|
Post by BigKahunaBurger on May 17, 2012 15:17:25 GMT
haha not sitting on the fence on this one LTS
|
|
|
Post by RINGO STARR on May 17, 2012 15:21:01 GMT
Well, in order to put any money on this one we need to look at the Tony Pulis Identity Transfer Checklist (trademark) beforehand.
Michael Owen
6 foot plus=NO Played for Sunderland=No Black-NO Played for Portsmouth or Southampton=No Stoke Fit=No Played for Spurs=No
Kevin Davies
6 foot plus=YES Played for Sunderland=NO Black-NO Played for Portsmouth or Southampton=YES Stoke Fit=YES Played for Spurs=NO
Yakubu
6 foot plus=Yes Played for Sunderland=No (but played in North east) Black-Yes Played for Portsmouth or Southampton=Yes Stoke Fit=no Played for Spurs=No
Emile Heskey
6 foot plus=Yes Played for Sunderland=No Black-Yes Played for Portsmouth or Southampton=No Stoke Fit=Yes Played for Spurs=No
Its going to be a difficult choice for our Tone.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmithsupper on May 17, 2012 15:22:56 GMT
I have no idea what the negativity is about, if get him just rejoice, rejoice Because JSU - our team is old enough as it is Fulham look to be baggin a bargain in an up and coming Jordan Rhodes who may or may work but at £3.5m .... and if he does the resale value could be huge Whilst we add a 32 yr old who even with th elittle game time he had at MUFC still managed to get injured an awful lot and he would tie up significant wages with zero resale value - just like a whole bunch of our squad right now Does not scream to me building for the future I agree but if we replace fuller with him, not much difference age wise there. I we could get someone like Rhodes great but Owen wouldnt be that bad surely
|
|
|
Post by sufolkstokie on May 17, 2012 15:32:10 GMT
Because JSU - our team is old enough as it is Fulham look to be baggin a bargain in an up and coming Jordan Rhodes who may or may work but at £3.5m .... and if he does the resale value could be huge Whilst we add a 32 yr old who even with th elittle game time he had at MUFC still managed to get injured an awful lot and he would tie up significant wages with zero resale value - just like a whole bunch of our squad right now Does not scream to me building for the future I agree but if we replace fuller with him, not much difference age wise there. I we could get someone like Rhodes great but Owen wouldnt be that bad surely Depends how much his wage demand is - I just think the bloke is too injury prone and I cant see him agreeing to a pay as you play deal We have enough experience time for some youth
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on May 17, 2012 15:36:24 GMT
I would snap him up asap.
If he can get fit still scores goals for fun, works hard for the team as well
The first part is the key, we have nobody like that at all - for the right deal it would be an amazing signing.
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on May 17, 2012 15:52:07 GMT
I have no idea what the negativity is about, if get him just rejoice, rejoice Michael Owen has joined Stoke. Just rejoice at that news . . . Rejoice
|
|
|
Post by Plave on May 17, 2012 15:56:02 GMT
He has a level of talent miles above anyone else in our squad.
At Utd he was on a pay as you play deal, he isn't after the money.
He would be a fantastic signing for us, if he played 10 games and we paid him for 10 games he's a massive improvement on anyone else we have, he's also proved to be at his best alongside a tall, hold the ball up type, perfect with Crouch
|
|
|
Post by y_oh_y_delilah on May 17, 2012 15:58:37 GMT
Without a supply line, Michael Owen would be just as ineffective as the rest of our so-called strikers.
On the other hand if he were to benefit from some decent service then, if fit, he's still a 20 goals a season man IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by unknown182 on May 17, 2012 16:02:16 GMT
another Eidur Gudjohnson.
big media hype but he's a player who's lost his pace and will never fit stokes style of play
|
|
|
Post by Silkystoke on May 17, 2012 16:02:16 GMT
Plus on the commercial side, how many O W E N would we sell...
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on May 17, 2012 16:09:55 GMT
Plus on the commercial side, how many O W E N would we sell... Oh I don't know. How many gullible Stokies blinded by a 'big name' can we find? Plenty I'd reckon ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 17, 2012 16:11:16 GMT
Pay as you play is a bloody ludicrous idea!
Haven't any of you learnt any lessons from the Jonathan Woodgate debacle?
It's all very well saying 'but we only have to play him when he plays', however it's far from being that simple ...
What we need is somebody who can partner Crouchy week in, week out and of course there's no ways we can guarantee that from him, so if we sign Owen, then we will have to sign ANOTHER striker as well - who will also be on a very, very good salary.
However what happens then if Owen actually does stay fit (like Woodgate did this season)?
We've then painted ourselves into a corner where we've got three strikers all on huge money and who we're obliged to try and crow bar into the team all at the same time.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH WOODGATE and as a result we ended up either playing Huth at full back or dropping him from the first eleven altogether!
And of course we'll still have Jerome and Walters here too!
So giving Micahel Owen a contract, would mean that we'd still have to go out and buy another striker AS WELL, which is complete and utter bloody madness considering the comments from the chairman about finances at the start of the week.
And apart from all that, just where on earth would he play in TP's rigid 4-4-1-1?
|
|
|
Post by seddonstandviewer on May 17, 2012 16:14:09 GMT
Pay as you play is a bloody ludicrous idea!Haven't any of you learnt any lessons from the Jonathan Woodgate debacle? It's all very well saying 'but we only have to play him when he plays', however it's far from being that simple ... What we need is somebody who can partner Crouchy week in, week out and of course there's no ways we can guarantee that from him, so if we sign Owen, then we will have to sign ANOTHER striker as well - who will also be on a very, very good salary. However what happens then if Owen actually does stay fit (like Woodgate did this season)? We've then painted ourselves into a corner where we've got three strikers all on huge money and who we're obliged to try and crow bar into the team all at the same time. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH WOODGATE and as a result we ended up either playing Huth at full back or dropping him from the first eleven altogether! And of course we'll still have Jerome and Walters here too! So giving Micahel Owen a contract, would mean that we'd still have to go out and buy another striker AS WELL, which is complete and utter bloody madness considering the comments from the chairman about finances at the start of the week. And apart from all that, just where on earth would he play in TP's rigid 4-4-1-1?
|
|
|
Post by pickins on May 17, 2012 16:23:55 GMT
You can't compare Owen to the Woodgate shambles. Our defence was fine, our scoring record isn't. Personally think he is too old but may be worth it for a cup run depending on the deal. Would rather they got wingers and let Fuller have a go up front.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using ProBoards
|
|
|
Post by scfclifer on May 17, 2012 16:34:43 GMT
he'd score more goals than cresser ;d
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on May 17, 2012 16:44:24 GMT
Are we really saying we have no room for 3 top forwards!? We are likely to lose Jones and Fuller. Surely we must replace both of them with decent players to keep enough options up front. If the manager has no plans to change his rigid system then we need an upgrade on Walters and an improvement on the distinctly average Jerome. Oh and I am not calling for Owen but based on the manager's questionable transfer strategy they may well not be too many forwards available.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on May 17, 2012 16:54:05 GMT
I think some of you might be missing a trick here.
Michael Owen is one of the biggest names in world football.
Just having him associated with our club immediately gives us a lift in terms of stature and prestige.
The lad might never play, but he could attract other signings and he will certainly pay his way in commercial terms.
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on May 17, 2012 17:07:13 GMT
Pay as you play is a bloody ludicrous idea!Haven't any of you learnt any lessons from the Jonathan Woodgate debacle? It's all very well saying 'but we only have to play him when he plays', however it's far from being that simple ... What we need is somebody who can partner Crouchy week in, week out and of course there's no ways we can guarantee that from him, so if we sign Owen, then we will have to sign ANOTHER striker as well - who will also be on a very, very good salary. However what happens then if Owen actually does stay fit (like Woodgate did this season)? We've then painted ourselves into a corner where we've got three strikers all on huge money and who we're obliged to try and crow bar into the team all at the same time. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH WOODGATE and as a result we ended up either playing Huth at full back or dropping him from the first eleven altogether! And of course we'll still have Jerome and Walters here too! So giving Micahel Owen a contract, would mean that we'd still have to go out and buy another striker AS WELL, which is complete and utter bloody madness considering the comments from the chairman about finances at the start of the week. And apart from all that, just where on earth would he play in TP's rigid 4-4-1-1? Be cheaper and more progressive to get rid of 4-4-1-1 and it's protagonist ;D
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on May 17, 2012 17:16:45 GMT
I think some of you might be missing a trick here. Michael Owen is one of the biggest names in world football. Just having him associated with our club immediately gives us a lift in terms of stature and prestige. The lad might never play, but he could attract other signings and he will certainly pay his way in commercial terms. Very true and maybe a deliberate strategy given the signings of Crouch and Woodgate. When you factor in the apparent attempted moves for Neville and Scholes it does make you wonder is this all part of an attempt to raise our profile through the signings of big names at the end of their careers. Interesting if true and could go either way but if we were to sign Owen it may indicate a significant change in our preferred style of play. Then again that may just be wishful thinking!!!
|
|
|
Post by march4 on May 17, 2012 17:24:36 GMT
I think some of you might be missing a trick here. Michael Owen is one of the biggest names in world football. Just having him associated with our club immediately gives us a lift in terms of stature and prestige. The lad might never play, but he could attract other signings and he will certainly pay his way in commercial terms. Very true and maybe a deliberate strategy given the signings of Crouch and Woodgate. When you factor in the apparent attempted moves for Neville and Scholes it does make you wonder is this all part of an attempt to raise our profile through the signings of big names at the end of their careers. Interesting if true and could go either way but if we were to sign Owen it may indicate a significant change in our preferred style of play. Then again that may just be wishful thinking!!! I suspect Waddo would want to sign him if he was still Stoke manager.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on May 17, 2012 17:26:58 GMT
Very true and maybe a deliberate strategy given the signings of Crouch and Woodgate. When you factor in the apparent attempted moves for Neville and Scholes it does make you wonder is this all part of an attempt to raise our profile through the signings of big names at the end of their careers. Interesting if true and could go either way but if we were to sign Owen it may indicate a significant change in our preferred style of play. Then again that may just be wishful thinking!!! I suspect Waddo would want to sign him if he was still Stoke manager. No doubt. Cue the usual suspects..... "Yes but he would be supplied by a creative midfield......he wouldn't have to play the Mama role.......Waddington would get the ball to Owen's feet......etc etc"
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on May 17, 2012 17:30:42 GMT
Very true and maybe a deliberate strategy given the signings of Crouch and Woodgate. When you factor in the apparent attempted moves for Neville and Scholes it does make you wonder is this all part of an attempt to raise our profile through the signings of big names at the end of their careers. Interesting if true and could go either way but if we were to sign Owen it may indicate a significant change in our preferred style of play. Then again that may just be wishful thinking!!! I suspect Waddo would want to sign him if he was still Stoke manager. Quite possibly March - but Owen would then at least be joining a club brimming over with skilled, quality footballers, not the mediocre dross that we pass off on our fans
|
|
|
Post by march4 on May 17, 2012 17:37:12 GMT
I suspect Waddo would want to sign him if he was still Stoke manager. Quite possibly March - but Owen would then at least be joining a club brimming over with skilled, quality footballers, not the mediocre dross that we pass off on our fans Ian Moores would have been his partner in attack ;D
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on May 17, 2012 17:48:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by march4 on May 17, 2012 17:55:29 GMT
Selling shirts with Owen on the back?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 17:57:08 GMT
JSU:
People have given you a fairly credible and detailed argument as to why Owen might not be a great idea for us:
- Age - Injuries - Suspicion he's not too bothered anymore - Fact that he doesn't obviously fit into either of the two rigid striking roles in our rigid system - Pace has gone - Fact that we don't create the chances for a striker to thrive on.
Your argument is as follows: - BUT IT'S MICHAEL OWEN YOU GUYS! OMG!
From the makers of the people who brought you (BUT IT'S TUNCAY YOU GUYS!, BUT IT'S EIDUR GUDJOHNSEN YOU GUYS! and BUT IT'S PATRIK BERGER YOU GUYS!)
You talk about how anyone could possibly argue that Fuller might be a better bet than Owen, but one has proven they can create their own chances, which is what we desperately need, and the other would depend largely on service, which we don't provide.
So it's really not as clear cut as you're making out, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 17, 2012 17:59:06 GMT
Are we really saying we have no room for 3 top forwards!? We are likely to lose Jones and Fuller. Surely we must replace both of them with decent players to keep enough options up front. If the manager has no plans to change his rigid system then we need an upgrade on Walters and an improvement on the distinctly average Jerome. Oh and I am not calling for Owen but based on the manager's questionable transfer strategy they may well not be too many forwards available. On Peter Crouch and Michael Owen size wages - damn right we can't afford three! Hasn't anybody taken on board what Peter Coates was actually banging on about at the beginning of the week? We've got two decent forwards on the bench for next season in Walters and Jerome, what we need is a top quality striker who can play with Crouch week in week out. If you want to start paying out 70k a week for 30 something strikers who can't get a start in a top team, then a player like Dirk Kuyt would make faaaaaaaaar more sense. Fit as a butchers dog, as good as he's ever been, not injury prone, most certainly CAN play the withdrawn striker in a TP 4-4-1-1. And can we stop all this nonsense about Owen raising our profile ... if he joined Wigan in the summer, everybody wouldn't be thinking oh look at Wigan, they'd be thinking Owen was taking whatever he could for his one last pay day. How much has raising our profile done for Peter Crouch when it's come to him making it into the England squad?
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on May 17, 2012 18:00:36 GMT
JSU: People have given you a fairly credible and detailed argument as to why Owen might not be a great idea for us: - Age - Injuries - Suspicion he's not too bothered anymore - Fact that he doesn't obviously fit into either of the two rigid striking roles in our rigid system - Pace has gone - Fact that we don't create the chances for a striker to thrive on. Your argument is as follows: - BUT IT'S MICHAEL OWEN YOU GUYS! OMG! From the makers of the people who brought you (BUT IT'S TUNCAY YOU GUYS!, BUT IT'S EIDUR GUDJOHNSEN YOU GUYS! and BUT IT'S PATRIK BERGER YOU GUYS!) You talk about how anyone could possibly argue that Fuller might be a better bet than Owen, but one has proven they can create their own chances, which is what we desperately need, and the other would depend largely on service, which we don't provide. So it's really not as clear cut as you're making out, is it?
|
|
|
Post by GeezyPeezy on May 17, 2012 18:09:27 GMT
I'd love it if we signed him. Does anyone remember/have a link for that video where he was scoring past a 14year old lad and loving it? Pretty sure it was at Stoke Michael Owen Soccer Skills? Filmed at the Brit My brother has it on video from when he was 9 ish
|
|
|
Post by Caerwrangonpotter on May 17, 2012 18:13:26 GMT
Any released player over 35 not been associated with Stoke yet?
Senior Citizens Football Club for next season at this rate
|
|