Saturday 10th

[Don't Blame Me]

What is this obsession with money? Provided that Clubs operate within their means then they can do what they like. It still takes a considerable bit of time and effort to mould a team and to get them to play effectively as a team. So this season's whipping boys are Frimley Green just as last season it was my beloved Windsor. What FG do is entirely their affair and no-one elses. So please, if some of you want to bicker about who pays this or who pays that, start your own thread and leave what actually matters to the rest of us.

[Mark-Tommo]

Wasn't a dig Dont Blame Me, merely support your arguement that if clubs have money, I believe they should use it.

[newby marvel]

alot is jealousy all clubs would like to pay for different reasons not all can maybe easy is a player not getting paid whilst maybe others are doesnt make for good morale if that is the case though im not passing judgement on frimley at all. giddo is a friend ive known for years an i do wish him an the club well my good mate webby has alot of good things to say about the manager

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

Does it matter if a club is spending big?

 

Most of the successful clubs are big spenders, and most of them spend it in a wise fashion.

 

There are instances where you can be successful and not spend a great deal, but you would need a good youth base and rely on local businesses to 'foot the bill'.

 

Having been at clubs with money (and a few without!) I would always choose the former as these tend to be better run and have a more professional set-up (not always the case, but this is from general experience).

[bomaya]

What is this obsession with money? Provided that Clubs operate within their means then they can do what they like. It still takes a considerable bit of time and effort to mould a team and to get them to play effectively as a team. So this season's whipping boys are Frimley Green just as last season it was my beloved Windsor. What FG do is entirely their affair and no-one elses. So please, if some of you want to bicker about who pays this or who pays that, start your own thread and leave what actually matters to the rest of us.

 

Well tell that to the supporters of clubs who have gone bust. Money is a perfectly acceptable topic for discussion on here, maybe not in each and every thread of course but then that goes for every subject!

[TRS]

I'm amazed that anyone below Ryman Prem level pays, expenses aside. Surely hardly any club makes enough to sustain a wage bill, so it's usually down to a sugar daddy. Although I suppose that applies from the premier league down.

Edited November 12, 2012 by TRS

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

I know plenty of Step 4 and 5 sides who pay over £100 p/w not including expenses.

 

Their money, their choice.

[Chuck Berry]

In principle at level 5 and 6 I don't think the players have the ability to command money. I've watched this level of football and higher over the last 40 years and overall my opinion is that it's no where near as good as it used to be. But then neither are the officials.

It seems that if Frimley win, then rather than say well done to beat MVSCR or Eversley who are both good teams looking for a top three position, we always go back to talking money. Did we all get on the money subject when Badshot Lea went top of the table? and they are paying money. So what. Why are we not talking football. I,e are Eversley out of it now having lost to both MVSCR and FG with no reply?

[Green_Fingers]

Good write-up on the GFC v Badshot Lea game in the Guernsey Press

 

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/sport/2012/11/12/video-allen-comes-up-trumps/

[Charlie Farleigh]

I haven't been to Frimley for a while, but if it was how I remember it I think that any money should be spent on the ground. This might enable Frimley to get promoted, as the ground lacked a lot of facilities needed to sustain, if not gain promotion. Always liked the people there though, very friendly club.

[Don't Blame Me]

Investing in the infrastructure should always be the first priority. The condition of some of the pitches in Steps 4 and 5 is laughable. Better pitches should equate to a better standard of football for the spectator which could encourage more spectators to turn up as well as better players. Better supporter facilities would also help but while there is the log jam between steps 5 and 4 when it comes to promotion, I can understand why some clubs want to chase the golden ticket.

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

I agree with DBM, but a lot of clubs at Step 4 and 5 are nigh but skint, or have owners who won't spend and are generally re-active (or inactive) rather than pro-active. I remember drawing up a project for a club once, and it got binned as it wasn't what the club wanted to know.

 

There are some notable exceptions though, like Westfield; Merthyr Town; St. Neots Town; Stratford Town who are investing now for the future and have either put in or are putting in new facilities and expanding the club into the community. All of these clubs are forward looking, and look well equipped to survive in the future as they are gaining more support - especially with discounts for children and the armed forces.

 

Also, some clubs have to change their reputation and become more community focused rather than just be the sole domain of a handful of people. Warren Crossley (the new chairman of Barnstaple Town FC) hit the nail on the head for a lot of clubs:

 

'I asked one lad if he'd ever been to one of our games. He said he hadn't. I asked him why not, and he said that he didn't know where the club was, and he had lived in the town for all of his 18 years.'

 

How many people do you think would know where the clubs in the Combined Counties, for example, play their home games? How many of these people are clubs missing out on, in terms of supporter revenue?

 

Better marketing within non-league and less of a 'mine all mine' attitude with club owners and committee members (maybe even younger committees?) will help as well IMHO.

[Chubby Brown]

This is just another delusional post I'm afraid - we've heard it all before Adam, not sure why you persist on banging the same old drum.

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

'not sure why you persist on banging the same old drum'

 

Ditto, sweet cheeks.

[Krooner]

I agree with DBM, but a lot of clubs at Step 4 and 5 are nigh but skint, or have owners who won't spend and are generally re-active (or inactive) rather than pro-active. I remember drawing up a project for a club once, and it got binned as it wasn't what the club wanted to know.

 

There are some notable exceptions though, like Westfield; Merthyr Town; St. Neots Town; Stratford Town who are investing now for the future and have either put in or are putting in new facilities and expanding the club into the community. All of these clubs are forward looking, and look well equipped to survive in the future as they are gaining more support - especially with discounts for children and the armed forces.

 

Also, some clubs have to change their reputation and become more community focused rather than just be the sole domain of a handful of people. Warren Crossley (the new chairman of Barnstaple Town FC) hit the nail on the head for a lot of clubs:

 

'I asked one lad if he'd ever been to one of our games. He said he hadn't. I asked him why not, and he said that he didn't know where the club was, and he had lived in the town for all of his 18 years.'

 

How many people do you think would know where the clubs in the Combined Counties, for example, play their home games? How many of these people are clubs missing out on, in terms of supporter revenue?

 

Better marketing within non-league and less of a 'mine all mine' attitude with club owners and committee members (maybe even younger committees?) will help as well IMHO.

 

I tend to disagree with that now. I find it is the "older" clubs around that spend their money rather than doing facilities. "Newer" clubs coming through have to spend money on facilities to get anywhere.

 

Look at Horley, South Park, Hanworth Villa, Bedfont Sports. 4 what I would class as newer clubs who have excellent facilities because they have had to moving forward. Compare them to some of the older grounds in the CCL such as Cove, Dorking, Us and many more and they are far better. I also agree with the point about playing surfaces. I think they should be part of the Ground Grading as well to encourage people to look after them better than they currently do. I will cite CWU on this one as a club who have minimal money and minimal people workinf there but have managed to do it.

[Brunty.]

Totally agree on the pitches should be graded kroons some of the step 4 pitches this and last season have been awful with budgets 1-2k per week in most cases on players.

[johnnojudo]

I tend to disagree with that now. I find it is the "older" clubs around that spend their money rather than doing facilities. "Newer" clubs coming through have to spend money on facilities to get anywhere.

 

Look at Horley, South Park, Hanworth Villa, Bedfont Sports. 4 what I would class as newer clubs who have excellent facilities because they have had to moving forward. Compare them to some of the older grounds in the CCL such as Cove, Dorking, Us and many more and they are far better. I also agree with the point about playing surfaces. I think they should be part of the Ground Grading as well to encourage people to look after them better than they currently do. I will cite CWU on this one as a club who have minimal money and minimal people workinf there but have managed to do it.

 

been here before havent we Kroony??

 

How the hell do you judge if a pitch is worthy for that level?? Chertsey was looking decent in august but now looks like a bog. Clubs that are based near rivers, streams, lakes etc are always in danger of flooding. A lot of clubs need to hire the pitch out or groundshare to bring vital extra income in to survive which causes wear and tear on the pitch.

 

The facilities upgrade issue mostly regards health and safety which is understandable in this day and age.

 

But i strongly disagree with your comment on the playing surface. We all want a bowling green to play on but sometimes you have to accept what youve got.

 

North Greenford Utd have always had an excellent surface but a clubhouse too far away that you cant see the pitch properly, a tiny stand, and a portacabin for a changing room. Not sure I would swop what we have at Chertsey for NGU's pitch.

 

Hanworth Villa's pitch or Camberleys enclosed ground and stand??

 

Sandhurst's pitch or Moleseys ground and stand?

[Windsor_Sec]

It's a double-edged sword though JJ, does the income from letting the ground out cover the added cost of the repairs neeeded to keep it playable - I know from experience of groundsharing that in most cases the answer is a definite NO ! You then lose further income by having to rearrange postponed games for midweek when attendances are further affected by football on TV or having 3 or 4 home games on the trot which becomes expensive to watch when money is tight like it is at the moment. Windsor's pitch used to be one of the worst around for retaining water and being on the edge of a stream and subsequently a very expensive flood relief scheme means we still on the odd occasion get flooding at one end of the ground but generally speaking an investment programme over the last 6 or 7 years to upgrade the existing drainage and install extra drainage along with a programme to change the make-up of the pitch from mostly London Clay to a more sand-based construction has turned it into one of the best pitches around.

I totally agree there should be a standard of sorts for pitches at senior level, how you set the criteria is another matter though ! Perhaps the FA in their wisdom could judge this while at the same time removing some of their silly ground-grading expectations like having 250 seats when your regular attendance is only 150 which in turn frees up funds for the pitch rather than having to spend £5k on a bit of tarmac as we had to do last season just because an area of ground outside the clubhouse was rolled stone which they claimed could be thrown at players/officials yet we visit some clubs that look like building sites and one in particular that has a loose-gravel car park immediately adjacent to the pitch barrier for the whole length of the pitch - where's the consistency in that ?

[Big J R]

Has Big JR's pc crashed? I was hoping to get a totally unbiased report on the Dorking v Windsor game.

 

Yes - I was there, as I had to do a post-match pitch inspection for the Ladies cup game Sunday.

 

Generally, a scrappy game. There didn't seem to be any cohesion between the man-in-black in the middle and the men-in-black on the side-lines.

 

Some absolutely diabolical decisions from all three.

 

To be fair, a point a piece would have been a fairer result. However DFC just went to sleep after their last minute equaliser, letting Windsor take all three points in the 93rd minute by my watch.

 

I was somewhat surprised not to see more Windsor officials at the game. Nice to catch up with Mal again, though !

Edited November 13, 2012 by Big J R

[johnnojudo]

It's a double-edged sword though JJ, does the income from letting the ground out cover the added cost of the repairs neeeded to keep it playable - I know from experience of groundsharing that in most cases the answer is a definite NO ! You then lose further income by having to rearrange postponed games for midweek when attendances are further affected by football on TV or having 3 or 4 home games on the trot which becomes expensive to watch when money is tight like it is at the moment. Windsor's pitch used to be one of the worst around for retaining water and being on the edge of a stream and subsequently a very expensive flood relief scheme means we still on the odd occasion get flooding at one end of the ground but generally speaking an investment programme over the last 6 or 7 years to upgrade the existing drainage and install extra drainage along with a programme to change the make-up of the pitch from mostly London Clay to a more sand-based construction has turned it into one of the best pitches around.

I totally agree there should be a standard of sorts for pitches at senior level, how you set the criteria is another matter though ! Perhaps the FA in their wisdom could judge this while at the same time removing some of their silly ground-grading expectations like having 250 seats when your regular attendance is only 150 which in turn frees up funds for the pitch rather than having to spend £5k on a bit of tarmac as we had to do last season just because an area of ground outside the clubhouse was rolled stone which they claimed could be thrown at players/officials yet we visit some clubs that look like building sites and one in particular that has a loose-gravel car park immediately adjacent to the pitch barrier for the whole length of the pitch - where's the consistency in that ?

 

Well that must have been Cove fc.

 

All good points Windsor sec and im sure if we had the time, we could discuss for hours. We rarely have a game called off at Chertsey even with the extra matches on the pitch. The extra income we get from sharing the pitch is vital. In an ideal world, I dont want to share the pitch and hate having to train on it at least once a week but you deal with what you have.

 

As you have said, it would be very difficult to set a criteria and I'm sure with so many grounds not adhering to current ground gradings, the Fa would surely not relegate a team based on the playing surface!