Chichester City FC / FA Cup 3rd Qualifying Round

[old towner]

8 minutes ago, Wildlife rescue said:

The suspension comes into play 7 days after the offence I believe.

thanks for clearing that bit up

7 minutes ago, exiled down south said:

Not on contract

just a well paid non contracted player

[4wembleyfinals]

Oh well OT, just another little mess we've got ourselves into Stanley!!!

[MTHead]

It does surprise me when supporters moan that when these good players get better offers from other clubs they leave. We should just make sure we get the best out of them when they are with us and wish them well for the future. This is a situation which all clubs at every level finds itself, when playing budgets are stretched. That’s the reality of non league football.

[lovely stuff]

I remember a much smaller club than ETFC (Hoddesdon) having every player on nominal contracts ( In the 90's it was something like £5 a week) just so this situation did not occur if a bigger club tried to sign one of their players.

I'd be happier if every Town player  committed to a nominal seasons contract before being allowed to play for us.I'd also be happy to lose the services of those players not willing to commit to playing for us for a full season.

I feel this would also help the fast turnover of players at this level and the lack of connection between the fans and playing squad that this causes.

[72wemblyfinal]

Players do actually commit for the season,but then we have the 7 day approach(that has been discussed before).I would prefer a transfer system like the premier League,2 windows,outside of that players can only be transferred to lower League clubs.

But it's only ever going to be like it is at the moment.

What does not help the situation is agents.

[lovely stuff]

48 minutes ago, 72wemblyfinal said:

Players do actually commit for the season,but then we have the 7 day approach(that has been discussed before).I would prefer a transfer system like the premier League,2 windows,outside of that players can only be transferred to lower League clubs.

But it's only ever going to be like it is at the moment.

What does not help the situation is agents.

I thought the 7 day approach only applied to registered (but non-contracted) players.

[72wemblyfinal]

Yes you are correct lovely stuff.

[4wembleyfinals]

I do think you have missed OT point,MTH.  I have interpreted that it is his way of expressing his amazement in the lack of business sense being shown. Otherwise your "good" players on higher wages will come in one door and out the other as they please. If you are happy with that then as a member I am not.

There seems to be a miss conception in the use of contracts. Although not personally involved when my firm were processing clubs going into administration, I was shown some players contracts, invariable they had a get out clause in favour of the player. The safeguard for the Club (the business) was that they retained the right to seek a fee for his transfer so long as it they paid him and the player agreed to the transfer. Far better than most normal employment contracts.

 

NB .. I raised these point about 4 years ago, when the subject was last raised, so please don't bring up the clubs financial status again. The principle applies to all businesses huge or small. Also please no more advice to get more involved. My interest in the Club end purely as a supporter and a member and as such the ability to comment on this forum.                          

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by 4wembleyfinals

[Barney]

Caveat: I'm no expert on this, so this post is very much as I understand things, and may well be a long way from the reality - apologies if this is the case.

As much as I'd love to see a much lower turnover of players at our level and more loyalty, as the system stands I think that we are doing as much as can be reasonably expected to retain players. If a good young player who has ambitions to player higher up in the leagues doesn't want to sign a contract with us, we can't force them to. Doing so would effectively mean that we hold their registration, and can ask for a fee when an opportunity arises to move up. What's in it for the player in this scenario? Assuming they are good enough to play higher, very little - a club higher up would be much less likely to take a punt on them for a fee when they could take a punt on a non-contracted player instead, without the risk of financial outlay.

Of course players that we want on contract, but who aren't willing to sign could be shown the door, but does that really help us? Personally, I'd rather have exciting young players like Mo (or Corey, or whoever) for a period of time at the club where they can help us, and accept that they will at some point move on as they're ambitious to play higher. The alternative is them playing on a non-contract basis for one of our rivals, strengthening them in the process. Of course the whole situation is frustrating, but it's a fact of life for a club like ours unfortunately.

To the point about introducing a club policy of players signing nominal contracts of £5 a week, I only see that being detrimental to us - there's little or nothing in it for the players, especially for the good young ambitious players mentioned above, so why would they come to Town over a rival that didn't have this policy? The only way things are likely to change in this respect would be if the whole transfer system was overhauled for all clubs, so that every non-league club had to do this, effectively giving players no alternative (and don't get me wrong LS - I think this would be great, the idea itself is good, it's just that I don't think any club can go it alone on this).

The players that we do have on contract I think we've have about right - they're players that are nearer the end of their careers who have already played higher and aren't likely to do so again, so the incentive of stability of income and employment that comes with a contract outweighs the fact that if they were to move on, it would involve a fee. Putting these guys on a contract effectively stops them moving on should someone turn up wanting to offer them loads of money, but on the flip side, as I understand it, means that we have to pay them regardless of whether they're playing well, in form, injured etc.

Just my two penneth as always, nice to see some healthy debate, but I don't think the club can be held to blame here for what goes on as it's much more a systemic issue. Lastly, I would strongly recommend supporters get along to one of the members meetings to speak with the board and the management about our policy on contracted players - they're clearly going to have the facts (unlike me), and as someone said upthread: we're a members owned club, so we have a right to be able to question these things and get honest and factual answers. Certainly the club website or an unofficial forum like this isn't the place for the board to be formally discussing these issues.

[72wemblyfinal]

@Barney 

Very well said sir agree entirely.

[4wembleyfinals]

Thanks Barney for your interesting reply, your are not a long way from reality, far from it. Because I too could be wrong in my understanding of OT's remark. If right I was trying to expound my interpretation of what I think he meant. It was an answer to another's inferred accusation of  " having a moan again" jibe. 

As you have asked, all I can say in answer to the question you have raised regarding a player wishing to leave etc ,is that it all depends on what is written in the signed agreement. However, both sides usually want some security. But you are quite right there is no obligation for anyone to enter into a contract. I tend to feel that a lot of people seem to think contracts have to be lengthy, but a simple agreement may only be a few short sentences, so long as it meets each parties needs. Take a Bank Note for example, which is a simple form of contract being a promissory note for payment.

On the point being discussed, I find it hard to accept that if you acquire,what you consider to be a good assets(player) and you are willing to pay above the norm for his services it seems sensible to want some return. The example I gave in my previous post was just a simple two way agreement. 

I believe there is another point one has to consider and that is the effect that the spinning door syndrome  creates by the easy through passage for higher paid players, on the remaining squad. After all it is a team game and the team is the most important. Not the high earner who may leave at any time. It's the rest of the team that have to pick up the pieces.    

 I am sure what we have been discussing has already been considered many times by the Board. Similarly in dealing with with the clubs finances. But since I have never seen a set of it's Accounts or even a simple Annual Income and Expenditure statement I can only base my observations on what I see, am told or read on this forum. Or perhaps I have I missed something? I am member of a number of social and charitable societies, to which I subscribe. Whether I attend or not I receive every year a copy of each Treasurer's Financial Statement. 

Perhaps we should now get back to "Football"  matters before I bore everyone to death. Look forward to reading your posts in the future.

By the way I see you're getting lots of approbation from W72 , perhaps now's the time to get worried.!!!! Only kidding!!!!!

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by 4wembleyfinals

[Barney]

18 minutes ago, 4wembleyfinals said:

However, both sides usually want some security. But you are quite right there is no obligation for anyone to enter into a contract.

And there's the rub... ultimately the above mentioned young, ambitious and talented players don't want or need security - they want as few obstacles as possible in the way of them progressing their career, and moving up the pyramid. This is, I suspect, exactly what their agents are advising them to do.

[4wembleyfinals]

Possibly so Barney, obviously I am getting too old but when I was first employed I didn't expect to be senior partner over night. Not because I didn't have ambition but because I wasn't qualified then. If management is agreeing to only players terms, at this level, then the game can only go backwards. But then for some time I have believed, both as a player as well a a retired commercial professional, old players who become club managers should stick to playing matters and not be let near any players financial and legal agreements. No wonder so many clubs go bust.

Edited October 9, 2019 by 4wembleyfinals

[Barney]

I think we've found some common ground here - it's a sad state of affairs, but in this day and age, the players (and ultimately the player's agent whose advice they follow) hold the power. From an agents perspective, do they stand to gain more by having one or two of their players move up the league and make it to the big time (with associated cut of wages, signing on fees etc), or have a portfolio of players playing at Isthmian League level and getting a cut of their earnings there? Clearly a rhetorical question, and a thoroughly depressing situation - everything is geared towards agents making money, and the good young players that fans at clubs like Town love to see on the pitch will move on with very little thought of loyalty. Unless something changes with the system, this is the way it's likely to be.

[Benjrider10]

2 hours ago, 4wembleyfinals said:

 I am sure what we have been discussing has already been considered many times by the Board. Similarly in dealing with with the clubs finances. But since I have never seen a set of it's Accounts or even a simple Annual Income and Expenditure statement I can only base my observations on what I see, am told or read on this forum. Or perhaps I have I missed something? I am member of a number of social and charitable societies, to which I subscribe. Whether I attend or not I receive every year a copy of each Treasurer's Financial Statement. 

4WF the club posts its accounts on the website (as does the ETFCSS). The most recent published accounts (2017-2018) are there. Look under the "Information" tab, then "Documents".

Some will disagree but I think the board do a good job in sharing relevant information at the right time. The website must be factual. No place for Trump-like speculation there. This forum, however, is perfect for "locked and loaded" speculation ?

Quote

 

 

[4wembleyfinals]

Thanks B10  I am very much obliged. I have raised the point before and it's the first time anyone has enlightened me. Thanks again. I am sure that it is written somewhere. Just laziness on my part after years having to read all the small print. I too have no criticism of how the Board operate and appreciate how much time and effort they put in on our behalf. Although I still have doubts if the playing side of things. But that's for another day. 

Agree Barney, it is a tragedy that agents call the tune. But I bet that the players have had to sign a contract in order to obtain their services. I also bet if scrutinised not many of these contracts would not stand up in court if challenged. That's the terrible irony of all this agent business. But then I am glad I don't have to get involved any more.

Edited October 9, 2019 by 4wembleyfinals

[The Crowing Cockerel]

I remember when EFC received fees for players who moved up the pyramid (John Bailey and Paul Underwood spring to mind). I appreciate that this was some time ago, but larger clubs didn't seem to be put off making signings based on these fees - has that really changed now? Are clubs really unable/unwilling to pay a few £k in order to sign young talent?

[Steph]

Didn't we also get a fee for Paul Furlong and Carl Richards at the old club?

[4wembleyfinals]

Yes I believe that transfer fees are still paid to clubs for contracted players even at our level CC.  As I said earlier the use of contracts remains the same it just is now a matter of scale. Now it has to relate to the state of your finances and if entering into contract with players lies within your business plan.  The principle remains the same but now days the risk of getting a reasonable return is higher, brought on by the advent of agents.

During the 70/80s EFC  investment level was difference as they were owned by a shrewd entrepreneur with outside professional advisers. Most players were under contract. When Paul Furlong was let go by EFC they received several thousands of £s plus a % of sale on transfers. The flip-side to this was the purchase of Abbott, for his second tour with EFC, which cost the club in the region of £7000. Yes times were very  different then. 

Yes Steph, we got/paid fees for most players at that time. 

. 

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by 4wembleyfinals

[Barney]

I'm certainly not saying that players aren't on contract at non league level, I think most of the National League and at least some clubs in the National North and South will have contracted players. And 4WF is correct, in these cases, should they move on, the club that holds their registration is entitled to a fee. I think comparing Enfield FC back then with Enfield Town now isn't that useful - the old club at the time of Bailey and Underwood, despite being in the Isthmian (which was one step higher then than it is now) were still one of the top (and I suspect top paying) non league clubs, and could attract the best talent and afford to keep them on contract.

@Steph - I'm not saying that clubs higher up aren't willing to pay for players registrations, if a player is a good enough prospect, then they clearly will. That said, if they're looking at a number of possible prospects, they're less likely to take a risk paying a fee for the player that is contracted compared to one they can get for free (assuming they consider the players to be of similar standard). Players (and agents) know this, and this is why they elect not to sign a contract when offered. I can't believe we didn't try to get Cory on a contract for instance - as I understand it, he chose not to sign, at least partly because it would improve his chances of moving up the pyramid.