we weren't screwing the community trusts, that we had no debts, that we weren't ripping off our social members and/or juniors and that we didn't need a "sugar daddy" to artificially prop the club up.
F A Cup your highlighted comments interest me. If you believe these things are happening out there in the football community you should do something about it. There is a massive misallocation of scarce resource going on I agree but the clubs who do it are never going to change their ways unless forced to by administrators higher up the chain. I suggest you start by writing to the board of Capital Football, maybe even requesting that you can attend a board meeting, and raise these issues with them. That's one way you can actively help fix this big problem.
thats the funniest suggestion I have ever read
Especially when I tell you that I was on the CF Board for three and a half years and only resigned about three months ago! (for family reasons).
You both make a good point though (even you Feverish).
Rightstr - my comments relate to my time at BNU only and the fact that by not paying players we were not subject to any of those temptations I mentioned. It certainly made AGMs a bit of a smoother ride.
I definitely don't know of any actual examples of clubs using trust funding to pay players, which would be completely illegal. It would be easy enough to do, however, and you do have to wonder whether any of those nice big grants received for "coaching" in many club's accounts don't end up getting diverted to players in some way.
Many clubs paying players are using the income from social members and junior fees to do it, however, and that's actually fine as long as those members condone it (and if they don't they can always sack the committee or find another club). That's really just down to how you choose to run your club and what the members see the priorities as. In fact, even at BNU where players are not paid the first team's subs were (until recently) being subsidised by the other members of the club.
When I first went on the CF Board this was an issue that I was interested in and I still think it's an important issue. But I don't think it's the most important issue facing CF right now, however, for two reasons:
1. The negative impact that it is having on the game is really difficult to quantify and any real evidence is like hen's teeth. As this thread shows it's a very subjective debate and there's people who don't even agree it's a problem. There are much clearer issues on the agenda at the moment (like the need for artificials) that CF is rightly focusing it's limited resources on.
2. You say "clubs who do it are never going to change their ways unless forced to by administrators higher up the chain". In my case, I was an elected Board member and it was my job to represent the views of clubs even if they were not necessarily my own. The fact is that at meeting after meeting and through talking to lots of club administrators this was never raised as a burning issue. It was discussed, sure, but there was never the kind of wholesale consensus that there was even a problem, let alone the need for CF to take action. Many clubs have also made it clear to CF over the years that they resent being told what to do and how to spend their money, and to a degree that's fair enough.
So in a way Feverish is right (although he's being a smart alec about it!). The CF Board are well aware of the issue but it probably isn't the biggest challenge they face at the moment (although I should make it very clear I'm not on the Board anymore and that's only my view).
I think it's really interesting to get these views out in the open though, and if enough people seem to be going in the same direction you never know...
