budget

[fleet_4_life]

if we are getting rid of players who are part time partly beacause we cant afford to keep them on our budget, how are we going to afford full time replacements

[Stu M]

It's not the case we're getting rid of part-time players because we can't afford to keep them. It's because (a) we're going full-time and the club has no plans to accommodate part-timers and ( if a part-timer has a decent job, it would be a pretty hefty outlay to get that player to move to a full-time contract and jack in his job.

 

I don't think anyone's mentioned part-timers being given the boot because we can't afford them.

[Slartibartfast]

Quote:

fleet_4_life said:
if we are getting rid of players who are part time partly beacause we cant afford to keep them on our budget, how are we going to afford full time replacements

By paying the full-timers less than the part-timers were being paid....only a suggestion but it just might work.

[Hempstead Gaz]

Unfortunately, a byproduct of that theory is that full timers earning less than part-timers probably won't as good as those they replace. It does seem a strange way to be moving 'forward' as a club.

[fleet_4_life]

in the papers it said we got rid of our part time players PARTLY because we cant keep them, made up ?

[jc]

Depends how you define 'can't'.

 

As has been mentioned, experienced part-timers can hypothetically command higher wages than young players on their first ever full-time contracts.

[kmj]

This is true. It is a fact that at least some part time players were more expensive (because of their age/experience) than less experienced full timers.In a conversation which I had with our hard working Club Secretary after the Burton game, he acknowledged the saving in costs of abolishing part time players as one of the contributory positive factors of the Club going full time ( although it is fair to say that this comment was made in conjunction with them also being unable to train with the full timers).

 

It would have been interesting to observe what the Club would have done had, say, Jacko confirmed that he could train with the full timers. Don't exclude the possibility that he could have then been offered a less attractive deal than the previous season. After all it is well documated that Jay was offered a financially inferior deal to become a full time player in the coming season than he had been at the start of the 2005/06 season. The Club have less money to pay the player's wages this season. It is obvious therefore that virtually everyone will be now paid less. The possible exception to this is Luke, who surely must have received an increase, having now properly graduated from the PASE team.

[jc]

Quote:

kmj said: The Club have less money to pay the player's wages this season.

Don't encourage Chatham Gary with such use of the singular. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />