|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 3, 2011 1:34:19 GMT
Where does everyone think we stand in the league for both attracting players and being able to afford them.
This is my guess.
Man U - The biggest team in the PL and now they have money
Man C - Loaded money no object
Spurs - Seem financially well off and Arry is the master wheeler
Chelsea - Still got cash but not the big pull they once were
Arsenal - Lots of cash but careful
Liverpool - Money again but not a big pull anymore
Sunderland - Becoming a big team and a big pain in the arse
Villa - Got cash however not much but still a big name
Everton - As above but less cash
Stoke C - Solid well run club but playing style and wages may put top players off
Newcastle U - Surviving off the loan market
Fulham - Got cash but still a small club and have reached there peak
Brum - Apparently got cash but in trouble on the pitch
West Ham - Massively in debt and living off tick
West Brom - Some cash but freefalling
Blackburn - ???????????? Who knows whats going on
Bolton - Playing well but hugely in debt and unlike WHU appear aware of it so no spending and will be selling
Wolves - Got a little cash but doomed
Wigan - Looked awful today will always be a selling club
Blackpool - Great start but wont pay Premiership wages
|
|
|
|
Post by roostersgonnagetya on Jan 3, 2011 1:35:59 GMT
I do believe there is definatley something in this playing style putting players off.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfc202 on Jan 3, 2011 1:37:38 GMT
We are a interesting proposition for a player coming to the premier league i think
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2011 1:41:02 GMT
I'd like to see something approaching evidence that playing style puts players off.
Most players can't tell the difference between tactics and tic tacs. Soccer Saturday makes that abundantly clear each and every week.
Money, the opportunity to challenge for honours, and location come way ahead of playing style as a concern.
Every season we're told by the anti-Pulis mob that good attacking players don't want to come here because of how we play, and every year we bring in at least one and usually two.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 3, 2011 1:43:03 GMT
I think its a fair table and I've tried to be fair. I think our best bet will be getting the absolute cream from the lower leagues the likes of hammil, Chamberlain, Lalana and Wickam together with a couple of solid signings like Osman and Bridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by roostersgonnagetya on Jan 3, 2011 1:56:42 GMT
I think its a fair table and I've tried to be fair. I think our best bet will be getting the absolute cream from the lower leagues the likes of hammil, Chamberlain, Lalana and Wickam together with a couple of solid signings like Osman and Bridge. It's amazing how we write off players from abroad on here knowing full well that Pulis won't entertain the idea. |
|
|
|
Post by barmystokie1 on Jan 3, 2011 2:15:33 GMT
I think cobham's table is about right at the moment. One thing is for sure this season has shown the gap has closed between all the clubs.
I really do believe that Stoke are looking like we are prime position to make the most of the situation as we begin to look more of a solid outfit if we stay up again and one which can invest a lot of money to keep improving! ( I hope anyway)
|
|
|
|
Post by poisonedmonkey on Jan 3, 2011 2:37:39 GMT
Oh come on!! You read the word "clout" in the thread, open it, and get this shite!!!
Fucking hell, At least relate it to the true meaning of the word ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stokie on Jan 3, 2011 2:49:16 GMT
Money is generally the overriding factor for players, with the ability to win trophies the only one that comes close. Obviously if a player is offered an extra 5k a week from us over Chelski he'd still chose them but other then that I think it's all about money and am certain tactics mean fuck all to them.
The prime example is when Duff was leaving Chelski he had the option of Liverpool, where he was guaranteed Champions league football and challenging for trophies or Newcastle and more money. The style of play means little or nothing to players when put up against more money.
|
|
|
|
Post by evans1863 on Jan 3, 2011 4:30:56 GMT
Liverpool have no money (unless the new ownes paid off their mass debt?) but the fact is they're still Liverpool and most players want to go there
|
|
|
|
Post by PickSCFC on Jan 3, 2011 4:38:31 GMT
Oh come on!! You read the word "clout" in the thread, open it, and get this shite!!! Fucking hell, At least relate it to the true meaning of the word ;-) I was thinking the same mate when I saw the word 'clout' ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bobster on Jan 3, 2011 11:36:59 GMT
Bollox i thought this thread was going to be all about pussy.
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 3, 2011 11:40:53 GMT
I think you've got to put us ahead of Everton as they just couldn't afford a significant transfer fee if it came down to any kind of auction. And that's got to be the bottom line
Villa's willingness to spend has also got to be open to question, hasn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Jan 3, 2011 11:43:23 GMT
I knew a woman with a massive clout and she got plenty of players! Sausage throwing alley into like springs to mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2011 11:44:21 GMT
I think you've got to put us ahead of Everton as they just couldn't afford a significant transfer fee if it came down to any kind of auction. And that's got to be the bottom line Villa's willingness to spend has also got to be open to question, hasn't it? Everton are still considered a bigger club than us though Grapey. There's still going to be more prestige attached to playing for them than there is for us. |
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 3, 2011 11:54:19 GMT
Miles bigger, Rob.
But if it came down to a transfer battle with us for any individual over the next 6 months, it seems they couldn't come close to ponying up the cash. So however much sexier they are as an option is maybe irrelevant in the short-term?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2011 11:55:14 GMT
Miles bigger, Rob. But if it came down to a transfer battle with us for any individual over the next 6 months, it seems they couldn't come close to ponying up the cash. So however much sexier they are as an option is maybe irrelevant in the short-term? If we're looking purely at this window, I'd agree. |
|
|
|
Post by sufolkstokie on Jan 3, 2011 12:01:50 GMT
It also comes down to individual players and location. For example, West Ham may still well win the race for some playres over us due to London - see Sidwell wanting to go back to the bright lights
Equally despite how well Sunderland are doing, the Toon tradionally paid over the odds to get players up North
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 3, 2011 12:10:04 GMT
Here is Man City - not much to look at but money and pulling power sees them attract plenty of...uh.hum..."clout"   |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 3, 2011 12:29:02 GMT
I think this is a very good account and emphasises that 'clout' is a mixture of reputation and money.
As Man City have found, having all the money in the world doesn't mean that you are attractive to all the top players.
By the same token, we might have more money than 15 teams in the Prem, but an awful lot of players will turn their noses up at us.
|
|
|
|
Post by roostersgonnagetya on Jan 3, 2011 12:51:58 GMT
I'd like to see something approaching evidence that playing style puts players off. Most players can't tell the difference between tactics and tic tacs. Soccer Saturday makes that abundantly clear each and every week. Money, the opportunity to challenge for honours, and location come way ahead of playing style as a concern. Every season we're told by the anti-Pulis mob that good attacking players don't want to come here because of how we play, and every year we bring in at least one and usually two. Style of play doesnt affect things? It does when your a club competing for the same standard of player as the Sunderlands, Evertons, Newcastles, Villas, niether will challenge for honours so what do they have going for them? Well each one of those is a bigger club than ours and they play more of a positive style. we are the small fry the only thing we can offer them is money, and as we know we won't pay the going rate, so other than money, why would they want to sign for Stoke City.... Especially if, they are a goalscorer who reguarly score 15 goals a season ( Darren Bent), why harm your career reputation by signing for a team whoose style doesn't allow any striker to score such amount of goals? Strikers want to score goals not be on their own penalty spot defending a cross. This is the reason we will never sign a prolific Goalscorer and with Pulis' reluctance to shop abroad where does that leave us? A central midfield playmaker that wants to get forward, be allowed to dictate a game and score goals, Again, why would they want to join Stoke ahead of the clubs above if all 5 are in for hm? There is no reason at all. We will always attract central Defenders, Goalkeepers and Target men, why? Because tey will see us in a different light, we play to their strengths and make them look good, it really is that simple. For any player with any sort of attacking qualities will not get a good deal out of playing for Stoke, we will decrease their value and their future wage packets. Not the brightest move is it, too much of a risk and that is why Stephen Ireland will steer well clear (not that i want him anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2011 12:55:57 GMT
I'd like to see something approaching evidence that playing style puts players off. Most players can't tell the difference between tactics and tic tacs. Soccer Saturday makes that abundantly clear each and every week. Money, the opportunity to challenge for honours, and location come way ahead of playing style as a concern. Every season we're told by the anti-Pulis mob that good attacking players don't want to come here because of how we play, and every year we bring in at least one and usually two. Style of play doesnt affect things? It does when your a club competing for the same standard of player as the Sunderlands, Evertons, Newcastles, Villas, niether will challenge for honours so what do they have going for them? Well each one of those is a bigger club than ours, we are the small fry the only thing we can offer them is money, and as we know we won't pay the going rate, so other than money, why would they want to sign for Stoke City.... Especially if, they are a goalscorer who reguarly score 15 goals a season ( Darren Bent), why harm your career reputation by signing for a team whoose style doesn't allow any striker to score such amount of goals? Strikers want to score goals not be on their own penalty spot defending a cross. This is the reason we will never sign a prolific Goalscorer and with Pulis' reluctance to shop abroad where does that leave us? A central midfield playmaker that wants to get forward, be allowed to dictate a game and score goals, Again, why would they want to join Stoke ahead of the clubs above if all 5 are in for hm? There is no reason at all. We will always attract central Defenders, Goalkeepers and Target men, why? Because tey will see us in a different light, we play to their strengths and make them look good, it really is that simple. For any player with any sort of attacking qualities will not get a good deal out of playing for Stoke, we will decrease their value and their future wage packets. Not the brightest move is it, too much of a risk and that is why Stephen Ireland will steer well clear (not that i want him anyway). Clubs are going to choose Villa, Everton, and probably Sunderland over us regardless of how we play because they're bigger, better-established clubs. Style of play is way down the list compared to the things I mentioned. Do you think Darren Bent spends hours poring over the chalkboards and chatting to Jonathan Wilson about how teams set up before making a decision? Of course he doesn't. Stoke City are an unfashionable club regardless of how we play. Always have been. |
|
|
|
Post by roostersgonnagetya on Jan 3, 2011 13:00:25 GMT
Style of play doesnt affect things? It does when your a club competing for the same standard of player as the Sunderlands, Evertons, Newcastles, Villas, niether will challenge for honours so what do they have going for them? Well each one of those is a bigger club than ours, we are the small fry the only thing we can offer them is money, and as we know we won't pay the going rate, so other than money, why would they want to sign for Stoke City.... Especially if, they are a goalscorer who reguarly score 15 goals a season ( Darren Bent), why harm your career reputation by signing for a team whoose style doesn't allow any striker to score such amount of goals? Strikers want to score goals not be on their own penalty spot defending a cross. This is the reason we will never sign a prolific Goalscorer and with Pulis' reluctance to shop abroad where does that leave us? A central midfield playmaker that wants to get forward, be allowed to dictate a game and score goals, Again, why would they want to join Stoke ahead of the clubs above if all 5 are in for hm? There is no reason at all. We will always attract central Defenders, Goalkeepers and Target men, why? Because tey will see us in a different light, we play to their strengths and make them look good, it really is that simple. For any player with any sort of attacking qualities will not get a good deal out of playing for Stoke, we will decrease their value and their future wage packets. Not the brightest move is it, too much of a risk and that is why Stephen Ireland will steer well clear (not that i want him anyway). Clubs are going to choose Villa, Everton, and probably Sunderland over us regardless of how we play because they're bigger, better-established clubs. Style of play is way down the list compared to the things I mentioned. Do you think Darren Bent spends hours poring over the chalkboards and chatting to Jonathan Wilson about how teams set up before making a decision? Of course he doesn't. Stoke City are an unfashionable club regardless of how we play. Always have been. I'd put good money on any prolific striker taking into consideration our style or lack of it before thinking of a move, it's a career move at the end of the day. I'll bet you that if Blackpool suddenly had X amount of millions to spend this summer attack minded players would be willing to join there than they would here. |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 3, 2011 13:01:53 GMT
Style of play has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on a player's choice of club.
I have never heard such nonsense in my life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2011 13:04:27 GMT
Clubs are going to choose Villa, Everton, and probably Sunderland over us regardless of how we play because they're bigger, better-established clubs. Style of play is way down the list compared to the things I mentioned. Do you think Darren Bent spends hours poring over the chalkboards and chatting to Jonathan Wilson about how teams set up before making a decision? Of course he doesn't. Stoke City are an unfashionable club regardless of how we play. Always have been. I'd put good money on any prolific striker taking into consideration our style or lack of it before thinking of a move, it's a career move at the end of the day. I'll bet you that if Blackpool suddenly had X amount of millions to spend this summer attack minded players would be willing to join there than they would here. I bet you they wouldn't if we offered them more money. I know I ask you this a lot but is there anything even remotely approaching evidence you have to back this little theory up? Every season we get people doom-mongering that our style puts players off and every season we bring in at least one quality attacker. "Prolific strikers" tend to go to big clubs for big money don't they? |
|
|
|
Post by roostersgonnagetya on Jan 3, 2011 13:05:24 GMT
Style of play has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on a player's choice of club. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. Well when we sign a striker that has a career goalscoreing record of at least 15 goals a season March and a central midfielder that is a Premiership standard player that has a good reputation and pedigree, i'll believe you. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2011 13:06:40 GMT
'I do believe there is something in this playing style putting players off'
= R-U-B-B-I-S-H !
|
|
|
|
Post by roostersgonnagetya on Jan 3, 2011 13:09:03 GMT
I'd put good money on any prolific striker taking into consideration our style or lack of it before thinking of a move, it's a career move at the end of the day. I'll bet you that if Blackpool suddenly had X amount of millions to spend this summer attack minded players would be willing to join there than they would here. I bet you they wouldn't if we offered them more money. I know I ask you this a lot but is there anything even remotely approaching evidence you have to back this little theory up? Every season we get people doom-mongering that our style puts players off and every season we bring in at least one quality attacker. "Prolific strikers" tend to go to big clubs for big money don't they? Offer the same money as Blackpool and see where they go too, so what you are saying is that if we wanted the same 15 goal a season man Blackpool were going for we would have to offer more money? I rest my case. My theory Rob is we havn't attracted a top quality striker despite been heavily linked with some top names. Don't evn get me started on the CM position, if we can'tput out a better CM than that within 3 years then they are hardly breaking down the door to sign are they. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2011 13:09:46 GMT
Style of play has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on a player's choice of club. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. Well when we sign a striker that has a career goalscoreing record of at least 15 goals a season March and a central midfielder that is a Premiership standard player that has a good reputation and pedigree, i'll believe you. But strikers who consistently score goals in the Premier League generally go to bigger clubs don't they? This is only our third season here and already we've signed at least two strikers who were publicly linked to top clubs not six months previously and a striker with 90+ Premier League goals to his name. |
|
|
|
Post by roostersgonnagetya on Jan 3, 2011 13:19:14 GMT
Well when we sign a striker that has a career goalscoreing record of at least 15 goals a season March and a central midfielder that is a Premiership standard player that has a good reputation and pedigree, i'll believe you. But strikers who consistently score goals in the Premier League generally go to bigger clubs don't they? This is only our third season here and already we've signed at least two strikers who were publicly linked to top clubs not six months previously and a striker with 90+ Premier League goals to his name. But according to some it all comes down to money ??? something that we are there abouts on par with with teams outside the top 4, so if we are competing with these teams for the same players then you tell me what we have going for us other than money, because the style certainley isn't a 'sweetner' is it? |
|
