Performance related pay

[PistolPete]

I was thinking this morning about a new way of paying footballers and wondered what people thought. It seems to me that the current system is inefficient as it promotes selfish behaviour rather than a team ethic. Performance related pay ought to see playes try harder, but perhaps there is a better system?

My proposal, no doubt in need of heavily refining, is this:

+Each player would be paid a basic rate linked to the percentage of the clubs attendance income, say 70%. If the club receives £1.2m in attendance then your star player would get 5%, your squad players 4% and back ups 3%. Youth players could get 1.5%. This would do two things, firstly it would prevent the club from overspending and secondly it would force players to connect with the reason they get paid in the first place.

+This basic rate is then improved by a player rating mobile app. Each member of the crowd uses a free download app with password linked to the game they are attending to rate the players performance. Fans without smartphones would be able to log into a website with a password to complete the rating. Only fans at the game would be able to rate the players. Players on the bench or not even in the match day squad would get the average of the players performance so that they too were willing the team on to succeed.

+The win and goal bonus would be removed, it is about performance; wins will happen as a result of performances. I've always though it unfair that strikers get goal bonuses, defenders and keepers get clean sheet bonuses etc...

+When the team is successful the attendance will go up and accordingly so will the wages.

Dave Braylsford said yesterday about the Sky Tour de France team:

"People talk about having team unity and team harmony. I don't buy that at all. Most of the best teams I've been with, they're not harmonious environments. This is not a harmonious environment. This is a gritty environment where people are pushing really hard.

What you need is goal harmony, and there's a big difference between the two."

and it got me thinking that if Reading signed Ricky Lambert how would Le Fondre feel about his goal bonuses reduced as he would no longer take penalties, wouldn't he feel better if he knew he would be getting a bonus when Lambert scored?

I've got loads more ideas on this but I don't want to go on, please feel free to pull my concept to shreds

[Barry the bird boggler]

I was thinking this morning about a new way of paying footballers and wondered what people thought. It seems to me that the current system is inefficient as it promotes selfish behaviour rather than a team ethic. Performance related pay ought to see playes try harder, but perhaps there is a better system?

My proposal, no doubt in need of heavily refining, is this:

+Each player would be paid a basic rate linked to the percentage of the clubs attendance income, say 70%. If the club receives £1.2m in attendance then your star player would get 5%, your squad players 4% and back ups 3%. Youth players could get 1.5%. This would do two things, firstly it would prevent the club from overspending and secondly it would force players to connect with the reason they get paid in the first place.

+This basic rate is then improved by a player rating mobile app. Each member of the crowd uses a free download app with password linked to the game they are attending to rate the players performance. Fans without smartphones would be able to log into a website with a password to complete the rating. Only fans at the game would be able to rate the players. Players on the bench or not even in the match day squad would get the average of the players performance so that they too were willing the team on to succeed.

+The win and goal bonus would be removed, it is about performance; wins will happen as a result of performances. I've always though it unfair that strikers get goal bonuses, defenders and keepers get clean sheet bonuses etc...

+When the team is successful the attendance will go up and accordingly so will the wages.

Dave Braylsford said yesterday about the Sky Tour de France team:

"People talk about having team unity and team harmony. I don't buy that at all. Most of the best teams I've been with, they're not harmonious environments. This is not a harmonious environment. This is a gritty environment where people are pushing really hard.

What you need is goal harmony, and there's a big difference between the two."

and it got me thinking that if Reading signed Ricky Lambert how would Le Fondre feel about his goal bonuses reduced as he would no longer take penalties, wouldn't he feel better if he knew he would be getting a bonus when Lambert scored?

I've got loads more ideas on this but I don't want to go on, please feel free to pull my concept to shreds

There's a reasonably intelligent principle in this, I like it.

Would need an awful lot of revisioning though, just for starters there's the question of how do you avoid abuse of this website/mobile app mullarky by other team's fans - or your own team's fans come to that esp. in a bit of a bad run?

[PistolPete]

For season ticket holders a single use access code for the match which would be emailed on match day. This would mean that the fan in any given seat would only have one code per match with the 'lines open' 5 minutes after the match and closed 48 hours after. The same would go for away games. For non-season ticket holders the actual ticket itself would have the code on it, either as a QR code or as a number.

This app could log your seasons ratings, offer match day commentary and generally act as a 'match day companion' of sorts...

As for the teams own fans dishing out 1's and 2's when the team plays badly, well, here we have to trust in the wisdom of crowds. There will always be a few idiots but on the whole an averaging system should make for fair results.

[Platypuss]

Would need an awful lot of revisioning though,

Ugh.

[6ft Kerplunk]

Dave Braylsford said yesterday about the Sky Tour de France team:

"People talk about having team unity and team harmony. I don't buy that at all. Most of the best teams I've been with, they're not harmonious environments. This is not a harmonious environment. This is a gritty environment where people are pushing really hard.

What you need is goal harmony, and there's a big difference between the two."

Cycling has a different culture towards wages and bonuses though. Cyclists have their set wage which will differ depending on how good or not you are. Any prize money that a rider wins during the season goes into a big pot that gets shared out amongst the whole team at the end of the year. So for the likes of Richie Porte is a lot easier to sacrifice yourself for your teammate if you know that a chunk of the winner's cheque is heading into your wallet.

[PistolPete]

Dave Braylsford said yesterday about the Sky Tour de France team:

"People talk about having team unity and team harmony. I don't buy that at all. Most of the best teams I've been with, they're not harmonious environments. This is not a harmonious environment. This is a gritty environment where people are pushing really hard.

What you need is goal harmony, and there's a big difference between the two."

Cycling has a different culture towards wages and bonuses though. Cyclists have their set wage which will differ depending on how good or not you are. Any prize money that a rider wins during the season goes into a big pot that gets shared out amongst the whole team at the end of the year. So for the likes of Richie Porte is a lot easier to sacrifice yourself for your teammate if you know that a chunk of the winner's cheque is heading into your wallet.

My post was not about cycling, it was that players don't need to get on but instead need to work towards a common goal. However, you are right that footballers ought to be happy to sacrifice themselves for the good of the team if it means they will get paid more.

[Hendo]

The problem being is that some fans have totally contrasting views about how a player has performed and some have personal vendettas against certain players.

[Sanguine]

This all falls over on the fans vote bit. I get the point re goal bonuses, but if wins follow performances, then a win bonus for all involved should suffice.

[PistolPete]

The problem being is that some fans have totally contrasting views about how a player has performed and some have personal vendettas against certain players.

But when 16,000 people vote you get a decent average. If a player becomes unpopular (Leigertwood) it is usually because he is not doing something right. Of course the crowd will not be right all the time, but by and large, over time, the right decisions will be made. Don't forget, the manager will still pick the team so players like Shane Long won't get dropped, they'll just suffer in the short term.

This all falls over on the fans vote bit. I get the point re goal bonuses, but if wins follow performances, then a win bonus for all involved should suffice.

Not really, we want to reward those in the team that play the best and we want to raise the importance of the fans in the club.

[southbank1871]

But football fans are, on the whole, complete idiots. This is a terrible idea.

[Hendo]

But football fans are, on the whole, complete idiots. This is a terrible idea.

This is pretty much what I wanted to say.

[Big Foot]

But football fans are, on the whole, complete idiots. This is a terrible idea.

I'm minded to agree with you - on both points.

[PistolPete]

Yeah they're idiots, but when averaged, the ratings will come out right more than if the decision is made by one person. Currently the chairman or DoF gives a player 20k a week based on reputation and then supplements it with cash for scoring a goal when the whole team does the work and the striker prods it in after a mazy run and pinpoint cross from the fullback (who lost his clean sheet bonus because the referee incorrectly gave a penalty when the lumbering centre back was judged to have cleaned out the opposition striker).

It's easy to put "fans are thick, terrible idea' though, so yeah forget it...

[Hendo]

I guess that never happens in the real world either. Bosses never take the kudos or bonus for the work the minions actually do.

[Sanguine]

Yeah they're idiots, but when averaged, the ratings will come out right more than if the decision is made by one person. Currently the chairman or DoF gives a player 20k a week based on reputation and then supplements it with cash for scoring a goal when the whole team does the work and the striker prods it in after a mazy run and pinpoint cross from the fullback (who lost his clean sheet bonus because the referee incorrectly gave a penalty when the lumbering centre back was judged to have cleaned out the opposition striker).

It's easy to put "fans are thick, terrible idea' though, so yeah forget it...

So, for example, in our 106-point season, James Harper would have been paid less than most, because a decent-sized block of fans didn't value his style of play and how he knitted the team together?

[southbank1871]

Yeah they're idiots, but when averaged, the ratings will come out right more than if the decision is made by one person. Currently the chairman or DoF gives a player 20k a week based on reputation and then supplements it with cash for scoring a goal when the whole team does the work and the striker prods it in after a mazy run and pinpoint cross from the fullback (who lost his clean sheet bonus because the referee incorrectly gave a penalty when the lumbering centre back was judged to have cleaned out the opposition striker).

It's easy to put "fans are thick, terrible idea' though, so yeah forget it...

But in theory the chairman appoints a DoF and management team to make these decisions, who are knowledgeable and have experience. I think they're better placed to make these calls than the average football fan. You don't think that most fans will still give higher r8ings to the player who actually scores the goals? Of course they will, regardless of what else they've done in the match or who set the goals up. You only need to look at the player r8ings on the Team Board after any of our games to know what a ridiculous idea this is.

[PistolPete]

Yeah they're idiots, but when averaged, the ratings will come out right more than if the decision is made by one person. Currently the chairman or DoF gives a player 20k a week based on reputation and then supplements it with cash for scoring a goal when the whole team does the work and the striker prods it in after a mazy run and pinpoint cross from the fullback (who lost his clean sheet bonus because the referee incorrectly gave a penalty when the lumbering centre back was judged to have cleaned out the opposition striker).

It's easy to put "fans are thick, terrible idea' though, so yeah forget it...

So, for example, in our 106-point season, James Harper would have been paid less than most, because a decent-sized block of fans didn't value his style of play and how he knitted the team together?

James Harper would have probably had his average rating at 7.1 to Sidwell's 7.3. In the season we got 106 he was loved. Yes there are vocal disapprovers but what if, just what if, those people have a reason. Are we to ignore them just because we don't agree? Were the Leigertwood haters TOTALLY wrong? Have faith in the crowd!

[PistolPete]

Yeah they're idiots, but when averaged, the ratings will come out right more than if the decision is made by one person. Currently the chairman or DoF gives a player 20k a week based on reputation and then supplements it with cash for scoring a goal when the whole team does the work and the striker prods it in after a mazy run and pinpoint cross from the fullback (who lost his clean sheet bonus because the referee incorrectly gave a penalty when the lumbering centre back was judged to have cleaned out the opposition striker).

It's easy to put "fans are thick, terrible idea' though, so yeah forget it...

But in theory the chairman appoints a DoF and management team to make these decisions, who are knowledgeable and have experience. I think they're better placed to make these calls than the average football fan. You don't think that most fans will still give higher r8ings to the player who actually scores the goals? Of course they will, regardless of what else they've done in the match or who set the goals up. You only need to look at the player r8ings on the Team Board after any of our games to know what a ridiculous idea this is.

You're missing the point, The management team give a player wages based on his past and then offer a set of bonuses. What's great about my idea is that yes, players who score goals will invariably get higher ratings but the lunatics that give Federici a rating of 3 will be cancelled out by those who give him an 8 and he will get exactly the same fair call as every other player. If he is unpopular then he would have to ask 'why?' and hopefully do something about it. (Harper could stop waving his hands so much and pass other places than sideways and Federici could be a little more careful about his ambitions away from the club). Equally fans favourites will get higher ratings - and rightly so, those are the players we want to see! Perhaps as part of the revisions for this idea it should fas should be reminded not to overrate the goalscorer?..

If, it transpired that race, position or nationality was affecting the ratings then yes, the whole idea would probably be illegal!

[urz13]

It's an interesting idea but I don't like the fan voting system. I'd prefer to have, say, 10 neutral experts at the game who rate the players themselves, and their average is the score the player gets and then the bonuses etc. could be applied. If a player is performing well I don't think he should get a lesser wage just becuase he is unpopular with the fanbase.

[creative_username_1]

how are you gonna get 16,000 people to vote in a timely manner.
it'll be abused
people will be inconsistent
if i watch live games i want to get caught up in the atmosphere (i.e. have a few drinks) not going to be at my analytical best
ratings don't average out in the way you think

I think a number of sites have player rating systems but usually end up dropping them as the results get so much criticism

....etc