BobUpnDown
Well-known member
do you reckon 'Cycle to Work' scheme has replaced 'Company Car' as an 'eco incentive / perk'
www.capology.com
- Thread starter Ayresome_park
- Start date
They aren't getting the best person for the job at those rates. They are getting the best person that is willing to accept roughly that much. I'm a huge Boro fan and would love to work for them but I wouldn't do it for less than I'm worth but there will be people that get paid less than I do that would see it as acceptable. The club will think it has won because it's filled a role for cheap but then they get work that isn't as good and wonder why they are losing millions of pounds each year so think about cutting costs instead of investing in staff. It's about cost vs value and so many businesses get it the wrong way round.
Also Bausor and Scott would draw significant salaries I would think
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Exactly, but that's their choice isn't it? They're not necessary obligated to get the best person money can buy, they clearly just want someone who can do it to a basic level so they can spend more money on 'good' players. At the end of the day its their choice, I don't really care whether they get it wrong.
You COULD argue that by advertising roles like that at that salary they are also diversifying their workforce and giving more opportunities to less-experienced/qualified folk.
I CAN understand though why they want to absolutely maximise the wage budget for playing staff.
sherlock
Well-known member
You could until you look at the job description and see they want:
Essential
• Postgraduate degree in performance analysis or a related field
• Highly proficient using HUDL Sportscode and HUDL Studio
• Highly proficient using Tableau
• Experience working to strict deadlines
• Detailed knowledge of football
• Experience of working within a senior performance analysis
environment
• Full Driving License
My point is that it is a false economy. Look at the things we know for sure. Low cost agency workers and cheap/poor processes in the concourse might be the cheapest way to do things but it means fewer people are spending their money there because of the low quality and inconvenience. Paying competent staff and improving the offer can cost marginally more but significantly increase income. There is more value in spending more.
I don't see why player related roles like the analyst would be any different. If you think there is a use case for having an analyst then hiring the best available will improve what data you have to use. At a super basic level example say the cheapest analyst will be able to take the data coming off those chest monitors and be able to tell you how far a player runs in 90 mins and the manager can then say X needs to run more, Y needs to run less. The best analyst might be able to use the data and say that X is running more because they are pressing too much and they end up fatigued and unable to reach max speed when chasing through balls etc. They can provide far better quality data. You aren't going to get quality data for someone on £22k per year.
Another good example is getting someone on work experience to design a badge and then having a fan backlash and being stuck with it because it's too expensive to change all the stadium branding.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
I suppose. But at the end of the day if there was no one out there willing to do the job, with that experience, for that money, they wouldn't fill the role.
I'm certainly not saying they're 'right' I'm just saying if that's what they want to do its up to them, they're not obligated to make wise decisions. Its not as if they're not paying the Real Living Wage or enacting Modern Slavery. If they want rubbish staff on rubbish wages thats their problem. Surely anyone in their right mind wouldn't take that job if they could get £40-50k+ elsewhere?