|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 10:53:11 GMT
When the Athletic ran a feature on us in, I think January, it was reported that we had chosen to pay very good wages, but, as a result of this we weren't paying bonuses. Nothing for goals, assists, clean sheets, or even just appearances.
When did we insert no bonuses as standards in players' contracts? Was this a recent thing or have we been employing that for several seasons?
In itself there's something to be said for that policy. Players are paid well whether they play 50 games a season or whether the great performances are keeping keepers, academy prospects, or old stalwarts from getting into the team and thus be denied a share in the bonus pools.
But there sure as hell is a lot to be said against that policy, as we now, and for quite some time, see players simply not motivated or even touching the ball during games.
There is of course no standard basic wage in pro football and there hasn't been one for close to 55 years. But sometimes I think that wouldn't it be better if everybody earned the same as Tymon, who is our lowest paid player at 10k, and then they were rewarded for their performances on an individual level.
By all means reward them well, if they deserve it. But no bonuses for a player who doesn't touch the ball for 55 minutes!
Promise every one - except mister no touch - a large bonus, just like the manager might get, for keeping the club from dropping down a league. It might just see us stay up.
|
|
|
|
Post by cotswoldstokie on Jul 2, 2020 11:09:19 GMT
I think we are the only professional football league club in Britain not to offer bonuses. That went well🙄
|
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Jul 2, 2020 11:17:12 GMT
It’s one obvious explanation for why huge numbers of players are appalling for Stoke despite being proven good players at this level, both before and after they play for us.
Also explains why people like Bruno Martins Indi seem to enjoy time wasting when we’re actually losing.
|
|
|
|
Post by 11wilkosinateam on Jul 2, 2020 11:57:52 GMT
We are ridiculous if thats true
Football needs to be more bonus based. How much better would players play if they were on 5k PW with a 50k goal or clean sheet bonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jul 2, 2020 12:24:55 GMT
Whoever is responsible for this idea is a monumental idiot. It's the worst idea anyone has ever had.
|
|
|
|
Post by s8to on Jul 2, 2020 13:11:51 GMT
Scholes out! Simples!
|
|
|
|
Post by stokeykez on Jul 2, 2020 13:19:58 GMT
Do players not get hefty signing on fees in order to keep their wages low though. Couple of million in the arse rocket.
Bonuses piss me off because money should not motivate you to play well , I know it does with mercenaries though.
Dont know why they are moaning, not like we have a 25 goal a season striker missing out on thousands is it though.
I think no bonuses actually reduces the amount of favouritism in team selections due to appearances, goal records etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by SCFC92 on Jul 2, 2020 13:34:01 GMT
I hope to fuck this isn't true.
Absolutely bonkers, win lose or draw you will pull the same gravy train salary.
Would explain the utter steaming fetid horse shite our "lads" have served up the last three games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 14:03:18 GMT
Do players not get hefty signing on fees in order to keep their wages low though. Couple of million in the arse rocket. Bonuses piss me off because money should not motivate you to play well , I know it does with mercenaries though. Dont know why they are moaning, not like we have a 25 goal a season striker missing out on thousands is it though. I think no bonuses actually reduces the amount of favouritism in team selections due to appearances, goal records etc. They might. But there's nothing low about most current Stoke players' wages... Various estimates have been published from time to time. The most accurate are probably the ones on transfermarkt. |
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Jul 2, 2020 15:07:11 GMT
Never mind bonuses for doing their job. The useless cunts are already overpaid. Fucking wankers
|
|
|
|
Post by riverman on Jul 2, 2020 15:07:17 GMT
It would certainly explain why Rowett and Jones can now get tunes out of their clubs and it suddenly looks dog shit under O'Neill again.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jul 2, 2020 15:14:09 GMT
"I'm not sure how much it hurts some of them to be honest"
|
|
|
|
Post by femark on Jul 2, 2020 15:30:38 GMT
Anyone got a link to the article that isnt behind a pay wall?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 15:38:42 GMT
I thought this was common knowledge?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 16:05:19 GMT
Anyone got a link to the article that isnt behind a pay wall? Someone copied and pasted the complete article on a thread on here when it was published. As I said it might have been in January, maybe a little later, but a search should bring it up. |
|
|
|
Post by chumley on Jul 2, 2020 16:36:15 GMT
When Tom Edwards scored his first goal he received £7k bonus for the goal so he's getting .
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 16:39:21 GMT
When the Athletic ran a feature on us in, I think January, it was reported that we had chosen to pay very good wages, but, as a result of this we weren't paying bonuses. Nothing for goals, assists, clean sheets, or even just appearances. When did we insert no bonuses as standards in players' contracts? Was this a recent thing or have we been employing that for several seasons? In itself there's something to be said for that policy. Players are paid well whether they play 50 games a season or whether the great performances are keeping keepers, academy prospects, or old stalwarts from getting into the team and thus be denied a share in the bonus pools. But there sure as hell is a lot to be said against that policy, as we now, and for quite some time, see players simply not motivated or even touching the ball during games. There is of course no standard basic wage in pro football and there hasn't been one for close to 55 years. But sometimes I think that wouldn't it be better if everybody earned the same as Tymon, who is our lowest paid player at 10k, and then they were rewarded for their performances on an individual level. By all means reward them well, if they deserve it. But no bonuses for a player who doesn't touch the ball for 55 minutes! Promise every one - except mister no touch - a large bonus, just like the manager might get, for keeping the club from dropping down a league. It might just see us stay up. Completely agree, and it's a great idea re: the bonus - but I wonder, with our boneheaded hierarchy, whether the thought has even entered their mind? I mind, it is depressing to acknowledge that a monetary bonus would be all that would motivate the players, but then again - if it's 100% true that we're pretty much one of the only clubs to not offer these kinds of bonuses, then we've been asking for trouble in terms of motivation. Shoot whichever fucker decided that no bonuses was for the best. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 2, 2020 16:48:18 GMT
When the Athletic ran a feature on us in, I think January, it was reported that we had chosen to pay very good wages, but, as a result of this we weren't paying bonuses. Nothing for goals, assists, clean sheets, or even just appearances. When did we insert no bonuses as standards in players' contracts? Was this a recent thing or have we been employing that for several seasons? In itself there's something to be said for that policy. Players are paid well whether they play 50 games a season or whether the great performances are keeping keepers, academy prospects, or old stalwarts from getting into the team and thus be denied a share in the bonus pools.  But there sure as hell is a lot to be said against that policy, as we now, and for quite some time, see players simply not motivated or even touching the ball during games. There is of course no standard basic wage in pro football and there hasn't been one for close to 55 years. But sometimes I think that wouldn't it be better if everybody earned the same as Tymon, who is our lowest paid player at 10k, and then they were rewarded for their performances on an individual level. By all means reward them well, if they deserve it. But no bonuses for a player who doesn't touch the ball for 55 minutes! Promise every one - except mister no touch - a large bonus, just like the manager might get, for keeping the club from dropping down a league. It might just see us stay up. Completely agree, and it's a great idea re: the bonus - but I wonder, with our boneheaded hierarchy, whether the thought has even entered their mind? I mind, it is depressing to acknowledge that a monetary bonus would be all that would motivate the players, but then again - if it's 100% true that we're pretty much one of the only clubs to not offer these kinds of bonuses, then we've been asking for trouble in terms of motivation. Shoot whichever fucker decided that no bonuses was for the best. That's Scholes |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 17:44:58 GMT
Completely agree, and it's a great idea re: the bonus - but I wonder, with our boneheaded hierarchy, whether the thought has even entered their mind? I mind, it is depressing to acknowledge that a monetary bonus would be all that would motivate the players, but then again - if it's 100% true that we're pretty much one of the only clubs to not offer these kinds of bonuses, then we've been asking for trouble in terms of motivation. Shoot whichever fucker decided that no bonuses was for the best. That's Scholes Unless it's Peter Coates. It sort of sits in with his theories about how a club should be self sufficient. Another one of his ideas, though beautiful in theory, that absolutely didn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jul 2, 2020 17:50:27 GMT
Its a good way to keep control over FFP so there isn't any unseen/uncontrolable extra spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jul 2, 2020 17:52:17 GMT
It would certainly explain why Rowett and Jones can now get tunes out of their clubs and it suddenly looks dog shit under O'Neill again. Not really, unless you think when they rehired Jones they also chucked in some big win bonuses at the same time for the players. |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jul 2, 2020 17:56:51 GMT
Unless the 'no bonus' policy was decided during the Coronavirus break, it's clearly not the only reason we've served up a steaming pile of horseshit since the restart.
|
|
|
|
Post by toptom007 on Jul 2, 2020 18:32:11 GMT
This has just set a precident. Now anyone who might want to join will also want the inflated wages and bonuses on top now the club realises they need to incintivise players with money!
|
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Jul 2, 2020 19:58:24 GMT
When Tom Edwards scored his first goal he received £7k bonus for the goal so he's getting . That is depressing. Even I could run around competively for 60 minutes, and I reckon I'd get at least one goal for every 3 hours play. I had a coach once who listed 15 common ways to score, including header, deflection, volley, stab,etc and reckoned that on a logical basis it is probably easier to score than not. Its the defenders who have the difficult job, and also treat the goalkeeper as an afterthought or as if he's not there. (If you hit the shot well enough the chances are he'll not get to it.) |
|
olias
Academy Starlet
Posts: 187
|
Post by olias on Jul 2, 2020 20:08:46 GMT
I used to work in a foundry in the 80's.
You earned a basic wage, which was ok. On top of that, your bonus was calculated on the tonnage you got out the door on a Fri/Sat.
The bonus was amazing.
People worked. And we worked hard. And we were paid well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Jul 3, 2020 10:34:26 GMT
I used to work in a foundry in the 80's. You earned a basic wage, which was ok. On top of that, your bonus was calculated on the tonnage you got out the door on a Fri/Sat. The bonus was amazing. People worked. And we worked hard. And we were paid well. These cunts should be on performance related pay. We’d still be struggling, but The club would be quids in. |
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jul 3, 2020 13:00:49 GMT
When Tom Edwards scored his first goal he received £7k bonus for the goal so he's getting . That is depressing. Even I could run around competively for 60 minutes, and I reckon I'd get at least one goal for every 3 hours play. I had a coach once who listed 15 common ways to score, including header, deflection, volley, stab,etc and reckoned that on a logical basis it is probably easier to score than not. Its the defenders who have the difficult job, and also treat the goalkeeper as an afterthought or as if he's not there. (If you hit the shot well enough the chances are he'll not get to it.) Yeah, of course you would.  So some bloke off the street could score as often as Lewis Grabban (19) or Karlan Grant (18) who are currently scoring at 1 goal every 180 minutes. You should be out there earning a fortune instead of posting on here.  |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 3, 2020 18:28:10 GMT
Unless it's Peter Coates. It sort of sits in with his theories about how a club should be self sufficient. Another one of his ideas, though beautiful in theory, that absolutely didn't work. No it's Scholes. Full stop. He sorts all the contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 18:32:44 GMT
Unless it's Peter Coates. It sort of sits in with his theories about how a club should be self sufficient. Another one of his ideas, though beautiful in theory, that absolutely didn't work. No it's Scholes. Full stop. He sorts all the contracts. Of course he does. But Coates tells him what to do. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 3, 2020 18:35:38 GMT
No it's Scholes. Full stop. He sorts all the contracts. Of course he does. But Coates tells him what to do. Not really, he lets him get on with 99% of things Obviously Coates could sack Scholes and employ a genuine chief executive but please let's stop blaming Coates, Cartwright, Hughes e.t.c for Scholes mistakes. |
|
