Observation

[Dobo Snr]

Before season 2006/07 there was never an issue regarding budgets, as far as I am aware teams paid expenses, and that’s all, Apart from the two seasons AFC Wimbledon, were in the CCL.

 

 

 

When clubs came across, from the old Ryman’s 2, in 2006 that’s when budgets started to rear its head.

 

That season I got the impression that these clubs thought they were dropping down a division, rather than moving across.

 

It’s also interesting to note that since then, with all their decent budgets, they have only won 1 trophy, Camberley League Cup.

 

 

 

So come on Wembley, Banstead, Camberley, Chertsey, Egham, Dorking, Epsom & Ewell, let’s see if you can win the title this year.

 

 

 

Not knocking these clubs, just an observation, I’ve got my own views on why big money clubs haven’t won the CCL title let’s have some of yours.

[DT10]

Surely North Greenford had a healthy budget to win the league last year with some of the players they had?

[steve]

Before season 2006/07 there was never an issue regarding budgets, as far as I am aware teams paid expenses, and that’s all, Apart from the two seasons AFC Wimbledon, were in the CCL.

 

 

 

When clubs came across, from the old Ryman’s 2, in 2006 that’s when budgets started to rear its head.

 

That season I got the impression that these clubs thought they were dropping down a division, rather than moving across.

 

It’s also interesting to note that since then, with all their decent budgets, they have only won 1 trophy, Camberley League Cup.

 

 

 

So come on Wembley, Banstead, Camberley, Chertsey, Egham, Dorking, Epsom & Ewell, let’s see if you can win the title this year.

 

 

 

Not knocking these clubs, just an observation, I’ve got my own views on why big money clubs haven’t won the CCL title let’s have some of yours.

 

 

In my opinion if your known as a " big money club" it is very easy to attract players who are there for just the money and nothing else.

Having been at clubs and witnessed this, it can cause a big problem. Lack of desire,lack of effort and no team spirit.

Put them 3 together and you win nothing. I would also say that a big budget in the wrong hands is a recipe for disaster.

You might have money but if you dont have player knowledge,tactical know how and good man managment

then again you win nothing.

The only time this can work is if the money is that ridiculous that you will attract the best from much higher levels and they may just win you something on talent alone.

I think the best managers come from a background of none or little budget learning their trade and then find themselves with a budget to work with.

Whilst were on the subject can i please put to bed this rumour of Egham offering big money. Trust me i have signed every player at the club and although yes we do pay expenses it is not in the region of some of the "comments" i have seen on on here !

Dont know about other managers but when i sign a player and the first thing he mentions is money it puts me right of !

Edited September 15, 2010 by steve

[Terrence Collina]

 

In my opinion if your known as a " big money club" it is very easy to attract players who are there for just the money and nothing else.

Having been at clubs and witnessed this, it can cause a big problem. Lack of desire,lack of effort and no team spirit.

Put them 3 together and you win nothing.

 

 

That appeared to be the case at Cambo a couple of seasons back when a player said he was there for the football and not intersted in the banter.

 

Not saying banter should be first, but as Steve says, good banter helps team spirit.

[SurreysFinest]

Not sure I,d agree there TC, surely football first, banter second and money third would be the ideal mixture? Or am I completely wrong there?

Sure there are some players who have their priorities the opposite way round, those being the players that should be steered clear of.

[manager50]

I was manager at Egham when the change came and to be honest most teams did look upon it as a demotion rather than a sideways move. Two years previously Egham were a decent mid-table Ryman 1 side who got shafted (sorry, shifted) to some Western league travelling to Somerset and Cornwall on a regular basis, had no money for players, got relegated, and ended up in the Ryman 2. All in the name of re-organisation of the pyramid, but a rapid demise for them.

The league was forced to accept them and there were a lot of clubs demoted due to ground grading issues because of this, which certainly caused some anger at the AGM.

I think that, because these sides came from the Ryman league, the fitness levels and overall strength was greater than most existing CCL sides. This point was proven when we went to Merstham and beat them, and this followed a couple of defeats they had at the hands of the likes of Wembley - I recall Mick Sullivan saying to me that it was then that he realised he was going to have to strengthen his squad (physically) if he was going to get out of the CCL - something they did the year after.

It also meant that - no disrespect to the demoted sides - more teams in the CCL had decent enough grounds to be able to step up to the plate when improvements were required, so this has made the league a more attractive one from players points of view.

The economic factor has also come into play with many sides opting to get rid of reserve sides, plus groundshares going on. This has released lots of good young players who may have played for Ryman and Zamaretto reserve sides, but who now ply their trade in leagues such as the CCL. The clubs doing this then have more money to offer to their squads and this will result in players dropping down expecting a bit more than previously if they are to make the small step down.

The CCL has therefore strenghtened, but we still only have the one promotion spot, whilst leagues such as the Ryman stagnate and retain the usual suspects in their ranks battling it out to either avoid relegation or get the reprieve due to others misfortunes or foolhardy spending.

So, whilst it is true to say the "budget" chat has become more prominent since the merger, it is not simply the fault of the ex-Ryman sides, but a consequence of a much stronger and well run set of clubs, plus the blinkered views of the pyramid powers that be.

I think it is fair to say that we should not now see a season when the eventual champions, or at least runners up, are unable to accept promotion. Having now reached this stage the CCL is in a stronger position should they wish to take the issue up with the heirachy and try to force an extra place.

Dobo mentions the seven teams who came across, but I can only think that Camberley, Egham and Chertsey are the ones paying loads - from what I am aware. I obviously know what we have available and have a view on Epsom, whilst the others are surely not shelling much out. But then you get the Ash manager confirming what Blason was getting there, which is indicative of (a) what they may be paying out and ( what Badshot Lea have on offer. It is certainly a figure that is miles away from what we have on offer.

This one prize at the end of a long hard season is the other reason budgets have gone up, as clubs strive to reach the goal and money now talks with players, some of whom would be lucky to get paid at all a while back. Levels have been set and anyone who wants to keep up seems to feel the need to match what others are willing to pay.

We had a player who would have got a maximum of £30 a week (not game) with us this season who managed to get himself more than 3 times that (so he says) in the same league!

Budgets, though, do not mean success as we know. If the best manager has the best budget he will probably win the league. Give £2,000 a week to a muppet and you will get an annual deficit of £60,000+ and a CCL team the year after.

Money-wise, foootball is crap now and is being ruined from top to bottom by it. Everyone talks about it, players generally lie about it, and even managers are cagey about it. In fairness to the manager, he is talking about someone elses money, so spouting about how much he gets is probably not the done thing.

To summarise - the ex-Ryman boys are not to blame, I would say they are just part of the natural swing towards a stronger CCL which, in turn attracts better players who want money.

And, DT is right about NGU. Nothing about their budget, as I have no knowledge, but teams "on the up" tend to a have a momentum and often have people on board who have been part of the years of success and are willing/able to fund this because it is a rollercoaster ride that they do not want to get off and money to a degree appears no object.

I know that I work my socks off at Molesey and have never taken any money for doing so, I have just always enjoyed the whole thing about playing/ coaching in non-league. When I was at Egham, however, there was a bit of money on the table and I gratefully accepted that and felt nothing wrong in doing so, although still never did it for that.

It will not change, Dobo, so do what I do and stick a £1 on the lotto tonight!

Phew!

 

 

[DT10]

I was manager at Egham when the change came and to be honest most teams did look upon it as a demotion rather than a sideways move. Two years previously Egham were a decent mid-table Ryman 1 side who got shafted (sorry, shifted) to some Western league travelling to Somerset and Cornwall on a regular basis, had no money for players, got relegated, and ended up in the Ryman 2. All in the name of re-organisation of the pyramid, but a rapid demise for them.

The league was forced to accept them and there were a lot of clubs demoted due to ground grading issues because of this, which certainly caused some anger at the AGM.

I think that, because these sides came from the Ryman league, the fitness levels and overall strength was greater than most existing CCL sides. This point was proven when we went to Merstham and beat them, and this followed a couple of defeats they had at the hands of the likes of Wembley - I recall Mick Sullivan saying to me that it was then that he realised he was going to have to strengthen his squad (physically) if he was going to get out of the CCL - something they did the year after.

It also meant that - no disrespect to the demoted sides - more teams in the CCL had decent enough grounds to be able to step up to the plate when improvements were required, so this has made the league a more attractive one from players points of view.

The economic factor has also come into play with many sides opting to get rid of reserve sides, plus groundshares going on. This has released lots of good young players who may have played for Ryman and Zamaretto reserve sides, but who now ply their trade in leagues such as the CCL. The clubs doing this then have more money to offer to their squads and this will result in players dropping down expecting a bit more than previously if they are to make the small step down.

The CCL has therefore strenghtened, but we still only have the one promotion spot, whilst leagues such as the Ryman stagnate and retain the usual suspects in their ranks battling it out to either avoid relegation or get the reprieve due to others misfortunes or foolhardy spending.

So, whilst it is true to say the "budget" chat has become more prominent since the merger, it is not simply the fault of the ex-Ryman sides, but a consequence of a much stronger and well run set of clubs, plus the blinkered views of the pyramid powers that be.

I think it is fair to say that we should not now see a season when the eventual champions, or at least runners up, are unable to accept promotion. Having now reached this stage the CCL is in a stronger position should they wish to take the issue up with the heirachy and try to force an extra place.

Dobo mentions the seven teams who came across, but I can only think that Camberley, Egham and Chertsey are the ones paying loads - from what I am aware. I obviously know what we have available and have a view on Epsom, whilst the others are surely not shelling much out. But then you get the Ash manager confirming what Blason was getting there, which is indicative of (a) what they may be paying out and ( what Badshot Lea have on offer. It is certainly a figure that is miles away from what we have on offer.

This one prize at the end of a long hard season is the other reason budgets have gone up, as clubs strive to reach the goal and money now talks with players, some of whom would be lucky to get paid at all a while back. Levels have been set and anyone who wants to keep up seems to feel the need to match what others are willing to pay.

We had a player who would have got a maximum of £30 a week (not game) with us this season who managed to get himself more than 3 times that (so he says) in the same league!

Budgets, though, do not mean success as we know. If the best manager has the best budget he will probably win the league. Give £2,000 a week to a muppet and you will get an annual deficit of £60,000+ and a CCL team the year after.

Money-wise, foootball is crap now and is being ruined from top to bottom by it. Everyone talks about it, players generally lie about it, and even managers are cagey about it. In fairness to the manager, he is talking about someone elses money, so spouting about how much he gets is probably not the done thing.

To summarise - the ex-Ryman boys are not to blame, I would say they are just part of the natural swing towards a stronger CCL which, in turn attracts better players who want money.

And, DT is right about NGU. Nothing about their budget, as I have no knowledge, but teams "on the up" tend to a have a momentum and often have people on board who have been part of the years of success and are willing/able to fund this because it is a rollercoaster ride that they do not want to get off and money to a degree appears no object.

I know that I work my socks off at Molesey and have never taken any money for doing so, I have just always enjoyed the whole thing about playing/ coaching in non-league. When I was at Egham, however, there was a bit of money on the table and I gratefully accepted that and felt nothing wrong in doing so, although still never did it for that.

It will not change, Dobo, so do what I do and stick a £1 on the lotto tonight!

Phew!

 

 

 

Good post Manager50 and your are spot on football has been ruined by Money from top to bottom.

 

On TC's comment I agree banter is important but that comes with hard work and winning games its no good having banter if you arent playing good football and producing performances. At to many clubs now players take it as a jolly up and forget what they are there to do which is win games!

 

Just because a manager has a big budget doesnt make there job any easier they may get the better players but are they playing for the club or for the money? I agree a manager who has worked with no budget and done well should then move onto a club with a budget and show that they have earned there stripes and have earned the right to work with a budget!

[Terrence Collina]

Not sure I,d agree there TC, surely football first, banter second and money third would be the ideal mixture? Or am I completely wrong there?

Sure there are some players who have their priorities the opposite way round, those being the players that should be steered clear of.

 

 

Must be the way I worded it, obviously footie is the most important part, but if you have your players on the same wave length playing wise on a matchday and banter wise of the field and at the right times in training, it is going to help the cause.

[steve]

Not sure I,d agree there TC, surely football first, banter second and money third would be the ideal mixture? Or am I completely wrong there?

Sure there are some players who have their priorities the opposite way round, those being the players that should be steered clear of.

 

 

Must be the way I worded it, obviously footie is the most important part, but if you have your players on the same wave length playing wise on a matchday and banter wise of the field and at the right times in training, it is going to help the cause.

Totally agree TC. I played for Hayes F.C when they won the ryman prem and gained promotion to the conference under Terry Brown.

Our budget was one of the lowest but the team spirit and banter he created was worth 20 points a year.

Under someone as good as Terry the players knew the banter stopped at 2.15 every Saturday.

Happy Days

[duncs]

I think you will find the clubs that started all of this''silly money' are Ash Hartley Malden town and Godalming,Hartley were the biggest culprits the chairman over there(not the present one) was paying huge amounts of money to lads who were'nt worth it and he left and went to Farnboro,years ago when I played for Hartley thier budget was huge I think the guy who owned the land at the time was a multi millionaire with a soft spot for the club.

[Krooner]

As a Camberley fan when the Ryman 2 was finally put out of it's misery I was pleased to be going into the CCL. I also know that to be the thoughts of fans of other Ryman 2 clubs who came into the CCL. What the hierachy at the club thought I cannot comment as I do not know.

 

I also think it made the CCL a whole lot stronger and has also meant the Div 1 has got stronger too. As manager50 says we should never now have a team winning the league and not going up. Unfortunately the winner of the league will also be one of the biggest payers. not necessarily the biggest but one of.

 

I have been on this league for 13 years now and will continue to be on it as long as I am required and other commitments do not get in the way. On the whole it is a decent and enjoyable league and long may that continue.

[steve]

I think you will find the clubs that started all of this''silly money' are Ash Hartley Malden town and Godalming,Hartley were the biggest culprits the chairman over there(not the present one) was paying huge amounts of money to lads who were'nt worth it and he left and went to Farnboro,years ago when I played for Hartley thier budget was huge I think the guy who owned the land at the time was a multi millionaire with a soft spot for the club.

Cheers Duncs. One of the only posters not to mention the millions i have at Egham

[Chris Clapham]

I wouldn't mind so much except some of the players and the money I've heard they are on is utter madness.

If they are THAT good they should step up two levels.

Mind you, the games I have seen this season have been pretty good and it would appear that the CCL is getting stronger.

 

 

[Smudge]

I wouldn't mind so much except some of the players and the money I've heard they are on is utter madness.

If they are THAT good they should step up two levels.

Mind you, the games I have seen this season have been pretty good and it would appear that the CCL is getting stronger.

 

 

 

 

Yeah Chris,pay players money how dare they,a FIVER A YEAR is too much for sum people,rather have a Gold Membership on here, better value.Suprised you have not joined up.

[PB!]

Trouble with this conversation is we are mainly dealing in guesswork. xxx budget is big, xxxx is small etc, etc. When at Camberley we had a budget, nowhere near as big as some seem to think but it was a budget that enabled us to compete. On numerous occasions in my time there we were unable to match what you would say were a low budget side were offering the player we approached to sign, its one of those things you just get on with. Make the best of what you have as they say. Some sides will compliment their budget with other monies, I know of managers paying some players privately, players being sponsored by companies/individuals, supporters trusts putting money towards teams budgets. I'm quite happy to tell what budget was at Camberley, unfortunately now a large number of players at this level are money driven (lost a player a few seasons back as he was offered £5 a week more) so budgets are constantly changing, being hidden as something else so any talk about teams budgets becomes somewhat inconsequential.

Going back to Dobo's original point, looking back over recent winners of the league, AFC, Walton Casuals, Godalming, Chipstead, Merstham, Bedfont Green and North Greenford, all of these will have had budgets as big as those of the sides coming in from Ryman so not sure said sides can be blamed for the rise in budgets on the whole. I would however say that unfortunately that is what is needed to get out of what is now a very competitive league, with only 1 promotion spot up for grabs it is a difficult league to get promoted from.

[steve]

Great post PB. Sounds like you had the same made up budget I have ! A couple of grand a week:)

[NICE GUY]

Before season 2006/07 there was never an issue regarding budgets, as far as I am aware teams paid expenses, and that’s all, Apart from the two seasons AFC Wimbledon, were in the CCL.

 

 

 

When clubs came across, from the old Ryman’s 2, in 2006 that’s when budgets started to rear its head.

 

That season I got the impression that these clubs thought they were dropping down a division, rather than moving across.

 

It’s also interesting to note that since then, with all their decent budgets, they have only won 1 trophy, Camberley League Cup.

 

 

 

So come on Wembley, Banstead, Camberley, Chertsey, Egham, Dorking, Epsom & Ewell, let’s see if you can win the title this year.

 

 

 

Not knocking these clubs, just an observation, I’ve got my own views on why big money clubs haven’t won the CCL title let’s have some of yours.

 

 

In my opinion if your known as a " big money club" it is very easy to attract players who are there for just the money and nothing else.

Having been at clubs and witnessed this, it can cause a big problem. Lack of desire,lack of effort and no team spirit.

Put them 3 together and you win nothing. I would also say that a big budget in the wrong hands is a recipe for disaster.

You might have money but if you dont have player knowledge,tactical know how and good man managment

then again you win nothing.

The only time this can work is if the money is that ridiculous that you will attract the best from much higher levels and they may just win you something on talent alone.

I think the best managers come from a background of none or little budget learning their trade and then find themselves with a budget to work with.

Whilst were on the subject can i please put to bed this rumour of Egham offering big money. Trust me i have signed every player at the club and although yes we do pay expenses it is not in the region of some of the "comments" i have seen on on here !

Dont know about other managers but when i sign a player and the first thing he mentions is money it puts me right of !

 

COME ON STEVE LETS BE REAL HERE, POMROY AIN''T CHEAP NEITHER ARE YOUR OTHER STRIKERS,NOR WOULD I IMAGINE THAT NOAD IS CHEAP EITHER. FOULSER CAN BE IN THEIR BRACKET AS WELL. EGHAM CERTAINLY HASN'T THE LOWEST BUDGET THATS FOR SURE....JUST BE HONEST !

[NICE GUY]

Trouble with this conversation is we are mainly dealing in guesswork. xxx budget is big, xxxx is small etc, etc. When at Camberley we had a budget, nowhere near as big as some seem to think but it was a budget that enabled us to compete. On numerous occasions in my time there we were unable to match what you would say were a low budget side were offering the player we approached to sign, its one of those things you just get on with. Make the best of what you have as they say. Some sides will compliment their budget with other monies, I know of managers paying some players privately, players being sponsored by companies/individuals, supporters trusts putting money towards teams budgets. I'm quite happy to tell what budget was at Camberley, unfortunately now a large number of players at this level are money driven (lost a player a few seasons back as he was offered £5 a week more) so budgets are constantly changing, being hidden as something else so any talk about teams budgets becomes somewhat inconsequential.

 

Going back to Dobo's original point, looking back over recent winners of the league, AFC, Walton Casuals, Godalming, Chipstead, Merstham, Bedfont Green and North Greenford, all of these will have had budgets as big as those of the sides coming in from Ryman so not sure said sides can be blamed for the rise in budgets on the whole. I would however say that unfortunately that is what is needed to get out of what is now a very competitive league, with only 1 promotion spot up for grabs it is a difficult league to get promoted from.

 

PB YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THE TEAMS YOU MENTION ABOVE THAT HAVE BEEN PROMOTED FROM THE CCL WHO'S BUDGET WERE ALWAYS ONE OF THE BEST IN THE LEAGUE AT THAT TIME. I HEARD FROM A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE THAT THE NGU 3 STRIKERS TOWARDS THE END OF LAST SEASON EARNED £450.00/£500.00 ALONE.......... BUT THEY GOT PROMOTION.

 

NGU ARE SUFFERING EARLY DOORS CURRENTLY 4TH FROM BOTTOM WITH THE SAME PLAYERS, SO IS THERE THAT BIGGER DIFFERENCE IN THE RYMAN & ZAMARETTO LEAGUES TO THE CCL ?

[VPCTFC]

Great post PB. Sounds like you had the same made up budget I have ! A couple of grand a week:)

 

Some muppet posted on our guestbook that we wasted £80000 last season on players and looked like doing the same this season.

Do these people really believe what they're writing? Figures like that are so far out it's embarrassing. I'm not having a dig at our players but does anyone really believe any of them are worth £150 - £200 a week?

[Terrence Collina]

Trouble with this conversation is we are mainly dealing in guesswork. xxx budget is big, xxxx is small etc, etc. When at Camberley we had a budget, nowhere near as big as some seem to think but it was a budget that enabled us to compete. On numerous occasions in my time there we were unable to match what you would say were a low budget side were offering the player we approached to sign, its one of those things you just get on with. Make the best of what you have as they say. Some sides will compliment their budget with other monies, I know of managers paying some players privately, players being sponsored by companies/individuals, supporters trusts putting money towards teams budgets. I'm quite happy to tell what budget was at Camberley, unfortunately now a large number of players at this level are money driven (lost a player a few seasons back as he was offered £5 a week more) so budgets are constantly changing, being hidden as something else so any talk about teams budgets becomes somewhat inconsequential.

Going back to Dobo's original point, looking back over recent winners of the league, AFC, Walton Casuals, Godalming, Chipstead, Merstham, Bedfont Green and North Greenford, all of these will have had budgets as big as those of the sides coming in from Ryman so not sure said sides can be blamed for the rise in budgets on the whole. I would however say that unfortunately that is what is needed to get out of what is now a very competitive league, with only 1 promotion spot up for grabs it is a difficult league to get promoted from.

 

 

That sucks losing a player for an extra fiver a week.