LinwoodTON Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Good news re Baird. If we lose Peaso as is expected I'd take Dougie Imrie as a straight replacement Imrie still has a year on his contract. <span style='font-size: 14px;'><em class='bbc'>"That LinwoodTon's a c*nt, eh?"</em></span> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinwoodTON Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 A winger for a striker? If Peaso goes I would like us to replace him with Steven Craig. I would too, in a minute. <span style='font-size: 14px;'><em class='bbc'>"That LinwoodTon's a c*nt, eh?"</em></span> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymcc1874 Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Dougie Imrie a replacement for Peaso? Christ on a bike. TTG JIM!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornTON Posted May 26, 2013 Author Share Posted May 26, 2013 Good news re Baird. If we lose Peaso as is expected I'd take Dougie Imrie as a straight replacement And I'd take Craig Gordon as a "straight replacement" for Kyle Wilkie. What are you talking about Danny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunning1874 Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Imrie still has a year on his contract. He's been told he's free to leave if he can find a club. As a replacement for MacDonald though. Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake Oh Lord, Brian Wake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 We wouldn't have the money to pay imrie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornTON Posted May 26, 2013 Author Share Posted May 26, 2013 We wouldn't have the money to pay imrie Of course we wouldn't, but for some reason people seem to think that the likes of Weatherston and Tena "aren't good enough" despite them being far better than what we can attract for £350 p/w! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Toon Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Of course we wouldn't, but for some reason people seem to think that the likes of Weatherston and Tena "aren't good enough" despite them being far better than what we can attract for £350 p/w! I note that £350 per week is being "taken as read" in terms of what our players are being offered. I don't have any contacts or inside knowledge but would be interested to know the source of that wage being quoted. Also is it plus a bonus of £50 per point ie £400 for a draw and £500 for a win, since it will certainly be linked to some bonus payments? If you are playing in a winning team or think you are signing for a winning team, then there can be a very significant difference between your basic and actual wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornTON Posted May 28, 2013 Author Share Posted May 28, 2013 No surprise, but Nicky Clark confirmed as signing for Rangers in September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbru Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 I note that £350 per week is being "taken as read" in terms of what our players are being offered. I don't have any contacts or inside knowledge but would be interested to know the source of that wage being quoted. Also is it plus a bonus of £50 per point ie £400 for a draw and £500 for a win, since it will certainly be linked to some bonus payments? If you are playing in a winning team or think you are signing for a winning team, then there can be a very significant difference between your basic and actual wage. If it were up to me the wages would be low and heavily subsidised by a bonus although I would rather not work in this way. Having said that I would rather work 2 hours or 3 hours a day playing football than what I do so it wouldn't all be bad for them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinwoodTON Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 No surprise, but Nicky Clark confirmed as signing for Rangers in September. I know they haven't broken any rules, but the 1 year transfer ban is an absolute joke. Effectively it was only a 6 month ban. <span style='font-size: 14px;'><em class='bbc'>"That LinwoodTon's a c*nt, eh?"</em></span> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinwoodTON Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 If it were up to me the wages would be low and heavily subsidised by a bonus although I would rather not work in this way. Having said that I would rather work 2 hours or 3 hours a day playing football than what I do so it wouldn't all be bad for them! If I remember correctly that was the kind of deals players had at Dundee Utd in the Jim McLean days. Some of their younger players had 5/6/7 year contracts. Coincidently, it was there most successful period. <span style='font-size: 14px;'><em class='bbc'>"That LinwoodTon's a c*nt, eh?"</em></span> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornTON Posted May 28, 2013 Author Share Posted May 28, 2013 I note that £350 per week is being "taken as read" in terms of what our players are being offered. I don't have any contacts or inside knowledge but would be interested to know the source of that wage being quoted. Also is it plus a bonus of £50 per point ie £400 for a draw and £500 for a win, since it will certainly be linked to some bonus payments? If you are playing in a winning team or think you are signing for a winning team, then there can be a very significant difference between your basic and actual wage. Regardless of what the numbers are, it still involved a pay cut from a barely living wage whilst Moore and McNally get to live on decent money. Bonuses are all very well, but would you happy to sign a contract on the off-chance your mortgage gets paid each month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage Nu Sport Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Regardless of what the numbers are, it still involved a pay cut from a barely living wage whilst Moore and McNally get to live on decent money. Bonuses are all very well, but would you happy to sign a contract on the off-chance your mortgage gets paid each month? Exactly - and the players most likely to fall into the Top 8 category of the new structure will be the very ones needing stability and a reliable wage coming in. More I think about, more I believe those Top 8 really need the boat pushing out wages wise to make this new structure really tick - we can't gamble on injury prone players or young starlets who prove to be a flash in the pan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbru Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Regardless of what the numbers are, it still involved a pay cut from a barely living wage whilst Moore and McNally get to live on decent money. Bonuses are all very well, but would you happy to sign a contract on the off-chance your mortgage gets paid each month? About £18000 per year is a lot better than some people get and still above minimum wage if you split it by 37.5 hours per week (most players won't come close to that). With the potential of say £50 per point, goal bonuses and appearance money it has the potential to be a half decent salary for working about 15 hours a week. It would be great to pay these guys what they are worth but the future of the club has to come first and we should only pay what we can afford. If this has to be a low base value with bonuses on the assumption that doing well will increase revenue to cover it then that's the way it has to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Toon Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 To be honest, my post above was not arguing that £350 per week plus bonuses is reasonable. I was rather asking where that basic wage sum had come from since it is being widely quoted as the actual sum on offer. If it is I think it is on the low side for established and valued first team players.and if it is a significant cut for some players then it is easy to understand that they might want to look elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage Nu Sport Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 £18k a year looks too low for the Top 8 element of the squad, unless we really expect them to be capable of earning additional money outwith the game (ie they aren't really full-time). Bit different for a younger player willing to stay at home or live in a bedsit in Inverclyde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbru Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 £18k a year looks too low for the Top 8 element of the squad, unless we really expect them to be capable of earning additional money outwith the game (ie they aren't really full-time). Bit different for a younger player willing to stay at home or live in a bedsit in Inverclyde. If the figures quoted are roughly about what is on offer (and they look like they could be) even a fairly mediocre season would see bonuses soon add up. £50 appearance for 25 games = £1250 £50 per point for 50 points = £2500 Another £1000 odd on cup progress, etc would be an income of about £23k which is much better than people who work in local call centers for example get and for a lot less hours while doing something enjoyable. The fact of the matter is that there isn't much money in full time football in Scotland and players need to accept that this is what is on offer for a comparatively easy lifestyle compared to what a large number of people of a similar age do for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage Nu Sport Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 If the figures quoted are roughly about what is on offer (and they look like they could be) even a fairly mediocre season would see bonuses soon add up. £50 appearance for 25 games = £1250 £50 per point for 50 points = £2500 Another £1000 odd on cup progress, etc would be an income of about £23k which is much better than people who work in local call centers for example get and for a lot less hours while doing something enjoyable. The fact of the matter is that there isn't much money in full time football in Scotland and players need to accept that this is what is on offer for a comparatively easy lifestyle compared to what a large number of people of a similar age do for a living. £23k looks alright for younger "stay at home" players - I'm unconvinced it will attract sufficient good players to fill the Top 8 of the squad with the type of player we will need. By the age of that type of player, guys will be thinking longer term, will probably be married with families, and the feel good factor of playing full time football for pennies will have gone. We need to be realistic. And I reject the implication that they are on easy money for a small number of hours. What about the individual training that they do, what about the fact that there are considerable lifestyle limitations on what you can do when you're not training, etc. Again - we have to be realistic about the life of a full time professional sportsman, rather than having digs at them implying its the Life of Riley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbru Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 £23k looks alright for younger "stay at home" players - I'm unconvinced it will attract sufficient good players to fill the Top 8 of the squad with the type of player we will need. By the age of that type of player, guys will be thinking longer term, will probably be married with families, and the feel good factor of playing full time football for pennies will have gone. We need to be realistic. And I reject the implication that they are on easy money for a small number of hours. What about the individual training that they do, what about the fact that there are considerable lifestyle limitations on what you can do when you're not training, etc. Again - we have to be realistic about the life of a full time professional sportsman, rather than having digs at them implying its the Life of Riley. I know where you're coming from but without knocking them a lot of these guys have no other real skills apart from football and a wage like this is still better than what they would be getting at a similar age in a full time job. I don't think it's an easy life but it's certainly a lot easier than a guy getting up at the crack of dawn to brush streets in the cold and rain and still for more money. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that although it's not ideal it is still a decent wage for a job most people would love to do and in the grand scheme of things isn't a bad life even though they might not get the luxuries footballers at other levels have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.