gaz5

Every time I watch Rangers I'm reminded of how terrible a right back James Taverner is. [emoji85][emoji85]

Quick scan through the results I make it 8-6 in cup competitions as well, for a total of: Conference A 31 - 19 Conference B Just had a look out of interest as I know we've played 3 additional games against teams from the other conference already as well.

Yes, some Ams teams compensate players. Never admit to it, but I've heard it too often from players to even doubt it as hearsay any more. It's not a place of work, they are not professional/contracted so they are not employees. So, it's incurred out of pocket expenses.

Without going into detail as to why, player expenses can be well in excess of 10k across a squad, depending on a number of factors specific to each player, most importantly travel distances. And that's for the clubs doing it legally, following HMRC guidelines. 45p per mile for actual accrued expenses, maximum. I've looked after 2 budgets now, one in the LL and one in EoS and both times the legalities of what can and can't be done were confirmed with the tax man. On your other question about where players would go if not getting something, would they just stop. Of course not, but a player who wants something will always find someone to give it to them in the current market, and not always at the highest level/best club/best coach. Your hypothetical scenario will never, ever, play out that way in football unless the rules are changed to say no one can give anything to anyone. And even then, people will find ways around those rules as we see at many Amateur clubs (I've tried to sign players from top amateur sides looking for silly money because they won't "step up" for less than they are currently on). As I said, I have a fair bit of experience in competing for the signature of well over 200 players now. I can tell you from that experience that the financial side of that is as important as any other factor. I've had players tell me they prefer our setup, like how we play, like how we do things, like the idea of the stats, but they are being offered £x elsewhere so that's where they are going. It's really demoralising at times when you put so much in. It's hard work putting and keeping a team together, far more involved time wise than I'm sure anyone looking in would expect. On that front I have nothing but admiration for all the guys who do it for not very much, if anything, themselves. It's a slog at times!

Are the conference team that takes subs currently in the top 9 or 10 of their conference? I didn't say none did it that way, I said I'd be surprised if they were in the top 9 or 10 and that being sustainably successful that way is rare. The exception, if you will. To put you in the picture, im a manager of a team in the conference's, I've spoken to over 200 players in the last 2 seasons and very few play for the love of the game only. That's not a criticism of them, because I didn't either. Expenses on amateur and non contract professional status is still "being looked after", within HMRC laws and can still run up a very hefty budget over the course of a season. I like Callum, both times we played Tynie last season I thought he was a really nice guy to blether to of the park, quieter than I expected. And like me a young manager in his first job. But if you think he has won 16 games out of 16 this season with people playing for the love of the game alone you're delusional I'm afraid. [emoji846] Attracting players is about the package you offer, the full package. Manager, facilities, standards, level you play at, finances + other things that set you apart (we do a lot of statistical work for example). I'm afraid finances are an important part of that if you want to bring in players that bring success. Look at Craigroyston just now. Good facilities just like Tynie, young ex professional manager in his first job just like Tynie. But sitting bottom without a win versus 16 wins from 16. Do you think Jordyn would be in that position if he had a budget like Callum? I'm sure he has a lot of contacts in the game he can't afford and it's a difficult situation, one I've been in where your are talking to players but the stumbling block is always the same, even players coming from decent amateur teams. That's not to play down Callums achievements at all, he has to mould the players he is able to get and turn them into that winning machine, which he is doing superbly. But I can tell you from bitter experience you don't get the same opportunity to do that at this level without being able to fund bringing the players to the club in the first place who can make a difference. It's a sad fact, but a fact none the less that successful teams at all levels tend to come from the group who are better funded.

Sounds about right. As I said, would be surprised if anyone at this level didn't do at least that, obviously some do more. The lottery one is common as well, we used to do the same, players put in a minimum of £5 a week either by selling that much of putting it in themselves. Some boys would take it to work and get 4 or 5 times that, others sold a couple of quid then took a few lines themselves.

I was simply pointing out that there will be very few teams in the EoS taking subs from players rather than paying some form of expenses at a minimum. Certainly no one in the Premier league (who are more likely all contracted professionals) and I'd wager no one outside of the top 9 or 10 in the conferences either who will be a mix of registration types but still looked after. As Burnie pointed out, Craigroyston could make that step to try and raise revenue, but any half decent player they brought in who was paying to play would be snapped up almost immediately by a neighbor and they'd be forever pissing into the wind in terms of trying to build a steady team, never mind a successful one. For me, the top 30 at least teams in the EoS operate above my experience of amateur football where players pay subs. Your Caley Braves comparison is not quite equatable. French players pay a far higher fee than any Scottish based subs model could provide to play mainly in their second team in the SoS, a portion of the money they generate used to fund their first team, who are all contracted professionals, the majority of whom ain't French students these days. In that scenario Craigroyston would have to start a second team, charge them extortionate fees every month to raise money to pay for their first team. The EoS isn't an amateur league right now, in my view, never mind aspirationally. I'd be amazed once the tiers are settled and any further juniors move over if anyone could survive in the top two league's at least in a subscription model where their first team players pay subs to play. It sounds though like Craigroyston have an immediate issue with running costs for the pitch, vandalism and training, rather than players though. I'm not sure using the players as a revenue generator to resolve those issues is a long term answer for them in the EoS. I don't know what the answer is, but I do hope they find it.

Craigroyston aside, on the pay/expenses front, the EoS league isn't an amateur one. Any club who has any interest in progressing in it can't be asking players to pay subs themselves and I doubt there are (m)any who do. There doesn't need to be a culture shift in EoS, there's already amateur league's where teams who want to follow that operating model can ply their trade. I think what your are talking about is more clubs playing at an appropriate level for the resources that they have available to them. Back to Craigroyston, those do seem to be extraordinary running costs and I hope they can get something sorted out one way or another, good guys that run the club from our experience earlier in the season.

Agreed. Not sure what it would look like, but it would surely be a better gauge of "rich" than just what people declare as taxable salary.

Read the whole post and don't quote it in isolation. [emoji846] I mean someone paying tax on a salary of £25k who is actually bringing in significantly more than that, that isn't taxed, versus someone bringing in £80k but only through one source and all in scope for HMRC. Not someone who is actually on £25k in total all through PAYE. For example: Person A is a programmer working for Company X as an employee. Their Salary is £80k and they pay the appropriate levels of tax on that salary, meaning they are in scope for these new proposals to pay more tax. Person B is a programmer working for Company X but as a contractor through his own personal services company (PSC) on a day rate of £500 (a fairly common day rate for that role). Their company is paid by Company X for 220 days (standard contractor calculation) = £110k per year. Their company pays business rates on that (lower than PAYE, ~20% or some such on the full figure) then they pay themselves a low personal wage to cover National Insurance (paying PAYE on that say £25k) then take dividends from their company which aren't taxed at anywhere near the PAYE level on the rest. So on paper, one person earns £80k and is in scope for these changes, the other earns £25k as far as tax is concerned so isn't. But the person earning £25k in reality is taking home far more, before we talk about VAT breaks etc. Now I know the new IR35 laws are aimed at stopping that sort of thing, but it's only one example of what I meant by saying that looking at what someone pays tax on alone is no guide to whether they are "rich" or not. And for this tax policy, the only people likely to be impacted are not the "rich", but the "honest" middle class earners in certain fields (IT, Doctors, Head Teachers etc.), rather than business owners, CEO's and others who people think this is aimed at and might actually fall into the "rich" category. I am in favour of progressive taxation and personally if I end up getting anywhere near those figures won't mind paying a bit extra, but I certainly wouldn't consider myself "rich" at £80k. In reality, that we are talking about that sort of figure being "rich" just shows how fucked we are not being able to manage our own affairs.

Anyone earning that amount and pleading poverty deserves to be laughed at, but anyone claiming someone earning that much is "rich" is spouting the same nonsense. Despite the guy coming across as a bit of a clown and definitely your standard "I'm alright Jack" type, he did have a point in there somewhere. The proper "rich", who these kinds of policies claim to target, won't pay a single penny more in tax as s result because they're not daft enough to allow themselves to hit that level of PAYE in the first place. This isn't a tax on the rich, it's a tax on well paid middle class workers in certain fields. Working in IT for 20 years I've known many contractors, fit example, who if you looked at them in tax terms would be paying tax on less than the average national wage while taking home the equivalent of 6 figures. HMRC are trying to stop that through IR35, but there's just one example of how people, for decades, have got around these things. For someone employed and earning £80k through PAYE they are already paying the higher tax rate on ~50% of their earning, more if they are in Scotland and if you were unlucky enough to start that job after about 2003 in the private sector don't have that cushy final salary pension racking up either. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying a little bit extra if lucky enough to be talking about those sorts of figures, but my issue is that it's an arbitrary number and doesn't take into account any individuals actual wealth while claiming to be a tax on the rich because that language wins votes. The point that someone paying tax on a salary of £25k a year can be significantly "richer" then someone paying tax on a salary of £80k+ a year is 100% a valid one and I would wager far more common than a lot of people think.

Two good teams at Leith, but a game spoiled unfortunately. Hardly a bad tackle in the game = 15 yellows, 2 reds and a volunteer linesman sent off for not being on the teamlines. You know it's been one of those games when both teams come off together, joking with each other in disbelief at what they just witnessed. [emoji85]

*currently. No one's lights have been tested against the new requirements yet.

The referee gets the final say on all things "game on". We've probably all seen games called off when both teams are happy to play because an official doesn't think the pitch is playable. Ultimately it's the refs call and no one else's, that's part of the job. For licenced clubs, floodlight testing will be part of the licencing/re audit process. You won't get (or retain) your licence until the lights are tested and have passed per the criteria. In that situation I would guess you had a better argument if a match official believed on the day they weren't suitable, if they had passed an annual audit, but ultimately would still be the match officials call just like everything else surrounding the game.

For info, the average Lux level isn't the only requirement for 2020, there's the min/max of 0.25 as well. I'll confess this is an area well outside of my area of knowledge, but the second part of that is the one that it has been inferred may be an issue to clubs with lights on short pylons, as it's to do with variance in lighting levels across different areas of the park (or something). When testing is done, the company that do it look at something like 50 locations per half to measure that variance and to ensure not only that the average is 200, but that the variance across the park isn't outside of tolerance either. Having been to (and played on) a few grounds with older lights on shorter pylons it's definitely the case that some areas of the park were better lit than others. I'm pretty sure based on the licence visit we had recently that the old floodlights at Westfield that we on pylons around the park, the top of the old enclosure and the the top of the pavillion (still there) wouldn't have been suitable based on the conformity across the pitch.

Decent eyesight to see that from Kelty gogsy. [emoji1787]

Yep, that's right Hibee. Here's an under construction pic taken a month or so ago from just outside the cafe, give a better idea of location.

Only if you want to look at the pie hut and toilets for some reason rather than the football park. [emoji846] Can see the whole park seated from where the shelter is situated.

Latest news from Westfield Park: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1428216757326928&id=198060623675887 Among other additions, pictures to come.

Match highlights don't prove you wrong on either count. [emoji846] Softest of soft sending offs and looks a clear foul for the goal. Kelty did still look the better team from the video though.

Oakley definitely deserved to win. Better team on the night and should have won by more. Worst performance of the season by quite some distance from Dunipace who deserved nothing from the game.

I realise I'm not in the majority, but I wouldn't mind the conferences if it went that way again. I think they are a unique solution to a unique problem in the EoS and the league have quite rightly received the plaudits for coming up with it. The only issue I have with conferences is the promotion side of things as Burnie mentions. 1.5 per conference isn't ideal, particularly if you end up with one conference stronger than the other (such I guess we'll start to see from this week forward) but with conferences you can't really have any more than 1.5 per. For that reason alone I'd flatten the structure and go 3 up/3down from ideally a 16 team championship below the premier. Footnote: when naming the league's, please don't use championship. [emoji846]

They have. Sauchie is definitely a reserve team.

Haha, as much as that would be a great spectacle Alan, we'll not get that carried away just yet. Still lots of very good teams left in the last 16, most from above us, that's a huge ask. TBH the cups are a bonus for us, most important thing is starting to convert or chances in the league!

Fair doos hibbee. As I say, genuine question. Dunipace have been indifferent away from home, but no defeats in 6 at Westfield now. Indeed had only lost 1 goal at home in 5 games before today and they scored it themselves (own goal last week in the draw v LTHV). Pub quiz trivia: now 2 goals lost in 6 games at home and both own goals as today's was as well. [emoji85] No opposing player has scored in 6 games at Westfield yet.