|
Post by england on Dec 17, 2023 16:40:03 GMT
There is no hole, because everything I’ve said is true. Also it is a side point as it’s just basic maths that for some reason you don’t seem to grasp I once said on the other forum England you make many valid points but you musnt be allowed the last word in the house off your missus As I said youve had a mare on this occasion it happens, time to go to the next debate. I’ve asked you what error I made?
|
|
|
Post by cornishpasty on Dec 17, 2023 16:47:03 GMT
Please feel free to inbox me. with some proof. Of course its not a side point, that is what the post is about, your digging yourself a deeper hole England my friend. There is no hole, because everything I’ve said is true. Also it is a side point as it’s just basic maths that for some reason you don’t seem to grasp So your saying the MAIN POST MATERIAL is now a side point because you haven't grasped the jest of that and chose to make a totally invalid point about something else then repeated something I said to make your points sound relevant. Sorry England youve lost the plot on this one S
|
|
|
Post by england on Dec 17, 2023 16:56:36 GMT
There is no hole, because everything I’ve said is true. Also it is a side point as it’s just basic maths that for some reason you don’t seem to grasp So your saying the MAIN POST MATERIAL is now a side point because you haven't grasped the jest of that and chose to make a totally invalid point about something else then repeated something I said to make your points sound relevant. Sorry England youve lost the plot on this one S Absolutely not, and I’ll keep it really really simple for you. It doesn’t matter whether you pay weekly or per game, it’s the amount you pay that is the issue. If you pay people £50 per game, over a season you would be paying £50 x 50 games (rough number of games), which would be £2500. If you wanted to pay people weekly that would be £2500 divided by 38 and £65 per week. So from an affordability point of view it’s still costing you the same amount!
|
|
|
Post by cornishpasty on Dec 17, 2023 17:09:10 GMT
So your saying the MAIN POST MATERIAL is now a side point because you haven't grasped the jest of that and chose to make a totally invalid point about something else then repeated something I said to make your points sound relevant. Sorry England youve lost the plot on this one S Absolutely not, and I’ll keep it really really simple for you. It doesn’t matter whether you pay weekly or per game, it’s the amount you pay that is the issue. If you pay people £50 per game, over a season you would be paying £50 x 50 games (rough number of games), which would be £2500. If you wanted to pay people weekly that would be £2500 divided by 38 and £65 per week. So from an affordability point of view it’s still costing you the same amount! I give up. Read the topic of the post the England, I think F.E.L is right about you
|
|
|
Post by england on Dec 17, 2023 17:14:57 GMT
Absolutely not, and I’ll keep it really really simple for you. It doesn’t matter whether you pay weekly or per game, it’s the amount you pay that is the issue. If you pay people £50 per game, over a season you would be paying £50 x 50 games (rough number of games), which would be £2500. If you wanted to pay people weekly that would be £2500 divided by 38 and £65 per week. So from an affordability point of view it’s still costing you the same amount! I give up. Read the topic of the post the England, I think F.E.L is right about you I’ve read it thanks on many occasions, have you read my post(s), which prove that it doesn’t matter!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by cornishpasty on Dec 17, 2023 17:26:24 GMT
I’ve read it thanks on many occasions, have you read my post(s), which prove that it doesn’t matter!!!!! Its impossible to make someone understand who doesnt want to understand, have a nice day, your credibility had taken a massive hit
|
|
|
Post by england on Dec 17, 2023 17:29:14 GMT
I’ve read it thanks on many occasions, have you read my post(s), which prove that it doesn’t matter!!!!! Its impossible to make someone understand who doesnt want to understand, have a nice day, your credibility had taken a massive hit I understand everything you have said and disagree with your opening post about “is it time to stop paying players weekly”. I’ve clearly on many occasions explained the maths about how it’s the amounts that are the issues not that methods of payments. You haven’t challenged that at all!
|
|
|
Post by cornishpasty on Dec 17, 2023 17:54:57 GMT
Its impossible to make someone understand who doesnt want to understand, have a nice day, your credibility had taken a massive hit I understand everything you have said and disagree with your opening post about “is it time to stop paying players weekly”. I’ve clearly on many occasions explained the maths about how it’s the amounts that are the issues not that methods of payments. You haven’t challenged that at all! Ok. I'm going to try explain it one last time, hopefully you can get your head around it. My Post was. Given the situation at North Shields is it time for clubs to realize, paying weekly wages to players/management etc. doesn't work in some circumstances. (ie postponements, sponsors. wage payers dropping off) Is pay as you play the only way forward to use a playing budget? (As in a club paying weekly wages are duty bound to pay that weekly wage weather a game goes ahead or not, if it doesn't, all revenue is lost for that game and still there is a weekly wage bill to pay.)
Therfore England if you do pay weekly you will have say for instance £2,000 in the bank before paying the weekly wage possibly £2,000 going out to pay a weekly wage to all players, every week, and that could be for several weeks the way things are at the moment, where as pay as you play is on a lower percentage and you keep your money in the bank until the game goes ahead.
So you mention maths, a club in general will pay a player either a large weekly/monthly amount, or a lower pay as you play wage.
So in essence for example a player gets paid £100 x 40 weeks = £4,000 ............ That player whos worth is that wont get £100 per game over the course of the season maybe half, maybe £60, average 50 games with cup games over the course of the year, on a pay as you play basis £50 x 50 games = £2, 500 Never once have I mentioned Yearly budget amounts, thats not what the post was about, hopefully finally you can understand the crux of this.
|
|
|
Post by sikirk on Dec 17, 2023 19:42:20 GMT
This thread is going round in circles. Whilst paying a player a guaranteed weekly wage would be harder for a club if there is several home games called off if instead a player is paid per game a team will be forking out alot once they are playing up to 3 times a week to catch up on fixtures. Clearly theres mire than meets the eye at north shields of the whole squads left due to the club been cash strapped due to a few posponements lately. I suspect alot of the money used to pay players at northern league level comes from backers and/or sponsors who should still put the money in even if a few cames are called off due to weather so again some far bigger issues at n shields
|
|
|
Post by andypool on Dec 17, 2023 20:02:30 GMT
Why on earth would you ever pay a non-contracted player when there was no game that week??
What if they're not in the squad? What if they're injured? On holiday? Suspended?
Would you pay them anyway? No.
I've not been involved in anything like that in the NL, contracted players yes. But not every squad member. It makes Zero sense
|
|
|
Post by cornishpasty on Dec 17, 2023 20:11:16 GMT
Why on earth would you ever pay a non-contracted player when there was no game that week?? What if they're not in the squad? What if they're injured? On holiday? Suspended? Would you pay them anyway? No. I've not been involved in anything like that in the NL, contracted players yes. But not every squad member. It makes Zero sense Hallelujah.... Thank you Andy, same every club I've been involved in.
|
|
|
Post by eastdurhamhopper on Dec 17, 2023 20:53:22 GMT
I’ve been involved in 2 clubs many years ago now and never once had a position where players not on a contract were paid weekly regardless if they play or not.
|
|
|
Post by eastdurhamhopper on Dec 17, 2023 20:55:08 GMT
So your saying the MAIN POST MATERIAL is now a side point because you haven't grasped the jest of that and chose to make a totally invalid point about something else then repeated something I said to make your points sound relevant. Sorry England youve lost the plot on this one S Absolutely not, and I’ll keep it really really simple for you. It doesn’t matter whether you pay weekly or per game, it’s the amount you pay that is the issue. If you pay people £50 per game, over a season you would be paying £50 x 50 games (rough number of games), which would be £2500. If you wanted to pay people weekly that would be £2500 divided by 38 and £65 per week. So from an affordability point of view it’s still costing you the same amount! not if said player misses 8/10 games through injury/ suspension/ work etc. in that case you are quite literally wasting money. So you are only actually paying for 40 games not 50 in that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by england on Dec 17, 2023 21:43:44 GMT
Why on earth would you ever pay a non-contracted player when there was no game that week?? What if they're not in the squad? What if they're injured? On holiday? Suspended? Would you pay them anyway? No. I've not been involved in anything like that in the NL, contracted players yes. But not every squad member. It makes Zero sense Hallelujah.... Thank you Andy, same every club I've been involved in. Ok well now I’m massively confused because that was the exact point that I was making!
|
|
|
Post by england on Dec 17, 2023 21:44:29 GMT
Absolutely not, and I’ll keep it really really simple for you. It doesn’t matter whether you pay weekly or per game, it’s the amount you pay that is the issue. If you pay people £50 per game, over a season you would be paying £50 x 50 games (rough number of games), which would be £2500. If you wanted to pay people weekly that would be £2500 divided by 38 and £65 per week. So from an affordability point of view it’s still costing you the same amount! not if said player misses 8/10 games through injury/ suspension/ work etc. in that case you are quite literally wasting money. So you are only actually paying for 40 games not 50 in that scenario. But if they weren’t playing, they wouldn’t be getting paid no matter what! Irrelevant if it was weekly or per game.
|
|