No dirty diesel company car for you, and no expensive train ticket either, you'll be the envy of all your friends as you're regularly peddling between Sparrows Lane and The Valley with a laptop slung over your shoulder. Nothing finer.
I'm not sure I'd want to peddle to two thirds of away games, as well.
No wonder so many people vote tory if you accept that it's okay to pay shit wages and act like you are doing someone a favour by letting them graft for you.
Or everyone could pay silly money and lead us into another recession for spending money that doesn't exist
No wonder so many people vote tory if you accept that it's okay to pay shit wages and act like you are doing someone a favour by letting them graft for you.
Or everyone could pay silly money and lead us into another recession for spending money that doesn't exist
A wage you are able to live on isn't silly. Duchatalet certainly has plenty of money to spend on players who are not up to the job. Big companies have enough to pay top executives ludicrous amounts.
Trouble is that it's hard for graduates to get experience so it's tempting for them to take the low wages to get something on their CV.
Also means they leave in a year or so when their CV looks better.
Blatantly playing the "get an inexperienced graduate" card here. It's above the living wage but isn't very sustainable.
And I can't see working at Charlton under this pack of bastards could do anything to enhance your CV - although it might elicit some sympathy, so you could get another role out sheer sympathy.
Whilst that's not an attractive salary, surely to god even the brain dead twats running our club aren't paying any of our dogshite playing staff anywhere near that as a weekly salary?!
No wonder so many people vote tory if you accept that it's okay to pay shit wages and act like you are doing someone a favour by letting them graft for you.
Or everyone could pay silly money and lead us into another recession for spending money that doesn't exist
Cost benefit analysis would suggest if you pay peanuts, you get no real benefit, sunk cost.
If you pay £100k rather than just over £20k, the individual should make you more than the extra cost over a year.
At let's say £200 a person, that's a whole 400 extra people.
In a well run club, that's worth paying.
In a club that's run so badly that an extra 400 people will not come no matter what is done by the successful candidate, might as well get in an unexperienced person on no wage at all.
Trouble is that it's hard for graduates to get experience so it's tempting for them to take the low wages to get something on their CV.
Also means they leave in a year or so when their CV looks better.
They're not asking for graduates though, quite clearly says proven and experienced. Abysmal compensation for a job requiring those skills and the amount of anti social hours expected. Double that salary and it would just barely fall into line with industry standards.
Cost benefit analysis would suggest if you pay peanuts, you get no real benefit, sunk cost.
If you pay £100k rather than just over £20k, the individual should make you more than the extra cost over a year.
At let's say £200 a person, that's a whole 400 extra people.
In a well run club, that's worth paying.
In a club that's run so badly that an extra 400 people will not come no matter what is done by the successful candidate, might as well get in an unexperienced person on no wage at all.
Miserable times.
Presumably there is a limit on this. Chances are that there will be almost no one watching these videos so I don't see how the club can hope to generate and extra £80k.
In reality this salary, all be it much less than those of us in our 40s with established careers earn, may well be what people in this industry, without enough experience and contacts, earn.
The club have an ethos of appointing people to positions above their competence level (from the CEO right down to most of the players that turned out to be no good). How much damage can a camera man do?
Also how much fuss would we be reading about if the club (with c. £50m debts) was offering anything like £100k for someone to make the odd video of Robinson talking $hit twice a week?
Cost benefit analysis would suggest if you pay peanuts, you get no real benefit, sunk cost.
If you pay £100k rather than just over £20k, the individual should make you more than the extra cost over a year.
At let's say £200 a person, that's a whole 400 extra people.
In a well run club, that's worth paying.
In a club that's run so badly that an extra 400 people will not come no matter what is done by the successful candidate, might as well get in an unexperienced person on no wage at all.
Miserable times.
Presumably there is a limit on this. Chances are that there will be almost no one watching these videos so I don't see how the club can hope to generate and extra £80k.
In reality this salary, all be it much less than those of us in our 40s with established careers earn, may well be what people in this industry, without enough experience and contacts, earn.
The club have an ethos of appointing people to positions above their competence level (from the CEO right down to most of the players that turned out to be no good). How much damage can a camera man do?
Also how much fuss would we be reading about if the club (with c. £50m debts) was offering anything like £100k for someone to make the odd video of Robinson talking $hit twice a week?
No wonder so many people vote tory if you accept that it's okay to pay shit wages and act like you are doing someone a favour by letting them graft for you.
Or everyone could pay silly money and lead us into another recession for spending money that doesn't exist
Quite right. The cameraperson should pay Charlton Athletic for the privilege of working for them. Tony Cajones does.
I don't think it's fair to look at the salary in isolation, you have to look at the whole package. And what a package it is! You'll get a mobile phone and a laptop; that means the club can contact you at any time of the day or night. What a bonus that is. And then there's the cycle2work scheme. Tax relief here means that you could get about a third of the price off a new bike, should you chose to purchase one with your own money. No dirty diesel company car for you, and no expensive train ticket either, you'll be the envy of all your friends as you're regularly peddling between Sparrows Lane and The Valley with a laptop slung over your shoulder. Nothing finer.
.....and chances are it wouldn't be long before you were 'relieved' of your bike, phone and laptop enroute by some lowlifes.
just for guidance - an experienced video director would expect to recieve about £350 a day, £450/500 if they have to use their own equipment.
An experienced video editor would get that rate too.
The only people desperate enough to take that job are graduates who have been doing the odd bits and pieces for 2-3 years and who ultimately dont have any real experience or knowledge.
My son who would easily qualify for the above asked last season about filming from the east stand (with his own equipment) and editing and producing a quality summary of the match...He did it for 18 months for maidenhead utd on a part time basis.
All he wanted was about £50 a match to cover his costs and travel. Travel was abou £20 so was doing it for nothing anyway.
The club said they had someone who was doing it for....nothing. As he was jacking it in he could take over err for nothing.
My son had an inside line as the guy doing it was his mate from uni.
Trouble is that it's hard for graduates to get experience so it's tempting for them to take the low wages to get something on their CV.
Also means they leave in a year or so when their CV looks better.
They're not asking for graduates though, quite clearly says proven and experienced. Abysmal compensation for a job requiring those skills and the amount of anti social hours expected. Double that salary and it would just barely fall into line with industry standards.
Afraid that is the dilemma of the absurd job description specification though. I appreciate that broadcast journalists, are expected to do a variety of key functions, including several roles as cms management skills, Adobe creative suite, graphic design, social media, editing both photography and text, as well as a knowledge of football, and of course CAFC it really is gonna be a rare animal indeed. There really are some some outstanding media students out there, I used to mentor them, and supervise the work schemes for them. Pity that the club cannot use there contacts with UoG, and set up an internship (paid) for a couple of students who could develop into this role?.
No wonder so many people vote tory if you accept that it's okay to pay shit wages and act like you are doing someone a favour by letting them graft for you.
Or everyone could pay silly money and lead us into another recession for spending money that doesn't exist
Seriously?
Or are you talking about the players now?
You have to stop laughing at that. Isn't the whole football industry doing that? Clubs in the prem are finally able to run now without accruing huge debts, but they still do. If Sky were to keel over, every single one of them would be fucked. And no whoever picked up the tv contract would get it at a distressed amount. I do love how people want austerity but not in football!
Whilst the job is worth it for the experience, you'd find it much more working for companies/projects where people have talent.
No wonder so many people vote tory if you accept that it's okay to pay shit wages and act like you are doing someone a favour by letting them graft for you.
Or everyone could pay silly money and lead us into another recession for spending money that doesn't exist
Seriously?
Or are you talking about the players now?
You have to stop laughing at that. Isn't the whole football industry doing that? Clubs in the prem are finally able to run now without accruing huge debts, but they still do. If Sky were to keel over, every single one of them would be fucked. And no whoever picked up the tv contract would get it at a distressed amount. I do love how people want austerity but not in football!
Whilst the job is worth it for the experience, you'd find it much more working for companies/projects where people have talent.
BT or someone else would replace them. But long term the bigger clubs want to control their own worldwide rights and ditch any joint tv deals. A global pay per view deal is probably their aim.
If I'd seen this advert 18 months ago I probably would have applied. Beggars can't be choosers when you've just left Uni (with a degree in Video Production) and need to start earning - the club knows this.
No wonder so many people vote tory if you accept that it's okay to pay shit wages and act like you are doing someone a favour by letting them graft for you.
Or everyone could pay silly money and lead us into another recession for spending money that doesn't exist
Seriously?
Or are you talking about the players now?
You have to stop laughing at that. Isn't the whole football industry doing that? Clubs in the prem are finally able to run now without accruing huge debts, but they still do. If Sky were to keel over, every single one of them would be fucked. And no whoever picked up the tv contract would get it at a distressed amount. I do love how people want austerity but not in football!
Whilst the job is worth it for the experience, you'd find it much more working for companies/projects where people have talent.
BT or someone else would replace them. But long term the bigger clubs want to control their own worldwide rights and ditch any joint tv deals. A global pay per view deal is probably their aim.
It isn't Sky falling over that will cost football - it's when the value in the content drops. As it already has for Sky. Illegal online streaming is making a huge dent. Youngsters don't want to pay for Sky (they're happy to pay for Netflix) and the football ratings are way, way down. I suspect Sky will pay big money again in the next round of rights, but I can see something else happening after that. A streaming service - Netflix, Google - could well be interested in it. But unless they find a way of stopping illegal streams, it's going to be a major problem for Sky's business model.
My son who would easily qualify for the above asked last season about filming from the east stand (with his own equipment) and editing and producing a quality summary of the match...He did it for 18 months for maidenhead utd on a part time basis.
All he wanted was about £50 a match to cover his costs and travel. Travel was abou £20 so was doing it for nothing anyway.
The club said they had someone who was doing it for....nothing. As he was jacking it in he could take over err for nothing.
My son had an inside line as the guy doing it was his mate from uni.
Can I ask who you spoke to? Just spoke to everyone in the department and we have no recollection of this
No wonder so many people vote tory if you accept that it's okay to pay shit wages and act like you are doing someone a favour by letting them graft for you.
Or everyone could pay silly money and lead us into another recession for spending money that doesn't exist
Seriously?
Or are you talking about the players now?
You have to stop laughing at that. Isn't the whole football industry doing that? Clubs in the prem are finally able to run now without accruing huge debts, but they still do. If Sky were to keel over, every single one of them would be fucked. And no whoever picked up the tv contract would get it at a distressed amount. I do love how people want austerity but not in football!
Whilst the job is worth it for the experience, you'd find it much more working for companies/projects where people have talent.
BT or someone else would replace them. But long term the bigger clubs want to control their own worldwide rights and ditch any joint tv deals. A global pay per view deal is probably their aim.
This, particular, statement is frightening.
In the event that Sky did, for what ever reason, stop bidding on the football BT would just buy Sky's rights for a song, and vice-versa.
What is likely to change the current set up is the evolution that will happen in light of the fact that Kodi, or whatever replaces it, is geared up to the exact demographic that watches football on Sky/BT. I can't see the subscriber numbers staying the same. For £1 a week one can access all of the Sky Sports channels, the BT Sport channels, and watch every Premier League game at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon. They also include all the pay per view boxing as well. Once the Football League start to offer all their matches on live streams Sky will struggle to keep charging £20 a month for the football and I'm led to believe that for Sports in HD it's a minimum of £71 a month without discounts. They are even going away from the dish to streaming all their channels themselves so you will, almost certainly, need a fast broadband to have Sky, so no saving there either. If one looks at the Kodi thread it would demonstrate that there are people in the 70s streaming media - just who is going to be left paying Sky £70+ a month in five or ten years?
In reality the billion pound deals are going to stop, and probably sooner rather than later. Once that happens the Premier League clubs with £75m wage bills are, genuinely, going to be f**ked! The complacency that 'Someone else will come along' is frightening.
You are right about the massive clubs wanting their own worldwide rights. However, if they were granted this there would be about half a dozen clubs with c. £200m a year to play with and the rest would be banking less than £10m. What are the chances of a majority of Premier League clubs voting for that? Even if it was passed half of the Premier League clubs would become insolvent overnight. They would need hundreds of millions of pounds to avoid administration. Even Abramovich doesn't want to see that happen to the Premier League.
No wonder so many people vote tory if you accept that it's okay to pay shit wages and act like you are doing someone a favour by letting them graft for you.
Or everyone could pay silly money and lead us into another recession for spending money that doesn't exist
Seriously?
Or are you talking about the players now?
You have to stop laughing at that. Isn't the whole football industry doing that? Clubs in the prem are finally able to run now without accruing huge debts, but they still do. If Sky were to keel over, every single one of them would be fucked. And no whoever picked up the tv contract would get it at a distressed amount. I do love how people want austerity but not in football!
Whilst the job is worth it for the experience, you'd find it much more working for companies/projects where people have talent.
BT or someone else would replace them. But long term the bigger clubs want to control their own worldwide rights and ditch any joint tv deals. A global pay per view deal is probably their aim.
This, particular, statement is frightening.
In the event that Sky did, for what ever reason, stop bidding on the football BT would just buy Sky's rights for a song, and vice-versa.
What is likely to change the current set up is the evolution that will happen in light of the fact that Kodi, or whatever replaces it, is geared up to the exact demographic that watches football on Sky/BT. I can't see the subscriber numbers staying the same. For £1 a week one can access all of the Sky Sports channels, the BT Sport channels, and watch every Premier League game at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon. They also include all the pay per view boxing as well. Once the Football League start to offer all their matches on live streams Sky will struggle to keep charging £20 a month for the football and I'm led to believe that for Sports in HD it's a minimum of £71 a month without discounts. They are even going away from the dish to streaming all their channels themselves so you will, almost certainly, need a fast broadband to have Sky, so no saving there either. If one looks at the Kodi thread it would demonstrate that there are people in the 70s streaming media - just who is going to be left paying Sky £70+ a month in five or ten years?
In reality the billion pound deals are going to stop, and probably sooner rather than later. Once that happens the Premier League clubs with £75m wage bills are, genuinely, going to be f**ked! The complacency that 'Someone else will come along' is frightening.
You are right about the massive clubs wanting their own worldwide rights. However, if they were granted this there would be about half a dozen clubs with c. £200m a year to play with and the rest would be banking less than £10m. What are the chances of a majority of Premier League clubs voting for that? Even if it was passed half of the Premier League clubs would become insolvent overnight. They would need hundreds of millions of pounds to avoid administration. Even Abramovich doesn't want to see that happen to the Premier League.
This is spot on.
The PL clubs have been wise enough to understand that they need the entire league to survive. It's still heavily weighted in favour of the big guns, but you only have to look at Spain and Italy to see what happens when clubs negotiate their own rights.
I don't know what the churn rate is at Sky these days, but I bet it's way higher than they'd like. I think they're pinning some hope on VR, using the cinema model of offering an interface that can't be illegally streamed (i.e. IMAX or 3D) but there's no way that's going to work. Being out-bid isn't their biggest concern anymore. Being undermined is. Even the recent increase in efforts to stop Kodi and co. from working seem to have failed.
Comments
And I can't see working at Charlton under this pack of bastards could do anything to enhance your CV - although it might elicit some sympathy, so you could get another role out sheer sympathy.
All the while someone will take it at that level there is no incentive for the club to offer any more.
Let's face it he players never hang around for more than a year so why should we expect someone working behind a camera to stay longer?
I'd have gone for it when I was just starting out, but wouldn't have the nous to do it well enough for another few years.
Or are you talking about the players now?
If you pay £100k rather than just over £20k, the individual should make you more than the extra cost over a year.
At let's say £200 a person, that's a whole 400 extra people.
In a well run club, that's worth paying.
In a club that's run so badly that an extra 400 people will not come no matter what is done by the successful candidate, might as well get in an unexperienced person on no wage at all.
Miserable times.
In reality this salary, all be it much less than those of us in our 40s with established careers earn, may well be what people in this industry, without enough experience and contacts, earn.
The club have an ethos of appointing people to positions above their competence level (from the CEO right down to most of the players that turned out to be no good). How much damage can a camera man do?
Also how much fuss would we be reading about if the club (with c. £50m debts) was offering anything like £100k for someone to make the odd video of Robinson talking $hit twice a week?
Tony Cajones does.
An experienced video editor would get that rate too.
The only people desperate enough to take that job are graduates who have been doing the odd bits and pieces for 2-3 years and who ultimately dont have any real experience or knowledge.
All he wanted was about £50 a match to cover his costs and travel. Travel was abou £20 so was doing it for nothing anyway.
The club said they had someone who was doing it for....nothing. As he was jacking it in he could take over err for nothing.
My son had an inside line as the guy doing it was his mate from uni.
Pity that the club cannot use there contacts with UoG, and set up an internship (paid) for a couple of students who could develop into this role?.
Whilst the job is worth it for the experience, you'd find it much more working for companies/projects where people have talent.
But long term the bigger clubs want to control their own worldwide rights and ditch any joint tv deals. A global pay per view deal is probably their aim.
In the event that Sky did, for what ever reason, stop bidding on the football BT would just buy Sky's rights for a song, and vice-versa.
What is likely to change the current set up is the evolution that will happen in light of the fact that Kodi, or whatever replaces it, is geared up to the exact demographic that watches football on Sky/BT. I can't see the subscriber numbers staying the same. For £1 a week one can access all of the Sky Sports channels, the BT Sport channels, and watch every Premier League game at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon. They also include all the pay per view boxing as well. Once the Football League start to offer all their matches on live streams Sky will struggle to keep charging £20 a month for the football and I'm led to believe that for Sports in HD it's a minimum of £71 a month without discounts. They are even going away from the dish to streaming all their channels themselves so you will, almost certainly, need a fast broadband to have Sky, so no saving there either. If one looks at the Kodi thread it would demonstrate that there are people in the 70s streaming media - just who is going to be left paying Sky £70+ a month in five or ten years?
In reality the billion pound deals are going to stop, and probably sooner rather than later. Once that happens the Premier League clubs with £75m wage bills are, genuinely, going to be f**ked! The complacency that 'Someone else will come along' is frightening.
You are right about the massive clubs wanting their own worldwide rights. However, if they were granted this there would be about half a dozen clubs with c. £200m a year to play with and the rest would be banking less than £10m. What are the chances of a majority of Premier League clubs voting for that? Even if it was passed half of the Premier League clubs would become insolvent overnight. They would need hundreds of millions of pounds to avoid administration. Even Abramovich doesn't want to see that happen to the Premier League.
The PL clubs have been wise enough to understand that they need the entire league to survive. It's still heavily weighted in favour of the big guns, but you only have to look at Spain and Italy to see what happens when clubs negotiate their own rights.
I don't know what the churn rate is at Sky these days, but I bet it's way higher than they'd like. I think they're pinning some hope on VR, using the cinema model of offering an interface that can't be illegally streamed (i.e. IMAX or 3D) but there's no way that's going to work. Being out-bid isn't their biggest concern anymore. Being undermined is. Even the recent increase in efforts to stop Kodi and co. from working seem to have failed.