Barrow AFC.net

John Very Little wrote:What bothers me is that we have signed an injury prone player on such a long contract without even properly seeing him play yet

jim wrote:Good to see a positive reaction to one of the signings we have been crying out for. . Re injury prone, did I read somewhere that before this seasons injury, his previous two serious injuries were broken legs? That is more a case of bad luck rather than weakness.

Reg wrote:

Kieran wrote: I don't see the benefit of doing that Reg.

In terms of wage bill, I doubt we'd pay part-time players much if any less than what we are paying presently. The only real saving would probably be on the cost of the actual training venue, I'm not sure how much that would be.

In my view the current set up should stay for at least as long as we are in this league, if we go down it may need to be reviewed.

You think part time players would command £500pw?

I'm not sure about that!

Maybe they would but if say the average wage could be shaved to £400, it would allow us to have either a bigger squad for the same cost, or to save ~£1500pw and not pay the players for as many weeks per year, which is a saving of at least £60k per season.

You would have a hard time convincing me that there aren't better players currently playing part time football in the North than Flynn, Hunter, Rutherford, Harvey, Rowe & McConville and on top of that, you would struggle to convince me that any of our players other than Boyes and perhaps Baker would be coveted by any other full time club in the country. Maybe teams like Chester/Southport would sniff around Owen and Pearson but the rest wouldn't get a club at national level.

We're basically paying over the odds for the quality of player we have. If our average wage is £475, you have to assume some of our lads could be on close to £700. Boyes aside, none of them are worth even close to that.

I'd rather have the best ambitious part time players, than the jaded players dropping down the league any day of the week! Cheaper and probably no less effective.

mally wrote:

Reg wrote: You think part time players would command £500pw?

I'm not sure about that!

Maybe they would but if say the average wage could be shaved to £400, it would allow us to have either a bigger squad for the same cost, or to save ~£1500pw and not pay the players for as many weeks per year, which is a saving of at least £60k per season.

You would have a hard time convincing me that there aren't better players currently playing part time football in the North than Flynn, Hunter, Rutherford, Harvey, Rowe & McConville and on top of that, you would struggle to convince me that any of our players other than Boyes and perhaps Baker would be coveted by any other full time club in the country. Maybe teams like Chester/Southport would sniff around Owen and Pearson but the rest wouldn't get a club at national level.

We're basically paying over the odds for the quality of player we have. If our average wage is £475, you have to assume some of our lads could be on close to £700. Boyes aside, none of them are worth even close to that.

I'd rather have the best ambitious part time players, than the jaded players dropping down the league any day of the week! Cheaper and probably no less effective.

I would go along with what you say there Reg,though I would add that I would prefer the squad to be built around three or four 'key' players that are gonna cost that little bit more but hold it all together.

Steeley wrote:

mally wrote:I would go along with what you say there Reg,though I would add that I would prefer the squad to be built around three or four 'key' players that are gonna cost that little bit more but hold it all together.

Also dont forget that Boyes came from a trial so wouldnt have been on mega bucks at the start.
Part time is an interesting debate, what are guiseley? They were just as good as us from what i saw of them. Not much difference between the bottom of this league and the top of the conf north

John Very Little wrote:
In response to Reg the length of the season wouldn't be shorter as we're only paying the players for 42 weeks or whatever it is at present (not 52 weeks) and it wouldn't be any different in Conf North. TK mentioned this at a meeting earlier in the season and mentioned a calculation at the AGM for paying the players for 42 weeks.
We are forecast to be 136K down on gate money compared to players wages this season and in Conf North I don't think we'd get as much in the way of crowds or hospitality unless we were winning and there's no guarentee of that. The revenue would be down as I think we'd have to cut the admission prices - how many would pay the present prices for Conf North hoof-ball which won't be great to watch after being in the Conf Prem and there is no guarentee we'll be winning every week and would have to revert to part-time again.
Very few sides who go down bounce back up straight away and we'll be saddled with a load of debt to try and pay off which will be more difficult at a lower level. There will be more competition for the better part-time players due to there being more sides to compete against so we will be less attractive to players from the Manchester/Liverpool area. Given the choice of say £300pw at Alty or £350 pw here most will probably stay at Alty for the sake of the travelling.

burnzio wrote:What exactly does our regime consist of anyway?

I'd be interested to have a schedule of how long they train for during the week, what sessions they do etc. and how this compares to a more traditional part time schedule.

snortypig wrote: Maybe worth sending someone along for a look

barrowfan wrote:I seem to remember we lost some of our better players when we went full time as they wanted to continue with their day jobs, so we should have more quality players to choose from if we do go part-time. This could have a knock-on effect of more success, therefore bigger home crowds.

Incidentally this thread seems to have gone wildly off-topic.