, on very small crowds.

We're arguing over something that's very unlikely to happen!

I'm no arguing with you, 'hypothesizing' more like!  Just throwing ideas out there because like most folk in this football community, I'd be sorry to see the club fold.  It's not good for the league and sadly a North Edinburgh institution is under threat.  

The club tried a link up with Leith Athletic recently which didn't work out for whatever reason.  So if they haven't already, why not approach Spartans or CSS and see if something can be done?  Even if just to keep the club ticking over in the short to medium term. 

Look at Crossgates - back from the brink and doing really well now.  Penicuik is another great example - men kept the club going for years behind the scenes after it folded and have built things back up again steadily and surely to get to where they are today.  

You need to be less defeatist:  Burnie Abbot....  'Ah, but....' 

 

[HibeeJibee]

"Historical interlude"... Craigie actually ceased sharing City Park with Spartans in 1998 for a ground of their own at St Mark's.

[Che Dail]

6 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

"Historical interlude"... Craigie actually ceased sharing City Park with Spartans in 1998 for a ground of their own at St Mark's.

There ye go.

And that pitch was horrific 

[gaz5]

I get your point, and I agree entirely about clubs paying (or not) at a sustainable level... however, the Mission Statement for The East of Scotland Football League is "To Develop, Foster, Co-Ordinate and Sustain Association Football at Club and League level throughout Edinburgh, the Lothians, the Borders, Fife and Stirlingshire".
LEAGUE OBJECTIVE nr5. To provide opportunities for clubs, officials & supporters to participate in football for the benefit of the whole community.
Nothing in there about how clubs should generate income, or if their playing squad status should be amateur or professional.  I suspect the majority of players in the EoS Conferences will be amateur or non-contract status.  
I would say, in reality, for many clubs it is actually amateur football, but with better facilities and a more professional organisational structure.
What you're talking about might be aspirational for the league, but we can't expect clubs to go amateur and leave the assoc if they need players to pay subs in order to survive. What will those 18-20 players do if the club folds?  Probably go ams and pay subs anyway, while giving up the opportunity to play on decent parks and against good players every week. 
As an extreme example, take Caledonia Braves in the Lowland League... I think their French players  on the Edusport programme chip in about £17k a year!  Just a different model, but one that evidently works.  Another is Queen's Park who (until recently?) were an amateur club.
 
 
 
 

I was simply pointing out that there will be very few teams in the EoS taking subs from players rather than paying some form of expenses at a minimum. Certainly no one in the Premier league (who are more likely all contracted professionals) and I'd wager no one outside of the top 9 or 10 in the conferences either who will be a mix of registration types but still looked after.

As Burnie pointed out, Craigroyston could make that step to try and raise revenue, but any half decent player they brought in who was paying to play would be snapped up almost immediately by a neighbor and they'd be forever pissing into the wind in terms of trying to build a steady team, never mind a successful one.

For me, the top 30 at least teams in the EoS operate above my experience of amateur football where players pay subs.

Your Caley Braves comparison is not quite equatable. French players pay a far higher fee than any Scottish based subs model could provide to play mainly in their second team in the SoS, a portion of the money they generate used to fund their first team, who are all contracted professionals, the majority of whom ain't French students these days.

In that scenario Craigroyston would have to start a second team, charge them extortionate fees every month to raise money to pay for their first team.

The EoS isn't an amateur league right now, in my view, never mind aspirationally. I'd be amazed once the tiers are settled and any further juniors move over if anyone could survive in the top two league's at least in a subscription model where their first team players pay subs to play.

It sounds though like Craigroyston have an immediate issue with running costs for the pitch, vandalism and training, rather than players though. I'm not sure using the players as a revenue generator to resolve those issues is a long term answer for them in the EoS.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do hope they find it.

[snowball]

Craigie do give players a small signing on fee and petrol money for away games. Also did try to run a weekly lottery with players contributing to that.

Edited November 30, 2019 by snowball

[gaz5]

Craigie do give players a small signing on fee and petrol money for away games. Also did try to run a weekly lottery with players contributing to that.

Sounds about right. As I said, would be surprised if anyone at this level didn't do at least that, obviously some do more.

The lottery one is common as well, we used to do the same, players put in a minimum of £5 a week either by selling that much of putting it in themselves. Some boys would take it to work and get 4 or 5 times that, others sold a couple of quid then took a few lines themselves.

[Che Dail]

4 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

I was simply pointing out that there will be very few teams in the EoS taking subs from players rather than paying some form of expenses at a minimum. Certainly no one in the Premier league (who are more likely all contracted professionals) and I'd wager no one outside of the top 9 or 10 in the conferences either who will be a mix of registration types but still looked after.

As Burnie pointed out, Craigroyston could make that step to try and raise revenue, but any half decent player they brought in who was paying to play would be snapped up almost immediately by a neighbor and they'd be forever pissing into the wind in terms of trying to build a steady team, never mind a successful one.

For me, the top 30 at least teams in the EoS operate above my experience of amateur football where players pay subs.

Your Caley Braves comparison is not quite equatable. French players pay a far higher fee than any Scottish based subs model could provide to play mainly in their second team in the SoS, a portion of the money they generate used to fund their first team, who are all contracted professionals, the majority of whom ain't French students these days.

In that scenario Craigroyston would have to start a second team, charge them extortionate fees every month to raise money to pay for their first team.

The EoS isn't an amateur league right now, in my view, never mind aspirationally. I'd be amazed once the tiers are settled and any further juniors move over if anyone could survive in the top two league's at least in a subscription model where their first team players pay subs to play.

It sounds though like Craigroyston have an immediate issue with running costs for the pitch, vandalism and training, rather than players though. I'm not sure using the players as a revenue generator to resolve those issues is a long term answer for them in the EoS.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do hope they find it.

At least one Conference team takes subs and has done for years, and there is at least one EoS Premier team where no player is on a pro-form: all are amateur on non-contract,  therefore the club is paying expenses only.  Players are there 'for the love of the game' and not cash.

The Caley Braves example was to illustrate that clubs at different levels operate different business models. 

Looking at other sports - rugby for example, players tend to be there for the club environment and don't flit around season after season, and expect to contribute subs in the same way as you'd have to pay for a gym membership or a spin class or whatever. 

Here you have an opportunity to play at a decent standard, on good pitches and be coached by someone who has played at a decent level with loads to offer and wants to pass on his knowledge.  It also provides a platform for new coaches to develop (see Callum Elliot and his progress season after season, for example).  As a player would you pay for that opportunity?  If not, why not? What will you do instead? Because there's nae money!

In any case, the best players in the conference sides will be snapped up by the top clubs if good money is on offer - in football this has always been the case: the best payers attract the best players.  And so the club might just have to accept that it exists to help develop young players and coaches, and provide a space for senior players stepping down a level or two.

[gaz5]

At least one Conference team takes subs and has done for years, and there is at least one EoS Premier team where no player is on a pro-form: all are amateur on non-contract,  therefore the club is paying expenses only.  Players are there 'for the love of the game' and not cash.
The Caley Braves example was to illustrate that clubs at different levels operate different business models. 
Looking at other sports - rugby for example, players tend to be there for the club environment and don't flit around season after season, and expect to contribute subs in the same way as you'd have to pay for a gym membership or a spin class or whatever. 
Here you have an opportunity to play at a decent standard, on good pitches and be coached by someone who has played at a decent level with loads to offer and wants to pass on his knowledge.  It also provides a platform for new coaches to develop (see Callum Elliot and his progress season after season, for example).  As a player would you pay for that opportunity?  If not, why not? What will you do instead? Because there's nae money!
In any case, the best players in the conference sides will be snapped up by the top clubs if good money is on offer - in football this has always been the case: the best payers attract the best players.  And so the club might just have to accept that it exists to help develop young players and coaches, and provide a space for senior players stepping down a level or two.

At least one Conference team takes subs and has done for years, and there is at least one EoS Premier team where no player is on a pro-form: all are amateur on non-contract,  therefore the club is paying expenses only.  Players are there 'for the love of the game' and not cash.
The Caley Braves example was to illustrate that clubs at different levels operate different business models. 
Looking at other sports - rugby for example, players tend to be there for the club environment and don't flit around season after season, and expect to contribute subs in the same way as you'd have to pay for a gym membership or a spin class or whatever. 
Here you have an opportunity to play at a decent standard, on good pitches and be coached by someone who has played at a decent level with loads to offer and wants to pass on his knowledge.  It also provides a platform for new coaches to develop (see Callum Elliot and his progress season after season, for example).  As a player would you pay for that opportunity?  If not, why not? What will you do instead? Because there's nae money!
In any case, the best players in the conference sides will be snapped up by the top clubs if good money is on offer - in football this has always been the case: the best payers attract the best players.  And so the club might just have to accept that it exists to help develop young players and coaches, and provide a space for senior players stepping down a level or two.

Are the conference team that takes subs currently in the top 9 or 10 of their conference? I didn't say none did it that way, I said I'd be surprised if they were in the top 9 or 10 and that being sustainably successful that way is rare. The exception, if you will.

To put you in the picture, im a manager of a team in the conference's, I've spoken to over 200 players in the last 2 seasons and very few play for the love of the game only. That's not a criticism of them, because I didn't either. Expenses on amateur and non contract professional status is still "being looked after", within HMRC laws and can still run up a very hefty budget over the course of a season.

I like Callum, both times we played Tynie last season I thought he was a really nice guy to blether to of the park, quieter than I expected. And like me a young manager in his first job. But if you think he has won 16 games out of 16 this season with people playing for the love of the game alone you're delusional I'm afraid. [emoji846]

Attracting players is about the package you offer, the full package. Manager, facilities, standards, level you play at, finances + other things that set you apart (we do a lot of statistical work for example). I'm afraid finances are an important part of that if you want to bring in players that bring success.

Look at Craigroyston just now. Good facilities just like Tynie, young ex professional manager in his first job just like Tynie. But sitting bottom without a win versus 16 wins from 16. Do you think Jordyn would be in that position if he had a budget like Callum? I'm sure he has a lot of contacts in the game he can't afford and it's a difficult situation, one I've been in where your are talking to players but the stumbling block is always the same, even players coming from decent amateur teams.

That's not to play down Callums achievements at all, he has to mould the players he is able to get and turn them into that winning machine, which he is doing superbly. But I can tell you from bitter experience you don't get the same opportunity to do that at this level without being able to fund bringing the players to the club in the first place who can make a difference.

It's a sad fact, but a fact none the less that successful teams at all levels tend to come from the group who are better funded.

[HibeeJibee]

CD, I'm sure Craigie has given a great deal of thought to alternative approaches: you don't close your own club on a whim (even allowing for giving 6 months for something unexpected to turn up) and it's not happened suddenly... they've been looking for direction for a while, most recently looking at joining forces with Leith.

Who knows - maybe an option like you outline was looked at and viable (though I doubt it could be as simple as suggested), but becoming homeless and lodging on someone's backpitch wasn't felt preferable to closing or going amateur?

[Che Dail]

57 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Are the conference team that takes subs currently in the top 9 or 10 of their conference? I didn't say none did it that way, I said I'd be surprised if they were in the top 9 or 10 and that being sustainably successful that way is rare. The exception, if you will.

To put you in the picture, im a manager of a team in the conference's, I've spoken to over 200 players in the last 2 seasons and very few play for the love of the game only. That's not a criticism of them, because I didn't either. Expenses on amateur and non contract professional status is still "being looked after", within HMRC laws and can still run up a very hefty budget over the course of a season.

I like Callum, both times we played Tynie last season I thought he was a really nice guy to blether to of the park, quieter than I expected. And like me a young manager in his first job. But if you think he has won 16 games out of 16 this season with people playing for the love of the game alone you're delusional I'm afraid.

Attracting players is about the package you offer, the full package. Manager, facilities, standards, level you play at, finances + other things that set you apart (we do a lot of statistical work for example). I'm afraid finances are an important part of that if you want to bring in players that bring success.

Look at Craigroyston just now. Good facilities just like Tynie, young ex professional manager in his first job just like Tynie. But sitting bottom without a win versus 16 wins from 16. Do you think Jordyn would be in that position if he had a budget like Callum? I'm sure he has a lot of contacts in the game he can't afford and it's a difficult situation, one I've been in where your are talking to players but the stumbling block is always the same, even players coming from decent amateur teams.

That's not to play down Callums achievements at all, he has to mould the players he is able to get and turn them into that winning machine, which he is doing superbly. But I can tell you from bitter experience you don't get the same opportunity to do that at this level without being able to fund bringing the players to the club in the first place who can make a difference.

It's a sad fact, but a fact none the less that successful teams at all levels tend to come from the group who are better funded.
 

 

 

 

Good post and I agree with you - although to be fair, I did say "the best payers attract the best players" and that has always been and always will be the case - take the top two or three clubs in every league from Celtic down...

Here is an extreme hypothetical example: Next season if the conferences merge into a column structure (bottom 6  in each conf go to the bottom league) and say every club in that league decides they cannot pay signing on fees or wages... Where will the players go?  16 clubs, 300ish players, no money being paid out - do they just give up, or play ams, or what? 

So for Craigroyston this season - they cover petrol money for away games and out of pocket expenses which is fair, but would they really be any worse off in the league table if they decided to pay no signing on fees?  Is that £100 (or whatever it was) really the defining factor in those guys decision when it comes to who to play for?  Where would they go instead?  Who else is going to give them anything at all, or more?  Nobody would - they'd still sign, and club would have a couple of grand in the bank.

The thing is, in the bottom league in the pyramid, players shouldn't really expect to be paid any money, because the club probably doesn't generate any after costs are met.  The clubs that do pay will challenge at the top, the clubs that don't would have to  focus on working with young players, building up the club and making it sustainable - but the club survives.

It effectively becomes a top amateur league. 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Che Dail

[newcastle broon]

3 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

I'm not sure there's many clubs who expect players to pay subs to play at EoS level, and expect to go anywhere. It may work if all you want to do is survive, but any decent player would be enticed away fairly easily.

That said, the back pitch at Ainslie would need a rail around the pitch (not cheap), and I doubt there is space down the touchlines without moving the fence. Talking of fence, it would also need to be screened off so you just can't stand outside and watch the game through it. Dugouts also needed.  St.Marks meets these requirements.

Is it any different from when Leith played on the back pitch at Meadowbank though? 

[Che Dail]

1 hour ago, gaz5 said:

Expenses on amateur and non contract professional status is still "being looked after", within HMRC laws and can still run up a very hefty budget over the course of a season.

PS I'm not sure how this can be the case.   A Non-Contract Player can only be paid the expenses he effectively incurs in return for his footballing activity.

Using guidance for a CASC, this would equate to a £10k budget.  Any more than that and it's probably wages, with PAYE liability.