Player revolt

[caleyboy]

WynessLegend, having looked over your replies on more than one thread in the last couple of days, I was wondering if you are Graham Bennett in disguise.

has he ever been seen in perth?

[Govan Jaggie]

I was going to put this on a thread of it's own but I guess it fits here.

Not since a certain family member was invlolved with ICT have I been able to say that I have been told by a source from inside ICT so for the first time in 5 or 6 years:

I have been told by a source from inside ICT that the players do not want to achieve a top 6 finish as they feel that they would have a better chance of getting 5 wins in the bottom since and getting 5 win payments.  They have not been given an incentive to achieve the top 6 over the bottom 6 so they feel they could earn more playing at a lower level.  It may not be true but if the club are not rewarding them for achieve a top 6 you can almost see where they are coming from.

[+L_G]

Interesting theory

[TheresNoEsInBlack]

If the players are thinking that because they've not been given an incentive then they are quite right! I wouldn't finish a work project early if there was nothing in it for me.  Put an incentive in front of me though and I will set my stall out and work my socks off ;)

The club should not have the players in a situation where they end up worse off by winning. :33:

Its just common sense!

[Kingsmills]

I doubt if anyone at the club has been naive enough to agree a bonus structure which doesn't reward a top six place. Our players are relatively well paid but far from wealthy so, of couse there would be a temptation not to fight too hard for a top six finish if a bottom six place was likely to be more rewarding.

For that very reason, the bonus system will be structured to better reward a top six finish irrespective of results in the last five games. The people who run our club are not fools.

[Johnboy]

For that very reason, the bonus system will be structured to better reward a top six finish irrespective of results in the last five games. The people who run our club are not fools.

Surely the extra revenue the club will receive for attaining a top six spot would ensure that is the case.

[Kingsmills]

Exactly

[Govan Jaggie]

That is how it SHOULD work but our board does do things in strange ways some times.

[Caleyjag]

Govan Jaggie

Am I living in the dark? Who is/was your 'insider :symbol_question: :symbol_question:'?

[Alex MacLeod]

I cant see those who run the club being so niave as to not have league position incentives in place that would be more rewarding than the games from five win bonuses. Nor can I believe the players are so niave as to set their stall based on the possibility of five wins. They done it once but there is no gaurantee it could be done again especially if Gretna were to claw back to within the relegation dogfight zone.

[Johnboy]

Is losing two early goals then staging some kind of mock comeback, part of the team's strategy for ensuring a top six position is not reached..?

:024:

[+CaleyD]

Let's stop and think about this "theory" for a second.

What is being said is that the team somehow think that foregoing win bonuses pre-split is somehow going to increase win bonuses post spilt???

Ok, if we were going in to our last game or two before the split and it was very tight for a top 6 then you could argue that it would make some kind of sense, but we have 6 games until the spit and a chance of 6 win bonuses (assuming they made the decision today).  They are going to deliberately throw away the chance of 6 win bonuses in the hope that they walk the games post split and get 5 win bonuses......that's just nonsense, especially when at least 3 of our games are against potential bottom 6 teams.

If there's any truth in this (and I can't see it), and any of our players have an attitude other than "be all you can be" then good riddance, I don't want you playing for my team.

[TheresNoEsInBlack]

Companies pay their employees as little as possible for as long as possible and only fork out any extra when they absolutely have to (e.g. when staff start walking or threaten to walk).  I don't think our club will be any different and I wouldn't be surprised if the club has not offered the players a bonus plan that is realistic.  The club have a thrifty attitude which has stood us in good stead so far, however the players are getting p1ssed off... Bayne(?) was on about the players getting more money for getting us and keeping us in the SPL when his contract was up for renewal, so if he's saying it they're ALL thinking it.

I hope the club see them alright to keep them happy in order for the core of the team to stay intact.

Having a "be all you can be" attitude is great but its not when your employer is ripping the erse out you!!

Regards,

Slightly Cynical Employee of the Month

[+Tree]

The general difference between most employers and the club is that any profit achieved by the club is re-invested and do not form part of the return for shareholders/directors.

At the start of the year a budget is established for the playing staff to cover wages, bonuses and to a degree transfers (lets ignore additional payments by Chairman to certain players). This is established on the basis on perceived guaranteed income plus allowances/mechanisms for additional bonuses based on non-guaranteed income (e.g. cup runs, top six, etc).

To increase the wages to players as some are suggesting one of the following must happen

1. Reduction in playing staff

2. Increase in income from higher paying gates - Nice concept but difficult to achieve

3. Increase in income from increased prices at the gate

4. Increase in other commercial activities

I would suggest that whilst everyone is saying that we should be paying more, there will be little support for increasing the gate prices by any significant amount.

It is difficult to budget on the basis of a forecast increase from higher gates and commercial activities (as these are not guaranteed). This leaves reducing the playing squad and using the wages for other players.

I will not presume to suggest the best way forward other than saying that the club has to work within its means. We are one of the bottom three supported clubs in the league (both in terms of gates and also commercial activities) and this has to create a realism in terms of what we can offer. I would also have to add that in terms of increasing the profile of the club with the local kids we are not helping ourselves and greater effort should be made both in schools and general (we can walk past shops with old firm tops but have to look carefully in a dingy back corner of a well known department store to find any trace of the club - great advertising!).

[caleyboy]

Pofit sharing is a lucrative reward for employees of better employers. We never stop hearing how good we are at working within our means but if our playing staff are so poorly paid, why do we not build in a profit share bonus in addition to appearance and win bonuses.

[Govan Jaggie]

Govan Jaggie

Am I living in the dark? Who is/was your 'insider :symbol_question: :symbol_question:'?

No offence but the current source will not be named.  As I said with his "info" is it may not be true.  As for my family member that let things slip, it was a long time ago and basically everyone knows that an ex tannoy man from years ago may be my father!  No new news.

[Johnboy]

  As for my family member that let things slip, it was a long time ago and basically everyone knows that an ex tannoy man from years ago may be my father! 

You mean you're not sure who your real father is..?

:024:

[Govan Jaggie]

Most of the time I wish I never knew at all!  He even gave me that damm dyslexia that effects my tiepin.

[caley100]

Never mind Rog.... he'll soon be off to TIELAND      :015:

[Govan Jaggie]

Imagine spending your last night in Scotland watching ICT hammer Celtic.  A joy for me at least. :004: