|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 21, 2013 14:28:18 GMT
Just caught a little of a Crouch interview on SSN.
Am I right in hearing that Crouchy really likes Redknapp as a manager and has strong affections for QPR BUT that TP didn't want to sell him and he is happy enough to see his contract out with us?
If I did hear correctly, doesn't this contradict the managers view that Crouch didn't want to leave, hence no deadline day deal went through?
Can anyone shed any light as I was distracted by my little lad and his mum so didn't really catch what was being said properly?
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Feb 21, 2013 14:34:08 GMT
I think it is safe to say that he would have preferred to have moved, and that is consistent with Redknapp's comments, which stated that it was TP who stopped it going through at the last minute.
I think Crouch must have been keen otherwise HK would not have pursued it until the last day.
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Feb 21, 2013 14:47:45 GMT
www.stokecityfc.com/news/article/crouchs-long-term-aim-669769.aspx “I think there were enquiries, but the manager made it quite clear he was not prepared to let me leave and I was quite happy with that.“QPR is obviously a club close to my heart and I have a good relationship with the manager, having worked with him a number of times in the past, but I’ve moved my family so often that I wanted to remain
here.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Feb 21, 2013 14:57:04 GMT
Was there not a strong rumour somewhere or other that we had a deal lined up for a striker that was vetoed?
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 21, 2013 14:58:35 GMT
Was there not a strong rumour somewhere or other that we had a deal lined up for a striker that was vetoed? Villa fans seemed certain Bent would be joining us, I don't know if that's who it was though. |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Feb 21, 2013 15:01:57 GMT
Just caught a little of a Crouch interview on SSN. Am I right in hearing that Crouchy really likes Redknapp as a manager and has strong affections for QPR BUT that TP didn't want to sell him and he is happy enough to see his contract out with us? If I did hear correctly, doesn't this contradict the managers view that Crouch didn't want to leave, hence no deadline day deal went through? Can anyone shed any light as I was distracted by my little lad and his mum so didn't really catch what was being said properly? That's what Crouch is saying as far as I can tell, and yes it seems to conflict with TP's statement that Crouch himself didn't want to leave. Can only assume that we were trying to get in someone else and it didn't happen. TP has kept the details of what happened in the dark it would seem. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2013 15:20:06 GMT
Are people really suggesting that Pulis should have thrown Crouch under the bus and said he wanted to leave?
|
|
|
|
Post by stayingupforbigbazza on Feb 21, 2013 15:33:06 GMT
more worryingly saw palacios on there no doubt be repeated evry hour coz of Fulham live game  |
|
|
|
Post by mark71 on Feb 21, 2013 15:36:50 GMT
I was told Harry wanted crouch and offered us £5m + a QPR forward (Mackie?) Pulis wanted £9m so he could buy Bent.
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 21, 2013 15:39:20 GMT
Every cloud and all that!
At least we didn't end up with Johnny Walters MkII
|
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 21, 2013 15:45:03 GMT
i'd love to be as cyncial as you... ...i think i will be with our next manager  |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 21, 2013 15:47:03 GMT
Role reversal come the summer with a bit of luck MCF!  |
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog Day on Feb 21, 2013 16:11:44 GMT
"but I’ve moved my family so often that I wanted to remain
here.”
In what way does that sound like "I wanted to leave" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Feb 21, 2013 16:18:32 GMT
"but I’ve moved my family so often that I wanted to remain here.” In what way does that sound like "I wanted to leave" ? His comments are totally self-contradictory. He claims the reason for him staying was the fact that the manager wanted him to stay. He then goes on toe say the reason for him staying was because he had moved his family around too often. |
|
|
|
Post by BigKahunaBurger on Feb 21, 2013 16:24:54 GMT
He said he is happy to see out his playing career at Stoke
|
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog Day on Feb 21, 2013 16:25:24 GMT
"but I’ve moved my family so often that I wanted to remain here.” In what way does that sound like "I wanted to leave" ? His comments are totally self-contradictory. He claims the reason for him staying was the fact that the manager wanted him to stay. He then goes on toe say the reason for him staying was because he had moved his family around too often. He actually said he was quite happy with the fact that the manager wanted him to stay. That is entirely different to what certain people on here with an obvious agenda are intimating. |
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Feb 21, 2013 16:26:56 GMT
More likely 'Arrold wanted a cut price deal and we said sorry Arry, considering what you've paid for Samba Crouchy is worth £20mill ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Feb 21, 2013 16:30:39 GMT
His comments are totally self-contradictory. He claims the reason for him staying was the fact that the manager wanted him to stay. He then goes on toe say the reason for him staying was because he had moved his family around too often. He actually said he was quite happy with the fact that the manager wanted him to stay. That is entirely different to what certain people on here with an obvious agenda are intimating. He does. In saying that though, one would be foolish to believe that TP wasnt the reason Crouch remained at the club. Its a poor decision. He doesnt fit the system..hes 32...hes slow as fuck...we need pace...he doesnt have pace....we will be lucky to get 3 million for him in the summer. Made worse by the fact that TP will persistently look to prove his worth by starting him ahead of Jones..which is quite frankly ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 21, 2013 18:20:53 GMT
Some people bang on about how Harry raped us for Crouch in the first place and are now moaning that we didn't let him rape us again last month. Fucking weirdos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2013 18:22:41 GMT
...which is quite frankly ludicrous and treats us all to more turgid, horrid ,hoofball!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2013 19:38:46 GMT
Some people bang on about how Harry raped us for Crouch in the first place and are now moaning that we didn't let him rape us again last month. Fucking weirdos. Got to agree with this. Crouch is still a great asset for our club and some of the stick he gets on here is totally over the top. I know he hasnt been on top of his game lately and that Jones didnt deserve dropping when he was,but to just fuck our top scorer off(last seasons)seems a bit daft to me,especially when you here who the manager was trying to replace him with,Mackie and Bent ffs? He is the best player we have for holding the ball up and if the manger would pull his finger out of his arse and play to his strengths he still has the ability to be a real asset for us. Suppose we might find out next season if I get my wish and Pulis resigns or is moved on (fingers crossed). |
|
|
|
Post by dadofsam on Feb 22, 2013 9:20:43 GMT
Crouch has already seen out his career at Stoke.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Feb 22, 2013 9:26:44 GMT
Bring in a / some quality wingers / support players and Crouch will come up with the goods imo.
He kept us from the fringe of the relegation places last season.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Feb 22, 2013 9:28:06 GMT
Some people bang on about how Harry raped us for Crouch in the first place and are now moaning that we didn't let him rape us again last month. Fucking weirdos. The very same people? Are you sure? |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 22, 2013 9:29:51 GMT
Some people bang on about how Harry raped us for Crouch in the first place and are now moaning that we didn't let him rape us again last month. Fucking weirdos. The very same people? Are you sure? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Feb 22, 2013 9:34:08 GMT
I don't think getting in £5m and losing a £45,000-a-week wage for a 32-year-old could constitute us being "raped" though, Sheikh?
We've got dead money tied up in his 33rd and 34th years, when he'll be in steep decline - and TP will feel duty bound to play him ahead of better fits.
Still think it's a massive opportunity missed for us, and I'm not sure why we turned it down.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc1234 on Feb 22, 2013 9:37:01 GMT
I agree totally Grapey.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Feb 22, 2013 9:37:11 GMT
The very same people? Are you sure? Yes. Who are they then? |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 22, 2013 9:41:33 GMT
I don't think getting in £5m and losing a £45,000-a-week wage for a 32-year-old could constitute us being "raped" though, Sheikh? We've got dead money tied up in his 33rd and 34th years, when he'll be in steep decline - and TP will feel duty bound to play him ahead of better fits. Still think it's a massive opportunity missed for us, and I'm not sure why we turned it down. I think it was a poor offer from a cash rich club FM and I just do not subscribe that every transfer we make has to wash its face in terms of getting some money back. There is no sign of a new contract for Kenwyne, Jerome has itchy feet, Owen is finished so selling him would just entails us going out and recruiting another marquee striker on big money, with big wages and quite possibly no sell on value. 26 year old strikers at the top of their game with huge sell on potential are like hens teeth for a club like Stoke. |
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Feb 22, 2013 9:48:28 GMT
I take your point, Sheikh.
It's not all about value.
But "the family" still clearly want to see some balancing of the books, even with the new TV deal on the way.
It doesn't have to be a 26-year-old at the peak of his powers, just someone who fits our particular needs better than an ageing Crouch.
Jones would probably be a lot keener on remaining in the long-term if he didn't sense the political considerations that will always see Crouch ahead of him in the pecking order.
|
|
