Jordyn Sheerin Craigroyston

[HibeeJibee]

37 minutes ago, newcastle broon said:

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

Leith played part of 1 season on AP's backpitch after theirs at Muirhouse was wrecked; it was an 'emergency' measure.

There was a collapsible rail which Spartans Juniors also deployed, IIRC.

[Guest]

The problem for teams like Craigroyston is that the better amateur sides pay better money than those at the bottom of the eos and junior scale. ('expenses' of course!)

 

And isn't it up to a maximum of 45p per mile for expenses? (that's what I get at work) Which would equate to much more than 10k over a 42 week season for an 18 to 20 man squad. (3 nights training and a Saturday)

 

 

[gaz5]

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.

Without going into detail as to why, player expenses can be well in excess of 10k across a squad, depending on a number of factors specific to each player, most importantly travel distances. And that's for the clubs doing it legally, following HMRC guidelines.

45p per mile for actual accrued expenses, maximum.

I've looked after 2 budgets now, one in the LL and one in EoS and both times the legalities of what can and can't be done were confirmed with the tax man.

On your other question about where players would go if not getting something, would they just stop. Of course not, but a player who wants something will always find someone to give it to them in the current market, and not always at the highest level/best club/best coach.

Your hypothetical scenario will never, ever, play out that way in football unless the rules are changed to say no one can give anything to anyone. And even then, people will find ways around those rules as we see at many Amateur clubs (I've tried to sign players from top amateur sides looking for silly money because they won't "step up" for less than they are currently on).

As I said, I have a fair bit of experience in competing for the signature of well over 200 players now. I can tell you from that experience that the financial side of that is as important as any other factor. I've had players tell me they prefer our setup, like how we play, like how we do things, like the idea of the stats, but they are being offered £x elsewhere so that's where they are going. It's really demoralising at times when you put so much in.

It's hard work putting and keeping a team together, far more involved time wise than I'm sure anyone looking in would expect. On that front I have nothing but admiration for all the guys who do it for not very much, if anything, themselves. It's a slog at times!

[Che Dail]

14 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

The problem for teams like Craigroyston is that the better amateur sides pay better money than those at the bottom of the eos and junior scale. ('expenses' of course!)

 

And isn't it up to a maximum of 45p per mile for expenses? (that's what I get at work) Which would equate to much more than 10k over a 42 week season for an 18 to 20 man squad. (3 nights training and a Saturday)

 

 

Ams pay cash, you mean!? 

And ultimately this is why the club (and others) is struggling, because it can't afford to pay players on top of training and matchday costs (?)

I can see why Travel Expenses can be claimed travelling to away fixtures, but surely not to training or home games as that would be the defined place of work (?)

[Guest]

All clubs renumerate players in many ways, expenses, wages, bonus payments, fuel cards, signing on fees, fitting skirting boards, plastering jobs, fitting a shelf, free beer or actual fully paid full time jobs......

It just depends on what you offer as a club and what a players sees as acceptable I guess.

[Che Dail]

5 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

All clubs renumerate players in many ways, expenses, wages, bonus payments, fuel cards, signing on fees, fitting skirting boards, plastering jobs, fitting a shelf, free beer or actual fully paid full time jobs......

It just depends on what you offer as a club and what a players sees as acceptable I guess.

Not if the club has no money / beer / jobs goin!

 

[gaz5]

Ams pay cash, you mean!? [emoji848]
And ultimately this is why the club (and others) is struggling, because it can't afford to pay players on top of training and matchday costs (?)
I can see why Travel Expenses can be claimed travelling to away fixtures, but surely not to training or home games as that would be the defined place of work (?)

Yes, some Ams teams compensate players. Never admit to it, but I've heard it too often from players to even doubt it as hearsay any more.

It's not a place of work, they are not professional/contracted so they are not employees. So, it's incurred out of pocket expenses.

[Guest]

Not if the club has no money / beer / jobs goin!
 

Which is ultimately why some amateur clubs prosper and others don't. It's also why players, no matter what level (amateur or junior or senior) expect to be compensated for their time...... expenses incurred travelling to and from football appears to be the minimum expectation, which is fair I would say.

[Che Dail]

10 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

expenses incurred travelling to and from football appears to be the minimum expectation, which is fair I would say.
 

It might sound fair but it is not a reasonable expectation, because many clubs simply cannot afford it.  As pointed out by gaz5 it is not employment / place of work - at the end of the day it is not professional football.

If a player travels 10 miles to and from training twice a week, and roughly the same for games, that would equate to around £27 a week expenses = £1080.  That's a £20k budget on top of all the other running costs.  If you're drawing in less than 100 supporters a week and don't have several sponsors or donors, that money does not exist.  

What gaz also points out is that it must be out of pocket [reasonably] incurred expenses, i.e. past tense - so the player (or volunteer worker) technically should render a claim for expenses. 

But you will know that offers are made to players at the start of the season based on their perceived ability and value, not on the distance they travel to and from training.  'I know you only live round the corner but we'll give you £80 a week and if anybody asks just say you have to drive to Berwick for bibs and balls".  

I can see how it can be justified fairly - clubs aren't obliged to pay expenses to every player - so there could be a different offer to each one, but here's obviously a point where it becomes wages.

 

[Burnie_man]

12 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Leith played part of 1 season on AP's backpitch after theirs at Muirhouse was wrecked; it was an 'emergency' measure.

There was a collapsible rail which Spartans Juniors also deployed, IIRC.

Spartans Juniors had temporary barriers behind the goal nearest the clubrooms, that was the only place you could watch the game as there wasn't enough room down the sides.  Terrible place to watch a game.

[Burnie_man]

13 hours ago, newcastle broon said:

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

Never went there, but I believe they actually had a rail around the pitch, or at least one side of it.

[Burnie_man]

16 hours ago, Che Dail said:

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

 

Just commenting on the reality of the situation they find themselves in.  As HJ says, I doubt this decison was taken lightly or without looking at alternatives.

[Che Dail]

13 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Spartans Juniors had temporary barriers behind the goal nearest the clubrooms, that was the only place you could watch the game as there wasn't enough room down the sides.  Terrible place to watch a game.

There is a space behind the main stand used for storage containers - perhaps that could be adapted.  Also the pitch measures 60x100m - it could be reduceed to 56x90 and still comply with SFA Licence criteria.

Edited December 1, 2019 by Che Dail

[Che Dail]

3 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Just commenting on the reality of the situation they find themselves in.  As HJ says, I doubt this decison was taken lightly or without looking at alternatives.

I know 

[Burnie_man]

There is a space behind the main stand used for storage containers - perhaps that could be adapted.  Also the pitch measures 60x100m - it could be reduceed to 56x90 and still comply with SFA Licence criteria.

Those containers are actually toilets.

[Che Dail]

35 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

1 hour ago, Che Dail said:

There is a space behind the main stand used for storage containers - perhaps that could be adapted.  Also the pitch measures 60x100m - it could be reduceed to 56x90 and still comply with SFA Licence criteria.

Those containers are actually toilets.

container toilets... moveable ones...

[Burnie_man]

container toilets... moveable ones...

[emoji85]

[TheLad]

All really good ideas and good to see someone caring enough to not want to see a club like Craigsroyston fall away.

However, the bottom line is that EOS is no place now for teams with 30 fans and no reasonable income.

Plans to move or ground share might actually reduce the numbers at the gate further?

[Guest]

It might sound fair but it is not a reasonable expectation, because many clubs simply cannot afford it.  As pointed out by gaz5 it is not employment / place of work - at the end of the day it is not professional football. If a player travels 10 miles to and from training twice a week, and roughly the same for games, that would equate to around £27 a week expenses = £1080.  That's a £20k budget on top of all the other running costs.  If you're drawing in less than 100 supporters a week and don't have several sponsors or donors, that money does not exist.  

What gaz also points out is that it must be out of pocket [reasonably] incurred expenses, i.e. past tense - so the player (or volunteer worker) technically should render a claim for expenses. 

But you will know that offers are made to players at the start of the season based on their perceived ability and value, not on the distance they travel to and from training.  'I know you only live round the corner but we'll give you £80 a week and if anybody asks just say you have to drive to Berwick for bibs and balls".  

I can see how it can be justified fairly - clubs aren't obliged to pay expenses to every player - so there could be a different offer to each one, but here's obviously a point where it becomes wages.

 

 

I don't know your experience in adult football (junior or senior) but in mines (12 years as a player and 4 as a coach) most players, not all, but most will expect to be reasonably compensated for their fuel at the very least.  

I think that's a reasonable expectation. Players will play for more or less, dependant on what they are looking for. A club has to operate within its means absolutely, however, to suggest a player shouldn't ask to be compensated for their travel and time isn't a mainstream viewpoint, particularly at Senior level or junior level. Amateur level is different for the most part.

 

Anyway, I hope Craigroyston figure a way out of the situation and can continue to function. If they can't I would say that it won't be down to a lack of effort on the clubs part. Best of luck to them.

 

 

 

[Che Dail]

1 hour ago, G4Mac said:

I don't know your experience in adult football (junior or senior) but in mines (12 years as a player and 4 as a coach) most players, not all, but most will expect to be reasonably compensated for their fuel at the very least.  

I think that's a reasonable expectation. Players will play for more or less, dependant on what they are looking for. A club has to operate within its means absolutely, however, to suggest a player shouldn't ask to be compensated for their travel and time isn't a mainstream viewpoint, particularly at Senior level or junior level. Amateur level is different for the most part.

 

Anyway, I hope Craigroyston figure a way out of the situation and can continue to function. If they can't I would say that it won't be down to a lack of effort on the clubs part. Best of luck to them.

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask - ask away - although whether they get it or not is another matter because expectations are often unrealistic, unfortunately.  And this is a result of a cultural legacy going back at least 12 years where players could command good money because the adult game presumably was well supported financially.  This needs to change.

I'm not sure if you have any business experience but this scenario: Player A wants £1000, club X can't afford it so he goes to club Y instead, displacing  player B who now becomes available and joins club A  for a figure that is affordable to them, say £600 -   is an example of the basic law of supply.

For example 18 players became available when Haddington 20s folded, and another 18 will become available if Craigroyston fold: an abundance of supply.  With the greatest of respect to them,  I'd be surprised if many can command a signing on fee or payment of expenses in their next move, wherever it may be.   Clubs tend to run with a squad of 18-20, a finite number of places available, with a pretty much infinite amount of players available to fill them.

I too hope Craigroyston find a way out of the situation, but giving players signing on fees and paying expenses where there is no income to pay for it certainly won't work.

Edited December 1, 2019 by Che Dail