tickets11 said:

would never work, players would simply go elsewhere.

the problem we have is we have to pay high wages in order to keep our players here and were not even in europe.

if we couldnt afford to keep arteta on 70k a week wages how can we afford to keep fellaini on them.  the likes of cahill, hetinga distin saha neville earn way too much.

one way to cut down the bill would be to offer 1 year deals to players as son as they hit 30, like united did with giggs and scholes.  

-----------------

I think it's a great idea, though maybe 50% is more realistic.  Injured players get a 20% top up to take them to 70%.  But by playing well, you can double your wage, and presumably this would be more sustainable by the clubs performance.

Hmm, ideas of structure:

Basic Wage 30% OTE

Result, 10% per point of OTE

Individual performance, rated 0-4 x 10% OTE

So if you're horrendous and we lose, you get, for ease of maths, 30k.  If you're sensational and we win, you get 100k.

It's an incentive.  On that though, you'd need to figure out a fair wage for injured players, but one that would give players incentive to play, not skive.

MavisCruet said:

I think it's a great idea, though maybe 50% is more realistic.  Injured players get a 20% top up to take them to 70%.  But by playing well, you can double your wage, and presumably this would be more sustainable by the clubs performance.

Hmm, ideas of structure:

Basic Wage 30% OTE

Result, 10% per point of OTE

Individual performance, rated 0-4 x 10% OTE

So if you're horrendous and we lose, you get, for ease of maths, 30k.  If you're sensational and we win, you get 100k.

It's an incentive.  On that though, you'd need to figure out a fair wage for injured players, but one that would give players incentive to play, not skive.

-----------------

BlueBoy93 said:

pk4efc said:

Been a bit frustrated by an apparent lack of effort by some players so just wondered if this would be a better system, and what the pros and cons might be about using something like this. My initial idea would include the following:

1. Only a portion of the player's pay is performance-related but it should be a substantial portion e.g. 70-80% performance pay.

2. The player perfomance would be assessed by input from a number of factors e.g. a 5 member club panel (not sure how this should be selected). The panel's decision would account for say 50% of the performance rating and the other 50% would come from Everton supporters who had purchased a match ticket. Unfortunately, I don't live in the UK and rarely get to matches but this would give those who pay considerable amounts of money to support EFC an opportunity to have a say in a real way.

3. Of course injured players would have a compensatory arrangement so they weren't being unfairly penalised, but fit players could be motivated to compete for places on the 1st team.

Okay it's not a perfect system but there are many positives e.g.
a) the club wouldn't have to pay the same wages for poor performances
b) If other clubs used a similar system then mega-rich clubs' good players who regularly weren't making the 1st team would be more likely to transfer to smaller clubs for more game time.

I know there are probably a good number of things that I haven't even thought of, but as I say, this idea just came into my head this morning so I'd like to hear your thoughts - and go easy on me please!

-----------------

its too late for a system like that to be used, players have the power now, not the clubs.

-----------------

pk4efc said:

MavisCruet said:

I think it's a great idea, though maybe 50% is more realistic.  Injured players get a 20% top up to take them to 70%.  But by playing well, you can double your wage, and presumably this would be more sustainable by the clubs performance.

Hmm, ideas of structure:

Basic Wage 30% OTE

Result, 10% per point of OTE

Individual performance, rated 0-4 x 10% OTE

So if you're horrendous and we lose, you get, for ease of maths, 30k.  If you're sensational and we win, you get 100k.

It's an incentive.  On that though, you'd need to figure out a fair wage for injured players, but one that would give players incentive to play, not skive.

-----------------

Fair point, mate. Obviously, the basic system can be tweaked to make it fairer and to encourage players to give their best, I just feel that there is no balance in the current structure and those who pay good money for their match tickets deserve an opportunity to give feedback that makes a difference where it matters. Okay some supporters will have biased views of certain players but, in general, the overall assessment of the EFC match attenders would be reasonably balanced I think!

-----------------

I suppose you'd have to keep Moyes' judgement out of it directly, so part of our fanbase and then some actual people with expert insight decide the individual aspect, half of it each.

It is probably too late, but I wonder, if we offered someone a bit out of favour such a deal and they had a point to prove, they may take it and it could start a whole new era of football!  

I once heard a suggestion on the Radio, I think it was the mark Thomas Manifesto, that the players should have their wages in cash on a table in the middle of the pitch, after the game they had to come out and take it in front of the fans, see if they'd take it all knowing they had a shocking game and getting booed to the rafters.

Swarley said:

Not a bad overall idea, would feel a bit harsh on the fit players who just aren't getting the game time though.

-----------------

Aye, it would, but they'd sign for the 25 man squad, and a basic wage and if they're not getting a game, it's incentive to move on.  See golf's Wayne Bridge.

I can't think of many players who I would think are hard done to by it, especially not at Everton.  VDM would have cost much less!