Performance Bonuses the way forward?

[Evil Monkey 52]

Most clubs write certain bonuses into the contracts of players - appearances, goals scored, clean sheets, whatever.  But these are generally small in comparison to their actual salary, and what about bonuses for excellent performances, decided by the manager?Basically you give the player a relatively small basic salary, but tempt them with substantial bonuses for excellent performances.  So, for example, Grant could decide that, last night, Hucks had a great game and deserves to be rewarded for this, so gives him a bonus of a grand or so.Could be expensive with some of the better squads, but I feel that something has to be done about the growing number of players who just turn up to collect their wage and go home again.  I''m not talking just about Norwich here, but many clubs across the country and maybe even the England team - I understand that they now get paid for England appearances (whereas previously they didn''t), so why not take this away, let them play for the love of the country and only pay them a bonus if they have a great game.There would be problems, naturally, such as favouritism from managers and good players not being recognised for their contribution because they don''t get on with the manager so well.But surely this is a better option than paying them thousands a week and expecting them not to get too comfortable?Anyone like this idea? Or what about other ideas to shake the modern English game out of complacency?

[Anderz 0]

If every Club were doing this, then the players would soon have to fall in line and accept that this is how Clubs are going to pay them, but I would hazard a guess that most if not all Clubs would be reluctant to be the first to do so as players would then just sign up with a Club where they''re going to get a decent/good reliable wage where, even if they put in dodgy performances, they are being paid a regular income regardless of whether they perform well or not.

Also, how do you regulate the bonuses so that they reflect accurately how well a player is playing..? A reasonable performance by Huckerby would equate to an amazing performance to someone like Hughes. How would you accurately be able to assess each player''s contribution when they aren''t starting on even keels/playing ability.

I agree that bonuses-related pay could benefit to some degree (as an incentive tool) but I can''t see how it could be introduced or regulated without detriment to the quality and size of the playing squad.

Thoughts? 

[Cluck 0]

Good post EM.  If I paid my staff in advance of work completed....production would halve. If I then assured them of a job for a full three years in advance...irrespective of what they produce....I would go bust big time.

Incentives is always the way to go...and if you end up paying more out than you originally anticipated....it means you are doing better as a business too.

Bonuses benefit everyone except the cheats........

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Who is going to rate the performances of the players?

Howabout using player ratings from here and canary call??

Dohery and Etuhu would need income support after a couple of weeks!

 

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Dohery and Etuhu would need income support after a couple of weeks!

[/quote]Lol, very good point, NN!I''m not talking about massive changes, however.  Let''s say, for example, that Dickson Etuhughes is on £9k a week at present (I''ve no idea of his salary, I''m just making up numbers).  Now reduce that by maybe 1 grand, to put him on a basic weekly wage of £8k - not a massive difference overall.  Then offer him the carrot of the extra £1000 if he performs well - maybe a little bit of it for goals, a little for assists, and maybe an extra payment for a MotM award.  Limit the total pot for each player to about a £1000 and we''re not actually spending any more than we do now, however the players now have an incentive.As Cluck has pointed out, you can just imagine the life of a footballer - guaranteed high wage for a few years, with absolutely no incentive for the player to perform well in order to get this.  Even if he spends the next 3 years in the reserves, he''s still going to be on the same wage.  Turn up to training each day, play a reserve game once in a blue moon and spend the rest of the time cruising around the city in your Porsche sipping champagne and smoking cigars rolled on the thighs of a dusky maiden... the life of riley, indeed...There is, of course, the question of who makes the decision, but maybe if you limit it to things like the above - goals, assists, clearances, etc - then the decision could be less opinion and more statistical.  Then again, with Etuhughes reportedly our second best player according to stats, therein lies another problem...

[GMF 736]

Didn''t our Chief Executive say recently something along the lines of "offer a player the choice of £8K a week with bonuses taking his pay to £20K plus a week, or £15K a week with much smaller bonuses, he''d take the £15K a week every time."

I may have got the numbers wrong, so apologies if I have, but the gist is, the fooballing world seems to operate on a "relatively" small bonus basis and it''s going to take a big "sea change" across the industry to get the sort of changes we''d all probably like to see.

[Pyro Pete 1,891]

Bit of an old debate this one. What would anyone here rather have in their job? The security of a medium to high basic salary, with low performance bonuses. Or the unpredictability of a low to medium salary, with high bonuses?  I think everyone would take the first one, given the choice. We all have our financial commitments to meet.As regards to football specifically, what would happen to a player who is injured?  Or cannot play due to having played for a previous club (ie. being cup-tied)? Or a player who is simply will not be selected because the manager chooses a particular formation, such as only using one striker? Why should a player''s income be reduced due to factors beyond their control?We all know footballers are payed obscene amounts, but it''s the free market that decides their wages. Any club that went down the low pay/high bonus route would soon lose all their best players to the competition, who would willingly pay the higher basic salary. Anyway, an attempt to impose limits on salary across football alone would be illegal under EU employment law, and the PFA lawyers would have a field day.

[Anderz 0]

Evil Monkey: Don''t get me wrong, I''d be fully in favour of your proposed ideas, but as GazzaTCC and Pyro Pete have suggested (and put way better than I''d managed to do previously), it''s simply not that feasible, unless every other Club is doing it too.

You did however answer the question of how you''d regulate the incentives, i.e. through stats, but as Pyro Pete states, for injured and unpicked players (for whatever reason) there would be a grey area over how you''d divvy up the incentives when there is no performance made on which to grade the incentives.

Excellent proposition, but unfeasible in today''s football climate.

[norfolkchance1 0]

Its a good idea in theory providing everyone else signs up to the same rules. I imagine it would be unlikely to happen because of all the "do gooders" in the game (agents, PFA and other hangers on) like the status quo. If it was made into a rule in this country I imagine the top Premier League clubs who play in Europe would object because all their players would leave and go abroad to countries where it wasn''t a rule.  

Certainly it is a measure that FIFA and/or UEFA could try and use to help cap the wages but they seem more interested in booking players for taking shirts off at the moment.

In relation to Norwich I think it can''t come soon enough, for the last two years there have been a number of players (including some who''ve left) that have been playing in a comfort zone and not caring a jot about their performance or that of the team. I do believe though that Grant is getting to the bottom of the comfort zone culture.