Quote:
Originally Posted by maccawozzagod
in fairness to the club we are always going to struggle to keep hold of better players simply because we will always struggle to compete financially with our fellow League clubs. We can't afford to offer better or longer contracts to anybody really, and in particular this year.
Forgetting the why's and wherefore's of whose fault our predicament is, I am grateful that we have a club and losing players (albeit for free) doesn't bother me at the moment.
One way or another we are taking our chances this year and gambling the league status, If this is the case I would be prepared to accept an even greater wage reduction and gamble on trying to secure the best of the crop of the released kids from around the north west. You win nowt with kids? just ask Alan Hansen!
|
The post above is without doubt the most accurate assessment of the situation. All clubs with a small fanbase have to take a reality check.
My own club up North (Clyde) for the first time in years opted to give our best players 2 year deals. Due to falling attendances after poor results and lost sponsorship (sound familiar) we fell £150k in debt, on top of the £150k we already owed. That coupled with relegation meant all players who were out of contract were released, and the 12 contracted for next year have ripped up their contracts and walked away in order to save the club going into administration.
Instead of long term contracts, we must do a better job of scouting lower leagues each year and take a chance on guys with potential to play at a higher level, and couple that with a couple of loan deals. Much better to have a club than to make commitments that can't be fulfilled.
I've read a few posts recently talking about how we should be aiming to be an ambitious League side - surely Stanley already are - their ambition with such a low player budget has to be first and foremost to stay in the league. Anything beyond that is a bonus.