We have got a coach appointed mate, poor attempt to try and make up a rumour?
Dvca - Money Shield - Season 2011/12
- Thread starter CowCorner
- Start date
We have got a coach appointed mate, poor attempt to try and make up a rumour?
hackbowler
Member
WanderingUnity
Active Member
Was not offered the position, so therefore it is not a fact, but indeed a rumour. A false one at that.
WanderingUnity
Active Member
620 3 years back, 140 first year in A, then 220 last year up until Xmas when he was injured and didn't play rest of the season. So on line for around 450.
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
670 actually, in 17 innings with an unbeaten double ton included.
leftisbest
Member
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
We have a pretty good junior program as it is leftisbest, our milo program has been going well along with several developing junior sides and considering when several years ago, we had 0 juniors, I think it is an absolute credit to the guys and the ladies who have put in so much to bring it up to what it is now. We certainly don't neglect our juniors and to be honest, simply throwing more money at that aspect of the club won't really do anything as I can't really think of anything we need that we don't already have for the kids, apart from bigger, better club rooms.
I'm not sure what you mean by spending the money on the club "structure". We have good training nets, we have a bowling machine and plenty of club equipment. The only thing we are lacking are better rooms and how long would it take to save up the money which is spent on incentives to be able to independantly renovate or completely rebuild the rooms? 10 years, 15 years, 20 years??? I don't know, but I can tell you it would not be in my playing carrer. It's not like we just need to stop paying incentives for a year, take 400 grand that is saved and build new rooms. If it was, it would already be done! Hell, for that kinda cash we could build ourselves a whole new gorund!! There is also the conundrum of; do you spend money on club rooms which you might end up knocking down or gutting?
Personally, I hate incentives and wouldn't accept a cent from my club for playing, but it is an aspect of the game that I'm sure isn't going away. Money buys a lot of things, but it wont buy loyality.
I'm not sure what you mean by spending the money on the club "structure". We have good training nets, we have a bowling machine and plenty of club equipment. The only thing we are lacking are better rooms and how long would it take to save up the money which is spent on incentives to be able to independantly renovate or completely rebuild the rooms? 10 years, 15 years, 20 years??? I don't know, but I can tell you it would not be in my playing carrer. It's not like we just need to stop paying incentives for a year, take 400 grand that is saved and build new rooms. If it was, it would already be done! Hell, for that kinda cash we could build ourselves a whole new gorund!! There is also the conundrum of; do you spend money on club rooms which you might end up knocking down or gutting?
Personally, I hate incentives and wouldn't accept a cent from my club for playing, but it is an aspect of the game that I'm sure isn't going away. Money buys a lot of things, but it wont buy loyality.
leftisbest
Member
Well put Blackhawk,i think incentives are the better of the two evils but i hate sign on money as you are no sure thing to get bang for your buck.But if you are pushing for Barclay Shield i think structure ie: coaches for your youth and senior group are important unless you have a bottomless pit of money and can bring in players that can keep you up with no club loyalty.It`s a real fine line between what the members want from their club,and the under lying urge to win flags.
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
Yeh, sign on money can also be seen as a bit of a kick in the teeth for people who turn up every year and pay their fees ontime. What is their reward; probably an increase in their yearly fees to pay for the cash splashed out for others to sign up.
There is another issue that I find rather dissapointing and that is; there is always lots of talk about recruting, there is even the player movements thread here, but I don't think I've seen one post about trying to develop and improve the players that clubs have. Perhaps saying "lets improve our players" rather than "lets go recruit some players" would be the start of showing much more faith in your playing group and may motivate players to actively work on their games.
I think that issue is particularly relevent now, even more so with the possibility of being promoted or demoted from divisions. Clubs in MS, might be able to buy their way into BS, but it's not the cost to get you there that is the problem, it's the cost to keep you there that should be considered. Improving your playing group, won't give you that financial worry.
There is another issue that I find rather dissapointing and that is; there is always lots of talk about recruting, there is even the player movements thread here, but I don't think I've seen one post about trying to develop and improve the players that clubs have. Perhaps saying "lets improve our players" rather than "lets go recruit some players" would be the start of showing much more faith in your playing group and may motivate players to actively work on their games.
I think that issue is particularly relevent now, even more so with the possibility of being promoted or demoted from divisions. Clubs in MS, might be able to buy their way into BS, but it's not the cost to get you there that is the problem, it's the cost to keep you there that should be considered. Improving your playing group, won't give you that financial worry.
Tongs
Well-Known Member
Whilst I agree with what you're saying about the "sign on fee" or whatever people want to call it, there is a couple of points I'd like to make on it in a positive light.
1) not everyone who gets paid actually gets a sign on.
2) A lot of these players who do get sign on fees usually have something in their contract whereby they would supply continued support for the coach and club in some capacity. Such as assistant coach, helping at training, vice captain, attending junior training. All these things are well worth the much maligned sign on fee, as they are putting things back into the club and players. I have known a number of players from different clubs who do these said things without it being mentioned at recruiting meetings. They key is to go after desirable people who are club orientated. This may be as simple as helping out players in the nets.
3) Giving a player a sign on fee can be a very effective tool to ensure equality for player and club. If you put incentive only based contracts, it can add immense pressure to players and ineffect hinder their performance. In this day and age, money from player payments can provide a bit more financial security for players families. With the worry of "if I don't make runs I don't get a cent" this could cause the player to be under unneeded stress, causing him to fail. Like wise with the club, if you put a contract in place where it is no base, but higher incentives and the player has a blinder of a year, it could send the club broke. So the assurance for both parties is worth it.
4) Not every player is money hungry, I know from experience that I have seen players and coaches REFUSE money from the club because they have felt they didn't "earn it". I also know of players taking pay cuts at the end of the year so that "their" money can be giving to another player who was not under contract. As mentioned above, you need to be recruiting the right type of people.
5) I've experienced in recent years where paid players have held personal functions at the club so that they can put back financially into the club. This again highlights the calibre of people you should be chasing.
6) Then there are the players who have put in years of service where you are paying them a base purely because you want to give back to those that have put into the club over a long serving period.
7) and finally, you simply have to these days. Where a player gets offered a base plus incentives at club A, versus just incentives from club B, it can almost be impossible to recruit. Is it ideal? No, but that's the way the world works. How many of you would actually go to your employer and say "I don't want a set wage, I would rather an incentive based wage"? Whilst it might help you some years/weeks etc, bottom line is, we all need security.
I don't begrudge players getting sign up fees, I begrudge those that don't put back into the club in some capacity. Luckily, in my time as a committee member, I have not seen this at my club. But we all know of some.
1) not everyone who gets paid actually gets a sign on.
2) A lot of these players who do get sign on fees usually have something in their contract whereby they would supply continued support for the coach and club in some capacity. Such as assistant coach, helping at training, vice captain, attending junior training. All these things are well worth the much maligned sign on fee, as they are putting things back into the club and players. I have known a number of players from different clubs who do these said things without it being mentioned at recruiting meetings. They key is to go after desirable people who are club orientated. This may be as simple as helping out players in the nets.
3) Giving a player a sign on fee can be a very effective tool to ensure equality for player and club. If you put incentive only based contracts, it can add immense pressure to players and ineffect hinder their performance. In this day and age, money from player payments can provide a bit more financial security for players families. With the worry of "if I don't make runs I don't get a cent" this could cause the player to be under unneeded stress, causing him to fail. Like wise with the club, if you put a contract in place where it is no base, but higher incentives and the player has a blinder of a year, it could send the club broke. So the assurance for both parties is worth it.
4) Not every player is money hungry, I know from experience that I have seen players and coaches REFUSE money from the club because they have felt they didn't "earn it". I also know of players taking pay cuts at the end of the year so that "their" money can be giving to another player who was not under contract. As mentioned above, you need to be recruiting the right type of people.
5) I've experienced in recent years where paid players have held personal functions at the club so that they can put back financially into the club. This again highlights the calibre of people you should be chasing.
6) Then there are the players who have put in years of service where you are paying them a base purely because you want to give back to those that have put into the club over a long serving period.
7) and finally, you simply have to these days. Where a player gets offered a base plus incentives at club A, versus just incentives from club B, it can almost be impossible to recruit. Is it ideal? No, but that's the way the world works. How many of you would actually go to your employer and say "I don't want a set wage, I would rather an incentive based wage"? Whilst it might help you some years/weeks etc, bottom line is, we all need security.
I don't begrudge players getting sign up fees, I begrudge those that don't put back into the club in some capacity. Luckily, in my time as a committee member, I have not seen this at my club. But we all know of some.
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
See point 7 is what gets to me. Why do you need to recruit (and lets face it we are talking about recruiting better players than a club currently has)? If your club is not successful, buying players is a short term simplistic solution to a long term and probably a much more imbedded problem. I'd much rather see money spent on improving players that clubs have.
Incentives are something that I'm not totally against, even though I'd refuse them, but you need to set that bar high to get people to achieve. Setting them low, just encourages continued mediocraty within a playing group. I couldn't care less about any players personal financial situation, that's their problem, not mine (or any committees). Why should clubs provide easy money to people, go out and get a better 9-5.
Incentives are something that I'm not totally against, even though I'd refuse them, but you need to set that bar high to get people to achieve. Setting them low, just encourages continued mediocraty within a playing group. I couldn't care less about any players personal financial situation, that's their problem, not mine (or any committees). Why should clubs provide easy money to people, go out and get a better 9-5.
Tongs
Well-Known Member
It's not purely about one point (ie point 7), it's about all those points combined together. I agree that clubs should be looking to strengthen their home grown players, but fact is, some simply aren't good enough no matter how much coaching they get. Also, look at a club like Mernda. They don't have the population to choose from, hence making it harder to have a strong side made up
Of purely homegrown talent.
Buying players is not always a short term prospect. If you get the right people, they are there for 10 years or more.
You say to set the bar high when it comes to incentives, but define the bar? To a stronger club the bar might be 75, to others it might be 50. It totally depends on the club and it's position. Some might even look to reward teams for wins. This is what I prefer personally. $50 a win for all players etc after all this is a team sport that everyone contributes. If I'm a batsmen and make a duck, but turn the game with a blinder or a run out and win the game for my club, I don't get a cent. Yet I've inadvertently win my team the game.
In relation to not caring about players financial position, I understand what you're saying, but to some people this is important to them financially and they need it. If you look after the player, they look after the club. Regardless of what you think, sporting clubs are businesses, and need to be run like one.
Of purely homegrown talent.
Buying players is not always a short term prospect. If you get the right people, they are there for 10 years or more.
You say to set the bar high when it comes to incentives, but define the bar? To a stronger club the bar might be 75, to others it might be 50. It totally depends on the club and it's position. Some might even look to reward teams for wins. This is what I prefer personally. $50 a win for all players etc after all this is a team sport that everyone contributes. If I'm a batsmen and make a duck, but turn the game with a blinder or a run out and win the game for my club, I don't get a cent. Yet I've inadvertently win my team the game.
In relation to not caring about players financial position, I understand what you're saying, but to some people this is important to them financially and they need it. If you look after the player, they look after the club. Regardless of what you think, sporting clubs are businesses, and need to be run like one.
_Blackhawk_
Well-Known Member
Oh I agree, clubs need to be run like businesses, which doesn't involve offering easy money. I think most people who are at a senior level, have at least some skill which can be worked on as most people who have no cricketing ablity are gone by age 16. I've seen very few players who have absolutly no skill and I've played everything from G Grade to Money Sheild (even snuck in a couple of games in the old Barcley Reserve before we got relegated). Team based incentives is an interesting idea, but could end up pretty costly if you have a great season. At 50 bucks per player per win and if you won every game of the home and away season, you'd be up for $6000+. For that kinda price, you might as well go to the local trophy shop and buy a few flags to hang on the wall haha.
bestgameintheworld
Member
One of franks boys were telling me a couple of months ago that they gave up individual incentives and went for a $510 per win theory. Coach divided the 300 with best 3 players and the other players got 30 each, all players bar captain coach. So $6120 will win you a flag!
What's everybody think of this theory, personally I don't mind it.
leftisbest
Member
Get real Tongs we are playing park cricket and if there are players getting around our clubs that rely on money from playing cricket to put food on the table then they are in real trouble.We are community based clubs therefore we should be putting a lot more money back into development and coaching ( cricket department) stuff for our youth not some bloke who can`t put food on the table.From what i hear LP are putting a lot of time and money into their cricket department not to win flags this year but to build for the future,and if a few more of our clubs do that the DVCA will grow stronger and attract more kids to this great game. I know for one that i would rather send my boy to a club that has a structure based around paying coaches to develop kids than paying some has been big bucks.I spent many years in the HDCA and watched the comp. pay way above the odd`s for players, and their juniors suffered accordingly, now there is no HDCA. Lets not go down that path lets put the money back into the clubs structure and make a super strong comp.
Tongs
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that a bloke can't put food on the table so he chases money. As an example, at ECC this year we will have 5 or 6 ones players all have babies this year, 3 of them have brought new houses. Therefore the attraction of $$$ could persuade people in these situations to go else where to help financially. Like it or not, some guys rely on this form of income. Not everyone is a rocket scientist. I can promise you now, if you stopped paying every single player at your club, most of them would leave.
Don't get me wrong though, $$$ and effort must be put into the junior programs. They are the future and will be the ones carrying on the legacy of the current playing group and committee.
Again, as I said all the points are valid if looked at as a whole, don't just take one point.
Pretty much spot on Tongs! A lot of blokes who want to play cricket on a Saturday have to justify the time spent away from family commitments and in lots of cases work. Our club is no different to every other club in that we have quite a few young blokes with young famillies and whom are also tradies who give up extra dollars on a Saturday to play sport. In most cases what they get paid is compensating them for loss of potential income, and appeasing the grumblings of a missus. In most cases the player is just the middle man and it might be easier to negotiate with the wife or partner and throw in a shopping gift voucher worth a few grand, instead of paying the player
