|
|
Post by yogibear78 on Aug 24, 2012 15:48:34 GMT
Allthough this will probably get shit binned because it's a thread that there is only one answer too and it doesn't favour Stoke & more so Pulis I'd like to ask what people think about the comparison of business between Sunderland and Stoke as far as Adam Johnson and Peter Crouch are concerned, all considering £10M is a lot of money for a club like us to spend on one player.
Peter Crouch - 30 year old striker with little re-sale value who if everybody was honest we didn't really need as we had a perfectly effective strike force with KJ up top and scoring goals. If the truth would be known then signing Crouch has cocked the balance of the team up.
or
Adam Johnson - 25 year old, creative Winger/midfielder that chips in with his share of goals who with regualar football will without doubt be back in the England team. Sure to add to the potency of the Sunderland attack and has a big chance to see his value rocket playing regular football.
I'd like to add that when O 'Neill was out of work people on here were saying that he would be no good for a club like Stoke because he wastes money.
Well in black and white the fact is MON found this Maclaen in the reserves and is buying Johnson for £10M.
We on the other hand have sold our young talented winger to the first bidder without giving him a chance.
???
|
|
|
|
Post by Etain Tur-Mukan on Aug 24, 2012 15:49:40 GMT
It begs the question. Why are you so negative?
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibear78 on Aug 24, 2012 15:51:48 GMT
It begs the question. Why are you so negative? I'm not writing the script though am I? Pulis is. This is factual stuff and the fact you are calling it negative speaks for itself. |
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Aug 24, 2012 15:54:54 GMT
It also begs the question who is most consistent at posting crappy threads slating Pulis for increasingly obscure reasons.
Well done!
You beat Innercircle into 2nd place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Etain Tur-Mukan on Aug 24, 2012 15:55:09 GMT
Not really no. Completely different players for different positions at different times.
The fact you're trying to compare the two deals speaks for itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 24, 2012 15:56:43 GMT
If the point is so obvious, why do you feel the need to point out the worst in Crouch and best in Johnson? You could equally write the following:
A 30-year-old striker with a proven track record of scoring goals at Premiership and international level. In the previous two seasons he has scored important goals in the Premiership [including the the goal that got them into the Champion's League] and the Champion's League.
A 25-year-old fringe player for the champions, who has made sporadic international appearances but failed to impress in any of them. In terms of selling on, he could be the next Damien Duff [18m to Chelsea] but he could also be the next David Bentley [playing with his hair in the Championship last time I looked].
The truth for both players is somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Aug 24, 2012 15:57:15 GMT
I'd be more cheesed off if I was West Ham 12.5m for Jarvis or 10m for Johnson.
|
|
|
|
Post by ichabodcheesecake on Aug 24, 2012 16:00:05 GMT
It also begs the question who is most consistent at posting crappy threads slating Pulis for increasingly obscure reasons. Well done! You beat Innercircle into 2nd place. They should get a room ....if they haven't already.  |
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Aug 24, 2012 16:00:31 GMT
I would rather Johnson for 10 million and I reckon most Stokies would too.
However, I am assuming that Sunderlona will be paying Johnson about £60,000 per week and therefore he is out of our league. It is also safe to assume that Johnson does not want to play for us.
It's probably better if someone who isn't an agenda bender asks the question next time.
|
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 24, 2012 16:03:23 GMT
It begs the question, are you looking for a winger or a striker first of all. You then have to consider the value of THAT player to you club. If you're looking for a striker then Johnson isn't good value at any price and Crouch is worth the money. Sorry Yogi but it's a stupid question mate, but it does fall into your agenda area so fair do's.  |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 24, 2012 16:04:57 GMT
Surely the better comparison is Crouch and Fletcher and despite the age difference I prefer our business.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibear78 on Aug 24, 2012 16:06:43 GMT
It begs the question, are you looking for a winger or a striker first of all. You then have to consider the value of THAT player to you club. If you're looking for a striker then Johnson isn't good value at any price and Crouch is worth the money. Sorry Yogi but it's a stupid question mate, but it does fall into your agenda area so fair do's. I am looking at in on the basis that £10 Million is a lot of money to spend on any one player. Did we need Crouch No, has he offered anything else to our play No. Would the £10 Million of been better spent elsewhere Yes. Now ask them questions about Johnson & Sunderland.  |
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Aug 24, 2012 16:08:44 GMT
Allthough this will probably get shit binned because it's a thread that there is only one answer too and it doesn't favour Stoke & more so Pulis I'd like to ask what people think about the comparison of business between Sunderland and Stoke as far as Adam Johnson and Peter Crouch are concerned, all considering £10M is a lot of money for a club like us to spend on one player. Peter Crouch - 30 year old striker with little re-sale value who if everybody was honest we didn't really need as we had a perfectly effective strike force with KJ up top and scoring goals. If the truth would be known then signing Crouch has cocked the balance of the team up. or Adam Johnson - 25 year old, creative Winger/midfielder that chips in with his share of goals who with regualar football will without doubt be back in the England team. Sure to add to the potency of the Sunderland attack and has a big chance to see his value rocket playing regular football. I'd like to add that when O 'Neill was out of work people on here were saying that he would be no good for a club like Stoke because he wastes money. Well in black and white the fact is MON found this Maclaen in the reserves and is buying Johnson for £10M. We on the other hand have sold our young talented winger to the first bidder without giving him a chance. ??? 2 different seasons |
|
|
|
Post by mattface on Aug 24, 2012 16:14:33 GMT
Surely the better comparison is Crouch and Fletcher and despite the age difference I prefer our business. Beat me to it. Next question Jarvis for £11mil or Kightly for £1.5mil |
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 24, 2012 16:28:32 GMT
It begs the question, are you looking for a winger or a striker first of all. You then have to consider the value of THAT player to you club. If you're looking for a striker then Johnson isn't good value at any price and Crouch is worth the money. Sorry Yogi but it's a stupid question mate, but it does fall into your agenda area so fair do's. I am looking at in on the basis that £10 Million is a lot of money to spend on any one player. Did we need Crouch No, has he offered anything else to our play No. Would the £10 Million of been better spent elsewhere Yes. Now ask them questions about Johnson & Sunderland. Well, I confess to not really knowing where Sunderland NEED to spend big in their team TBH. They have spent £12 (Minimum) on a striker with nothing like Crouch's pedigree and (as has been stated) HE is what you should be making the comparison with. Maybe, if you really want to emphasise how great Sunderland are in the transfer market and how shit Stoke are, we should wait for a while and compare the money spent on Johnson with the £2 - £3 million Stoke have spent on Keightly or the £1.7 Million on Pennant or the £2.4 Million on Etherington. You can only compare like - with - like and comparing Crouch with Johnson is merely a futile exercise in you (once again) telling us all how shit Stoke are. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2012 16:33:58 GMT
Johnson was not available for 10 million when we bought Crouch.
|
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 24, 2012 16:37:20 GMT
Johnson was not available for 10 million when we bought Crouch. He also wouldn't come to Stoke (we've tried) but Yogi doesn't consider these factors simply how much better value Johnson is than Crouch even though NOTHING has been proved yet. The inference in his OP was that we would have done better to sign Johnson than Crouch. Well, maybe but it simply wasn't an option. |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Aug 24, 2012 16:38:41 GMT
I am looking at in on the basis that £10 Million is a lot of money to spend on any one player. Did we need Crouch No, has he offered anything else to our play No. Would the £10 Million of been better spent elsewhere Yes. Now ask them questions about Johnson & Sunderland. Well, I confess to not really knowing where Sunderland NEED to spend big in their team TBH. They have spent £12 (Minimum) on a striker with nothing like Crouch's pedigree and (as has been stated) HE is what you should be making the comparison with. Maybe, if you really want to emphasise how great Sunderland are in the transfer market and how shit Stoke are, we should wait for a while and compare the money spent on Johnson with the £2 - £3 million Stoke have spent on Keightly or the £1.7 Million on Pennant or the £2.4 Million on Etherington. You can only compare like - with - like and comparing Crouch with Johnson is merely a futile exercise in you (once again) telling us all how shit Stoke are. To be fair, I thought Crouch was reasonable enough business for Stoke and still do. If you want a proven Premier League goalscorer, then you have to pay for it. But in the 3 years proceeding Crouch's move to Stoke, he scored less goals than Fletcher has in the last three years and Crouch had more minutes of playing time too. Crouch 7532 minutes, 22 goals Fletcher 6588 minutes , 30 goals So while I accept that Fletcher is costing a lot of money, I am not sure he is quite as over-priced as many think considering how well his record compares to someone of Crouch's quality. |
|
|
|
Post by tcdobinghoff on Aug 24, 2012 16:42:12 GMT
Centuries ago Bishops used to argue about how many angels could sit on a pin head !!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibear78 on Aug 24, 2012 16:48:35 GMT
Johnson was not available for 10 million when we bought Crouch. I'm comparing business. How Sunderland have spent £10M and how we have. |
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 24, 2012 16:48:37 GMT
Captain: Fair comment mate. I didn't know the figures and I do think Fletcher has done well since arriving in the Premier League ( I presume some of his figures are goals scored outside of the Prem?)
Even so, I think he's a good signing for you and (as you said) you do have to pay a premium for strikers who score goals regularly.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibear78 on Aug 24, 2012 16:51:23 GMT
Well, I confess to not really knowing where Sunderland NEED to spend big in their team TBH. They have spent £12 (Minimum) on a striker with nothing like Crouch's pedigree and (as has been stated) HE is what you should be making the comparison with. Maybe, if you really want to emphasise how great Sunderland are in the transfer market and how shit Stoke are, we should wait for a while and compare the money spent on Johnson with the £2 - £3 million Stoke have spent on Keightly or the £1.7 Million on Pennant or the £2.4 Million on Etherington. You can only compare like - with - like and comparing Crouch with Johnson is merely a futile exercise in you (once again) telling us all how shit Stoke are. To be fair, I thought Crouch was reasonable enough business for Stoke and still do. If you want a proven Premier League goalscorer, then you have to pay for it. But in the 3 years proceeding Crouch's move to Stoke, he scored less goals than Fletcher has in the last three years and Crouch had more minutes of playing time too. Crouch 7532 minutes, 22 goals Fletcher 6588 minutes , 30 goals So while I accept that Fletcher is costing a lot of money, I am not sure he is quite as over-priced as many think considering how well his record compares to someone of Crouch's quality. Thanks Captain, don't confuse them though they will have sore heads, this can't be true in their eyes. Pulis is absolute garbage when it comes to spending money, it's time we spent it on someone who had an ounce of idea. |
|
|
|
Post by seddonstandviewer on Aug 24, 2012 16:52:35 GMT
Fletcher thrived at Wolves because he was:
a) the main man and the system was built around him.
b) in a team that put the joint most crosses in the league in last season (level with Man Utd) - a point linked to a)
It will be interesting to see how he adapts to a system where he may necessarily not be the main man and a team that puts in a lower amount of crosses.
The opposite has worked with Crouch. At Spurs he wasn't the main man yet here he is and every attacking move gets 'punted' through him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2012 16:53:45 GMT
Johnson was not available for 10 million when we bought Crouch. I'm comparing business. How Sunderland have spent £10M and how we have. Nope, you are just talking shit as usual. You can't compare last years transfers with this years. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 24, 2012 16:56:06 GMT
Johnson, 10 million is a bit cheap for him imo. And he has a re-sale value.
I always thought the money for Crouch was too much, I still do. But I love the lanky git so it's all good.
I like Fletcher too and I think he's a good striker but again the deal is ott. But he has a re-sale value too.
Something that we don't seem to take into account. And it could be what's killing us with trying to get some of the players out that we have. Too old or too handsome a contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by stockportstokie on Aug 24, 2012 16:57:40 GMT
It begs the question, you don't think we ever had a fucking chance of signing Johnson do you?
|
|
|
|
Post by fortressbritannia on Aug 24, 2012 16:58:22 GMT
Johnson was not available for 10 million when we bought Crouch. I'm comparing business. How Sunderland have spent £10M and how we have. If we are comparing business we brought, Fuller Shawcross Faye Etherington Pennant Sorensen All combined less for the price of Fletcher and I have only one more thing to say ... Fuller > Fletcher |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 24, 2012 16:59:42 GMT
It begs the question, you don't think we ever had a fucking chance of signing Johnson do you? I was told he had agreed to join us last season but Man City pulled the plug. So yeah I do. |
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 24, 2012 17:00:01 GMT
Johnson, 10 million is a bit cheap for him imo. And he has a re-sale value. I always thought the money for Crouch was too much, I still do. But I love the lanky git so it's all good. I like Fletcher too and I think he's a good striker but again the deal is ott. But he has a re-sale value too. Something that we don't seem to take into account. And it could be what's killing us with trying to get some of the players out that we have. Too old or too handsome a contract. Absolutely agree with all of that. Still a stupid comparison though Johnson/Crouch and value for money and designed only for someone to slag Stoke off (again). |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Aug 24, 2012 17:00:42 GMT
Fletcher thrived at Wolves because he was: a) the main man and the system was built around him. b) in a team that put the joint most crosses in the league in last season (level with Man Utd) - a point linked to a) It will be interesting to see how he adapts to a system where he may necessarily not be the main man and a team that puts in a lower amount of crosses.The opposite has worked with Crouch. At Spurs he wasn't the main man yet here he is and every attacking move gets 'punted' through him. With James McClean about, I am hopeful Fletcher will be getting some quality delivery from the flanks. But totally accept your point about the pressure Fletcher will be under now at Sunderland. He has to deliver. No hiding places with a fee like that. |
|
'I knew a woman once but she died soon afterwards'
