Fans forum with Paul Ragan - Monday 03/01
- Thread starter Wannabe2
- Start date
Clever recruitment/right recruitment is as important as budget in terms of success for a team.
A comprehensive minute of last night's discussions:
http://www.cardiffdevils.com/news/qa-with-paul-ragan/
http://www.cardiffdevils.com/news/qa-with-paul-ragan/
If i understood this correctly as the tender has been closed and accepted it has to go through procurement. This means that anyone who put in a final tender has to ok any changes to the winning bid. We are obviously ok with 2 pads. The people building the hotel had a tender also the owner of the shipping yard did. So to pass the amendments the council have to get their agreement too.
Thanks Koop. However, the wage cap and budget are two different things. If we are talking equal budgets that concerns me greatly. For example, let us assume that a budget are exactly the same for both teams and that budget covers wages and all other expenses of the running of each organisation over a season.
Assuming accommodation costs, vehicles costs are equal, location wise, it is clear to see that over a season, travelling costs would be far less for the Steelers than the Devils. That would leave a surplus in favour of the Steelers, would I therefore be correct in assuming that the hire of venues would be greater for the Steelers than the Devils, and that the savings on their travelling costs would pay for the difference in rink hire. It is also interesting to note that whilst a wagecap is mentioned, it doesn't actually say that any wage cap can't be a higher figure than is being spent on wages at the moment.
Most would assume a wage cap would bring down salaries, whilst in effect, it could mean that a wage cap is actually set a level higher or even much higher than we are paying this season. Was it also confirmed that Sheffield and ourselves would actually be allowed to enter the EPL if a wage cap agreement is not reached at EIHL level. Any thoughts pls ?
Assuming accommodation costs, vehicles costs are equal, location wise, it is clear to see that over a season, travelling costs would be far less for the Steelers than the Devils. That would leave a surplus in favour of the Steelers, would I therefore be correct in assuming that the hire of venues would be greater for the Steelers than the Devils, and that the savings on their travelling costs would pay for the difference in rink hire. It is also interesting to note that whilst a wagecap is mentioned, it doesn't actually say that any wage cap can't be a higher figure than is being spent on wages at the moment.
Most would assume a wage cap would bring down salaries, whilst in effect, it could mean that a wage cap is actually set a level higher or even much higher than we are paying this season. Was it also confirmed that Sheffield and ourselves would actually be allowed to enter the EPL if a wage cap agreement is not reached at EIHL level. Any thoughts pls ?
Agreed tenders cannot be changed WITHOUT agreement from all involved parties and other tender applicants. PI and The Devils are looking to amend the tender to include two pads, so as long as its agreed by the other companies who put forward a tender, then all is well. The hotel is the only other company, and as their tender included two pads, its unlikely they'll disagree to it.
osh - I think Paul meant that the budget's given to each coach would be the same. Obviously the main part of this would be the wages - I don't know whether this would include accomodation, vehicles etc.
However, things like arena hire and transport costs are not part of the coaches job and so they would be paid for by the parent company and not included in the coaches budget.
At least that is how I understood it?
Regarding the wagecap - I think Paul Ragan was suggesting it would be a bit less than what we have spent this season, and a lot less than what Sheffield have spent this season.
However, things like arena hire and transport costs are not part of the coaches job and so they would be paid for by the parent company and not included in the coaches budget.
At least that is how I understood it?
Regarding the wagecap - I think Paul Ragan was suggesting it would be a bit less than what we have spent this season, and a lot less than what Sheffield have spent this season.
The transcript is a good one. The only thing I think is a load of bull is re the webcast.
Belfast must be counting up wrong if they reckon they only get 50 viewers.... we all know they must get a helluva lot more away fans than that watching it, mainly because its difficult and often expensive to travel to Belfast from mainland.
I'm sorry, I just dont believe his answer.
I wouldnt mind fans utilising their contacts at the various clubs offering webcasts and seeing about gaining REAL viewing numbers from each of them, and genuine views on how they think it has/might affect their gate sales.
I just dont believe that viewers of the webcasts would attend the games if the webcast werent available. If they could, they would.
Belfast must be counting up wrong if they reckon they only get 50 viewers.... we all know they must get a helluva lot more away fans than that watching it, mainly because its difficult and often expensive to travel to Belfast from mainland.
I'm sorry, I just dont believe his answer.
I wouldnt mind fans utilising their contacts at the various clubs offering webcasts and seeing about gaining REAL viewing numbers from each of them, and genuine views on how they think it has/might affect their gate sales.
I just dont believe that viewers of the webcasts would attend the games if the webcast werent available. If they could, they would.
I think you'll find the numbers are correct.
Whilst people might comment on seeing it, there seem to be a number of people on all the boards who are part of the same households, and so it's still only 1 purchased webcast.
When we were linking it up in previous seasons, there used to be no more than 50 people for the Devils games as shown by the number of viewers tab they used to have.
The webcast still gets mixed reviews so I can't see how their numbers would have increased dramatically, if at all.
Chris.
Whilst people might comment on seeing it, there seem to be a number of people on all the boards who are part of the same households, and so it's still only 1 purchased webcast.
When we were linking it up in previous seasons, there used to be no more than 50 people for the Devils games as shown by the number of viewers tab they used to have.
The webcast still gets mixed reviews so I can't see how their numbers would have increased dramatically, if at all.
Chris.
Thanks Finny, however, by saying 'i think what paul meant' is just an interpretation not confirmation, but lets hope that it refers to what he is allowing each coach for wages only. that then allows a coach to sign a player based on his capabilities and not because he may be a single guy with no ties (i.e 9 single imports sharing 3 x 3 bed apartments is going to cost a lot more than 9 seperate 2 bed apartments for married guys with kids etc)
Re your comment about the wage cap, again, like me, you are not sure, you are just assuming that it will be a bit less than last season. I doubt that somehow. If the import levels drop by say 2 imports per team ( as is being mooted) our existing imports will want more money to come back anyway (inflation, worth etc) so that will probably take up what we are paying this season. That means a couple more Brits to come in and that means paying more for them, even the Brits we have this year are likely to ask for more money. So I actaully see the wage cap being set at a figure slightly higher - not lower - than this season. Thats not a huge issue either as increasing crowds should cover such increases. But fair play to the man, he fronted up and answered the main points and will have to do it all again at Sheffield. The main issue is policing a wage cap which is impossible to do as we all know ( cash incentives can be paid 'off the record' ) and that negates a wage cap no matter how it is portrayed.
Re your comment about the wage cap, again, like me, you are not sure, you are just assuming that it will be a bit less than last season. I doubt that somehow. If the import levels drop by say 2 imports per team ( as is being mooted) our existing imports will want more money to come back anyway (inflation, worth etc) so that will probably take up what we are paying this season. That means a couple more Brits to come in and that means paying more for them, even the Brits we have this year are likely to ask for more money. So I actaully see the wage cap being set at a figure slightly higher - not lower - than this season. Thats not a huge issue either as increasing crowds should cover such increases. But fair play to the man, he fronted up and answered the main points and will have to do it all again at Sheffield. The main issue is policing a wage cap which is impossible to do as we all know ( cash incentives can be paid 'off the record' ) and that negates a wage cap no matter how it is portrayed.
Actually guys this is not technically true, and I apologise if I bore or confuse you with what I am about to say, but I’ll try to make it as uncomplicated as possible:
The Contract for the new rink falls under EU Procurement Legislation (and therefore the European Court of Justice) due to the value of the Contract being awarded.
Under this legislation, the Council must ensure that they must fully detail all requirements when advertising and the Contract and writing the Tender Specification. Any additional works relating to this project (such as an additional pad) which were not included in either the original Contract Notice or the original Tender Specification cannot simply be awarded to the successful contractor.
It is not a case of the other tenderers simply 'agreeing to the changes' – in the eyes of the European Court of Justice, allowing PI to build an additional pad is a breech of procurement rules.
As far as I can gather from the current legislation, the only way the Council could justify it is by demonstrating that undertaking the additional work is strictly necessary for its completion of the original Contract, which I can’t imagine they would be able to do.
Unfortunately this is a case of the Council being short-sighted and not fully considering the genuine requirements of such a project!
The Contract for the new rink falls under EU Procurement Legislation (and therefore the European Court of Justice) due to the value of the Contract being awarded.
Under this legislation, the Council must ensure that they must fully detail all requirements when advertising and the Contract and writing the Tender Specification. Any additional works relating to this project (such as an additional pad) which were not included in either the original Contract Notice or the original Tender Specification cannot simply be awarded to the successful contractor.
It is not a case of the other tenderers simply 'agreeing to the changes' – in the eyes of the European Court of Justice, allowing PI to build an additional pad is a breech of procurement rules.
As far as I can gather from the current legislation, the only way the Council could justify it is by demonstrating that undertaking the additional work is strictly necessary for its completion of the original Contract, which I can’t imagine they would be able to do.
Unfortunately this is a case of the Council being short-sighted and not fully considering the genuine requirements of such a project!
Haven't Edinburgh stopped doing webcasts? I would be surprised if Coventry would have more users as they are able to attract more away supporters due to location.
I do think the webcast could impact supporter numbers. If you've got a long drive on a Sunday night in the cold and wet, currently you may go to the game. But the knowledge that for a fiver you can stay warm and dry, whilst saving money wold be tempting I'm sure! I'm considering the games with little/no atmosphere here.
I do think the webcast could impact supporter numbers. If you've got a long drive on a Sunday night in the cold and wet, currently you may go to the game. But the knowledge that for a fiver you can stay warm and dry, whilst saving money wold be tempting I'm sure! I'm considering the games with little/no atmosphere here.