|
Post by pez75 on May 3, 2013 12:28:50 GMT
you lot saying 'bollocks to 'em' should be bothered about our image - because it will count for a lot when players we are after with a choice of suitors say 'bollocks' to us.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 12:44:26 GMT
Mick, I'm not ignoring your point, it just doesn't make any sense at all. You are absolutely deluded on this issue, and I'm sorry, you're also completely wrong. The style of football doesn't matter. The contract matters. If a club is relegated, they still have to pay the contract. The club may want to sell to get some money in and get them off the wage bill, but unless the buying club can meet that players wages, the player will stay and see out their contracts. Why do you think Carlos Tevez doesn't make his "dream move" back to Bocca Juniors? It's because in spite of the fact he's a millionaire, they can't meet his wage demands. Why do you think players like Santa Cruz are content to sit outside of Man City's 25 man squad, training with the kids? Because he would have to take such a massive pay cut to play for any other team, he would rather not play. If you are relegation candidates, you may have to pay more for a player or miss out. But if you are prepared to pay, as QPR have proved, you will get the player. Edit: I think Butland knows he has more chance of first team football. Clearly our "reputation" didn't bother him either, which actually completely disproves your argument. But, well done Stoke, because if say, Everton, Villa, Fulham, Newcastle, Sunderland etc had also approached him and offered him a better deal, where do you think he would have gone? firstly Tevez has stated himself it's nothing to do with wage demands it's because Man City are "pricing him out of" a move there (but just make it up to suit hey ) secondly, why the hell o you think he accepted first team football at Stoke???/ either a) it's because playing football is more important to him than money (thus completely proving you wrong) or b) he knows he has far more chance to get regular first team action and therefore put himself in the shop window (unless of course you think it's because he wants to see his time out at the great Stoke city which i'm guessing you're not!) and yes, you are COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT!!!! if you weren't then you would see that ultimately we are pissng well agreeing that footballers are in it for the money!!!! it's how that money is gained in the first place that you seem to completely fail to understand!!!! they don't just NOT CARE whether a club is relegated as their wages will be paid regardless FFS!!! if a team is relegated then you have far far less chance of getting a move to a bigger team as you're no longer in the shop window....if a team gets relegated and a club DOES come in for you then it will be for nowhere near the same fee you could command if you were being sold from a team that WERE in the top flight...what part of that is really confusing you okey? players want money, they want to be in the top flight so they can command either decent money from their club or so they can be seen by other clubs who may want to pay more, if they're not in the top flight then quite often their club can't afford the same wages (even if they can they're no longer being noticed by better clubs as regularly) so sell them but they don't get as much because the buying club is in the best position because they know the selling club HAS to sell so will accept far less thus the player getting far less......it's really really basic business okey and (100% genuinely) even my 8 year old has understood this!!!!!!!!! now, if a player doesn't directly look at the style of play then 1 thing you can make damn sure they DO look at is the likelihood of that team surviving in the Prem because it directly affects their career and therefore their ability to make as much money as possible...our likelihood of survival IS determined by our style of play so therefore BECAUSE OF OUR STYLE WE ARE MORE UNATTRACTIVE FOR PLAYERS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT AS LIKELY TO SURVIVE IN THE PREMIERSHIP AS OTHER TEAMS AND THEREFORE ANY PLAYERS ARE NOT AS LIKELY TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY WANT OVER THE SPACE OF THEIR CAREERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a footballer has 10-13 or so years in their entire career in general, the moves they make ARE financialy motivated no doubt about that but because of the short career span they therefore have to make sure they choose the right options and those options DO take into account their future and how marketable they are if they make certain decisions!!!!! no offence mate, but i really hope for your sake you don't run any businesses...it's not about the "Quick buck" it's 100% about how they can increase that buck over a period of time and sustain it for their whole career and that HAS to be based around the clubs you are going to join!
|
|
|
Post by jstoke7 on May 3, 2013 12:47:23 GMT
I happen to know a few Premiership footballers, and I can categorically say that Stoke's reputation does not help us one bit, of course if Stoke offered them silly money they would come to us, but generally, they would prefer not to play for Stoke and would much rather play for a side playing more attractive football as it's what they enjoy, and it gives them freedom as a player.
How many times have you seen players say I signed because they try and play it the 'right way' (even though I don't agree there is a right way).
Unless you are a Championship player who wants to play in the Prem or a cast off, Stoke isn't a very attractive option, do people seriously believe that players don't give a shit about the football they are playing every week? Especially if you're a creative, attacking player, you will know that it's unlikely you will fit in, especially with the lack of that type of player we have had whilst Pulis has been in charge.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 12:52:36 GMT
I happen to know a few Premiership footballers, and I can categorically say that Stoke's reputation does not help us one bit, of course if Stoke offered them silly money they would come to us, but generally, they would prefer not to play for Stoke and would much rather play for a side playing more attractive football as it's what they enjoy, and it gives them freedom as a player. How many times have you seen players say I signed because they try and play it the 'right way' (even though I don't agree there is a right way). Unless you are a Championship player who wants to play in the Prem or a cast off, Stoke isn't a very attractive option, do people seriously believe that players don't give a shit about the football they are playing every week? Especially if you're a creative, attacking player, you will know that it's unlikely you will fit in, especially with the lack of that type of player we have had whilst Pulis has been in charge. it doesn't matter if you know that for a fact and have heard it from the horses mouth i'm afraid...okey has spoken and we're delusional and completely wrong! according to okey's school of thought we could get Messi if only we had the money and offered say, £10k more than Barca pay him! (although i suspect he's just clutching at straws in any desperate attempt to deflect attention from our style of play that Pulis has enforced upon us)
|
|
|
Post by shiftyfifty on May 3, 2013 13:19:28 GMT
How many times have you seen players say I signed because they try and play it the 'right way' (even though I don't agree there is a right way). Why have you put this line in when you can't believe it yourself?
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on May 3, 2013 13:22:41 GMT
you lot saying 'bollocks to 'em' should be bothered about our image - because it will count for a lot when players we are after with a choice of suitors say 'bollocks' to us. To be perfectly honest if we offer them enough money then no footballer would say bollocks to us.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 13:25:34 GMT
you lot saying 'bollocks to 'em' should be bothered about our image - because it will count for a lot when players we are after with a choice of suitors say 'bollocks' to us. To be perfectly honest if we offer them enough money then no footballer would say bollocks to us. in that case, considering we're getting an extra £60 mill this year why don't we go all out and get Xabi Alonso?
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on May 3, 2013 13:26:56 GMT
Too old.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 13:31:03 GMT
To be perfectly honest if we offer them enough money then no footballer would say bollocks to us. in that case, considering we're getting an extra £60 mill this year why don't we go all out and get Xabi Alonso? what if we offered players the same as they could get at Anzi? Do you think they would say 'i'd rather live under armed guard in the arsehole of Russia than play for a team who have a reputation for not playing entertaining football'?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 13:31:22 GMT
if he was a foot taller i bet Tone would go for him though!
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on May 3, 2013 13:33:51 GMT
Mick, I'm not ignoring your point, it just doesn't make any sense at all. You are absolutely deluded on this issue, and I'm sorry, you're also completely wrong. The style of football doesn't matter. The contract matters. If a club is relegated, they still have to pay the contract. The club may want to sell to get some money in and get them off the wage bill, but unless the buying club can meet that players wages, the player will stay and see out their contracts. Why do you think Carlos Tevez doesn't make his "dream move" back to Bocca Juniors? It's because in spite of the fact he's a millionaire, they can't meet his wage demands. Why do you think players like Santa Cruz are content to sit outside of Man City's 25 man squad, training with the kids? Because he would have to take such a massive pay cut to play for any other team, he would rather not play. If you are relegation candidates, you may have to pay more for a player or miss out. But if you are prepared to pay, as QPR have proved, you will get the player. Edit: I think Butland knows he has more chance of first team football. Clearly our "reputation" didn't bother him either, which actually completely disproves your argument. But, well done Stoke, because if say, Everton, Villa, Fulham, Newcastle, Sunderland etc had also approached him and offered him a better deal, where do you think he would have gone? The problem arises when we're offering the same deal as the likes of Fulham, Sunderland, West Ham, Swansea, WBA, Southampton and Cardiff etc. Then it's a footballing decision where we lose every time.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 13:34:21 GMT
in that case, considering we're getting an extra £60 mill this year why don't we go all out and get Xabi Alonso? what if we offered players the same as they could get at Anzi? Do you think they would say 'i'd rather live under armed guard in the arsehole of Russia than play for a team who have a reputation for not playing entertaining football'? no, they'd come here because even the Championship (if we ended up there) is of a higher level and has more opportunities in terms of being in a shop window than being there does, so automatically they increase their chance of increasing their future earnings...simples!
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on May 3, 2013 13:34:48 GMT
He'd still struggle to get in ahead of super Glenn and N'zonzi, can he play on the wing?
(Invariably that means Adam is dropped again though as we need to fit Walters in on the other wing)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 13:44:33 GMT
Mick, I'm not ignoring your point, it just doesn't make any sense at all. You are absolutely deluded on this issue, and I'm sorry, you're also completely wrong. The style of football doesn't matter. The contract matters. If a club is relegated, they still have to pay the contract. The club may want to sell to get some money in and get them off the wage bill, but unless the buying club can meet that players wages, the player will stay and see out their contracts. Why do you think Carlos Tevez doesn't make his "dream move" back to Bocca Juniors? It's because in spite of the fact he's a millionaire, they can't meet his wage demands. Why do you think players like Santa Cruz are content to sit outside of Man City's 25 man squad, training with the kids? Because he would have to take such a massive pay cut to play for any other team, he would rather not play. If you are relegation candidates, you may have to pay more for a player or miss out. But if you are prepared to pay, as QPR have proved, you will get the player. Edit: I think Butland knows he has more chance of first team football. Clearly our "reputation" didn't bother him either, which actually completely disproves your argument. But, well done Stoke, because if say, Everton, Villa, Fulham, Newcastle, Sunderland etc had also approached him and offered him a better deal, where do you think he would have gone? The problem arises when we're offering the same deal as the likes of Fulham, Sunderland, West Ham, Swansea, WBA, Southampton and Cardiff etc. Then it's a footballing decision where we lose every time. exactly cobham! we are now no longer on an even footing with many clubs we previously were in terms of attracting players because of our league performances...if we offered a player a contract and Fulham offered the same then the player would go there simply because they are more likely to survive in the Prem; therefore that player then has more chance of attracting further offers from bigger clubs later on and progressing in their career as they get older. the only problem okey seems to have encountered is thinking it's about a quick buck when in reality it's about their career and the best moves to move forward over time in that career (and THAT'S how they increase their earnings)...QPR are a complete anomaly as they are NOT a normal newly promoted side, they publically stated their intentions to move forward and publically stated they would be willing to throw millions at the side to make it work thus stating an intent in terms of ambition. most people didn't see QPR as an automatic relegation candidate simply because of this and therefore they COULD attract players. if they were nailed on to go down (like Reading for example) they never would have got the same kind of players. the football is generally a good indicator of survival and that is MASSIVELY important when it comes to a players decision of who to join...not because of the glory of staying up with "Their team" but simply because it stops their career from stalling by having to scratch around for a route back to the Prem and therefore the money and future opportunity for progressing to bigger and bigger clubs if "Their team" goes down.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 13:45:21 GMT
Mick, I'm not ignoring your point, it just doesn't make any sense at all. You are absolutely deluded on this issue, and I'm sorry, you're also completely wrong. The style of football doesn't matter. The contract matters. If a club is relegated, they still have to pay the contract. The club may want to sell to get some money in and get them off the wage bill, but unless the buying club can meet that players wages, the player will stay and see out their contracts. Why do you think Carlos Tevez doesn't make his "dream move" back to Bocca Juniors? It's because in spite of the fact he's a millionaire, they can't meet his wage demands. Why do you think players like Santa Cruz are content to sit outside of Man City's 25 man squad, training with the kids? Because he would have to take such a massive pay cut to play for any other team, he would rather not play. If you are relegation candidates, you may have to pay more for a player or miss out. But if you are prepared to pay, as QPR have proved, you will get the player. Edit: I think Butland knows he has more chance of first team football. Clearly our "reputation" didn't bother him either, which actually completely disproves your argument. But, well done Stoke, because if say, Everton, Villa, Fulham, Newcastle, Sunderland etc had also approached him and offered him a better deal, where do you think he would have gone? The problem arises when we're offering the same deal as the likes of Fulham, Sunderland, West Ham, Swansea, WBA, Southampton and Cardiff etc. Then it's a footballing decision where we lose every time. and you have proof of this? Or it just opinion based on your dislike of Pulis?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 13:48:15 GMT
The problem arises when we're offering the same deal as the likes of Fulham, Sunderland, West Ham, Swansea, WBA, Southampton and Cardiff etc. Then it's a footballing decision where we lose every time. and you have proof of this? Or it just opinion based on your dislike of Pulis? so you think that if they're offered a contract by one of those teams or from a club who very nearly ended up getting relegated and have the worst stats in the league for pretty much everything thus showing backwards movement rather than progression (which the others do show) they'd choose us? wish i had your rose tinted specs mate!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 13:59:10 GMT
Who honestly gives a fuck what people think of us ? Do we support stoke or everyone elses opinion ? How can we not care what other people think. Should Mr coates care yes. If it affects the club it affects us, all this bad publicity is bad for our club. Sponsorships, signings are just a couple of things which can be affected.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 13:59:19 GMT
and you have proof of this? Or it just opinion based on your dislike of Pulis? so you think that if they're offered a contract by one of those teams or from a club who very nearly ended up getting relegated and have the worst stats in the league for pretty much everything thus showing backwards movement rather than progression (which the others do show) they'd choose us? wish i had your rose tinted specs mate! so out of the teams he listed; Fulham, Sunderland, West Ham, Swansea, WBA, Southampton and Cardiff Fulham - level on points as 'the club who very nearly ended up getting relegated and have the worst stats in the league'. They are in a lot of debt and might not be seen as a long term option for some players, but they have always been able to attract better players due to Al-Fayed's money, location and having been in the premier league a lot longer. Jerome turned them down to come here Sunderland - do you really think they would want to play for a nutter like Dicanio who fought with most of the Swindon team? Their football wasn't much different to ours before West Ham - Fat Sam had the same reputation as Pulis but never stopped him attracting decent players. Players usually go there for money anyway Swansea - they would want to play for Laudrup, but how long will they be able to keep replacing managers and stay in the premier league? WBA - possibly a better option at the moment, but also a better option than just about anyone outside the top 7 Southampton and Cardiff - not a chance
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 13:59:31 GMT
Who honestly gives a fuck what people think of us ? Do we support stoke or everyone elses opinion ? How can we not care what other people think. Should Mr coates care yes. If it affects the club it affects us, all this bad publicity is bad for our club. Sponsorships, signings are just a couple of things which can be affected.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 14:00:43 GMT
Who honestly gives a fuck what people think of us ? Do we support stoke or everyone elses opinion ? How can we not care what other people think. Should Mr coates care yes. If it affects the club it affects us, all this bad publicity is bad for our club. Sponsorships, signings are just a couple of things which can be affected.[/quote what bad publicity? Is this any worse than Ramsey's broken leg?
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on May 3, 2013 14:12:38 GMT
Mick, despite your attempt at back tracking by saying "we agree about the money", it's taken a long time to get there.
I still don't buy this thing about players not going to a club they fear might be relegated. It hasn't bothered the QPR players one jot, because they can't lose. If they stay on their huge Premier League contracts, fine. If the club sells them, they (or their agents) will negotiate a similar wage deal with another Premier League club. If they don't get the wages, bonuses, benefits etc they want, ie,at least as good a deal on a new and therefore possibly longer contract, they will stay. It's their choice and the are in a win/win situation.
In fact, it's precisely QPRs problem. The players just are not bothered if they go down. They've got a great long term contract, or, they've got a release clause, or they may be sold to another club who will give them a new contract. They can't lose.
Tell me how then, it may affect the decision of any player going to any club if he thinks that club will be relegated? It will merely shape the terms of his contract.
Getting back to the point, our so called "reputation" for a poor style of football makes absolutely no difference. Our reputation as a well run stable club might make more of a difference, but ultimately it will only be about the deal.
We are shopping in a certain pool with other mid table Premier League teams. We're not going to attract "Champions League" players, and we're not viable for players who think they can get more than £50k a week. If 2 or more clubs in our pool are after the same player it will simply come down to who offers him the best package.
The other point is, what players and managers say to the press is simply media speak. They're going to come out with all that "great club, lovely people, superb fans" stuff. It's just PR. They're hardly going to say "this is the best deal I could get but my agent squeezed another 2 grand a week out of them or I would have gone to Sunderland" are they?
The Anzhi example is perfect. They live and train in another city and fly in for home games. But because they offer unbelievable money, a number of really top players will go there anyway. Please don't tell me you think they'll turn the move down if they don't like the coach's style of football.
This has nothing to do with Tony Pulis, or our style of play or our reputation or that we might possibly be relegated next season, despite the fact there is no evidence to back that up.
To use your angry, shouting, upper case style, IT'S ONLY ABOUT THE DEAL!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 14:17:08 GMT
How can we not care what other people think. Should Mr coates care yes. If it affects the club it affects us, all this bad publicity is bad for our club. Sponsorships, signings are just a couple of things which can be affected.[/quote what bad publicity? Is this any worse than Ramsey's broken leg? ?????? Ramsey's broken leg didn't really attract much bad publicity at all to be fair apart from by Wenger and Arsenal fans...the vast majority of football fans and those in the media were in agreement that it was just a horrible accident.. completely fail to see how that is even relevant anyway to a thread talking about our reputation as a dire footballing side... and on your point addressing my earlier one... Fulham play "Better" (i hate that phrase too don't worry) than us and so will pretty much always be seen by most as having a better chance of staying up than us, together with Al Fayed's money that stands them in good stead Southampton have actually fairly decent the last couple of months (shows getting to grips with the Prem and progressing) Cardiff...not so sure about myself actually Sunderland..yep, played similarly to us before Di Canio...NB BEFORE not SINCE!!! most players aren't going to be put off by Di Canio simply because he's mad! it really is simple eddie, it's not the fact that we play to a certain style that puts people off, it's the fact that Pulis himself publically came out in the media and talked about "Evolving" and "Progressing" our style and people now see that it was all garbage; we haven't evolved, we haven't progressed and now look like a team who pretty much anyone can beat when we play away from home, we look far more beatable at home too and completely toothless in far too many areas for people to say "Oh, they'll be fine" nowadays. the last few seasons now even on MOTD when they discuss who are likely to go down at the start of the year they automatically exclude us..in fact last season Lineker even said "Do we even need to ask about Stoke anymore in this category" to a resounding chorus from Hansen and Lawro of "No". somehow don't think it will be the same response next season! our style was fine when we came up and what Pulis publically said stated intent and ambition..unfortnately though actions speak far louder than words and his complete inaction in terms of moving on or evolving is clear for all to see and very nearly resulted in us going down this year! stay still in this league and you go down because you can be damn sure that the other 19 teams are at least trying to move forward...we're not!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 14:23:01 GMT
?????? Ramsey's broken leg didn't really attract much bad publicity at all to be fair apart from by Wenger and Arsenal fans...the vast majority of football fans and those in the media were in agreement that it was just a horrible accident.. completely fail to see how that is even relevant anyway to a thread talking about our reputation as a dire footballing side... and on your point addressing my earlier one... Fulham play "Better" (i hate that phrase too don't worry) than us and so will pretty much always be seen by most as having a better chance of staying up than us, together with Al Fayed's money that stands them in good stead Southampton have actually fairly decent the last couple of months (shows getting to grips with the Prem and progressing) Cardiff...not so sure about myself actually Sunderland..yep, played similarly to us before Di Canio...NB BEFORE not SINCE!!! most players aren't going to be put off by Di Canio simply because he's mad! it really is simple eddie, it's not the fact that we play to a certain style that puts people off, it's the fact that Pulis himself publically came out in the media and talked about "Evolving" and "Progressing" our style and people now see that it was all garbage; we haven't evolved, we haven't progressed and now look like a team who pretty much anyone can beat when we play away from home, we look far more beatable at home too and completely toothless in far too many areas for people to say "Oh, they'll be fine" nowadays. the last few seasons now even on MOTD when they discuss who are likely to go down at the start of the year they automatically exclude us..in fact last season Lineker even said "Do we even need to ask about Stoke anymore in this category" to a resounding chorus from Hansen and Lawro of "No". somehow don't think it will be the same response next season! our style was fine when we came up and what Pulis publically said stated intent and ambition..unfortnately though actions speak far louder than words and his complete inaction in terms of moving on or evolving is clear for all to see and very nearly resulted in us going down this year! stay still in this league and you go down because you can be damn sure that the other 19 teams are at least trying to move forward...we're not! Your rant about what Pulis says in interviews just about sums up your posts on this thread. You dislike Pulis and that influences your opinions. Do you really think anyone other than a few Stokies care what Pulis in interviews? He talks bollocks like all managers
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on May 3, 2013 14:23:30 GMT
The problem arises when we're offering the same deal as the likes of Fulham, Sunderland, West Ham, Swansea, WBA, Southampton and Cardiff etc. Then it's a footballing decision where we lose every time. exactly cobham! we are now no longer on an even footing with many clubs we previously were in terms of attracting players because of our league performances...if we offered a player a contract and Fulham offered the same then the player would go there simply because they are more likely to survive in the Prem; therefore that player then has more chance of attracting further offers from bigger clubs later on and progressing in their career as they get older. the only problem okey seems to have encountered is thinking it's about a quick buck when in reality it's about their career and the best moves to move forward over time in that career (and THAT'S how they increase their earnings)...QPR are a complete anomaly as they are NOT a normal newly promoted side, they publically stated their intentions to move forward and publically stated they would be willing to throw millions at the side to make it work thus stating an intent in terms of ambition. most people didn't see QPR as an automatic relegation candidate simply because of this and therefore they COULD attract players. if they were nailed on to go down (like Reading for example) they never would have got the same kind of players. the football is generally a good indicator of survival and that is MASSIVELY important when it comes to a players decision of who to join...not because of the glory of staying up with "Their team" but simply because it stops their career from stalling by having to scratch around for a route back to the Prem and therefore the money and future opportunity for progressing to bigger and bigger clubs if "Their team" goes down. Oh My God. Mick and Cobham, that is total bollocks. There will never be exactly the same deal. The contract will be complex and the players will make their choice based on that. Even hypothetically, do you really believe that faced with say 3 identical offers from Stoke, Cardiff or Sunderland, the player and their agent would say, well, let's count out Stoke because we don't like their football and they might be relegated? That is hilariously out of touch with reality. The reality is called negotiation. It's a big word I know, but to simplify it for you, what would happen in that situation is the agent would go back to the clubs and tell them that one of them needs to do a bit more to seal the deal. Your relegation idea is ridiculous too. We've already had a thread on here, probably like all clubs, asking which players we would take from the relegated clubs. Loads of clubs will be looking at those players, because both they and their clubs will be open to a move. It will be harder for the promoted clubs to attract better players, and they'll have to throw more money at it or offer enhanced terms or miss out, like we did in 2008. How you think that affects Stoke City now I really can't understand.
|
|
|
Post by staffsvilla on May 3, 2013 14:29:24 GMT
Why do you think players like Santa Cruz are content to sit outside of Man City's 25 man squad, training with the kids? Because he would have to take such a massive pay cut to play for any other team, he would rather not play. i can see your point but thats a poor example mate as he scored to put Malaga into the champions league last 8 for the first time in their history
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 14:32:38 GMT
Mick, despite your attempt at back tracking by saying "we agree about the money", it's taken a long time to get there. I still don't buy this thing about players not going to a club they fear might be relegated. It hasn't bothered the QPR players one jot, because they can't lose. If they stay on their huge Premier League contracts, fine. If the club sells them, they (or their agents) will negotiate a similar wage deal with another Premier League club. If they don't get the wages, bonuses, benefits etc they want, ie,at least as good a deal on a new and therefore possibly longer contract, they will stay. It's their choice and the are in a win/win situation. In fact, it's precisely QPRs problem. The players just are not bothered if they go down. They've got a great long term contract, or, they've got a release clause, or they may be sold to another club who will give them a new contract. They can't lose. Tell me how then, it may affect the decision of any player going to any club if he thinks that club will be relegated? It will merely shape the terms of his contract. Getting back to the point, our so called "reputation" for a poor style of football makes absolutely no difference. Our reputation as a well run stable club might make more of a difference, but ultimately it will only be about the deal. We are shopping in a certain pool with other mid table Premier League teams. We're not going to attract "Champions League" players, and we're not viable for players who think they can get more than £50k a week. If 2 or more clubs in our pool are after the same player it will simply come down to who offers him the best package. The other point is, what players and managers say to the press is simply media speak. They're going to come out with all that "great club, lovely people, superb fans" stuff. It's just PR. They're hardly going to say "this is the best deal I could get but my agent squeezed another 2 grand a week out of them or I would have gone to Sunderland" are they? The Anzhi example is perfect. They live and train in another city and fly in for home games. But because they offer unbelievable money, a number of really top players will go there anyway. Please don't tell me you think they'll turn the move down if they don't like the coach's style of football. This has nothing to do with Tony Pulis, or our style of play or our reputation or that we might possibly be relegated next season, despite the fact there is no evidence to back that up. To use your angry, shouting, upper case style, IT'S ONLY ABOUT THE DEAL! 1) i haven't backtracked at all, i actually said in my first post it's about the bigger picture (not my fault you completely ignore the bigger picture and think it's all "Oh i'll take a £20 mill fee to somewhere and if they get relegated i'll still get £20 mill or more from someone else...that's bollocks mate! if you're a £20 mill player in the Prem then as soon as the club goes down you suddenly lose millons on your fee because the buying team knows they'll have to sell....it's completely basic business okey in virtually ANY field!!!! even if they DO have a release clause it will be less than they'd command if they were still playing for that team in the Prem and it was a standard transfer) 2) maybe you should tell that to the players jstoke mentioned that have told him it's not just about the deal...or to Jack Butland who turned down better financial offers (which he stated publically) because he'd rather play football.you may want to tell him he was wrong and deluded as well eh? as i said, don't delude yourself in thinking it's because he wants to play for US, it's simply because he wants to play regularly so he can progress his career by being noticed and getting a better move elsewhere as he gets older) 3)if you were a hairdresser and you were offered two jobs; 1 from Ted's barbers (a one man business with no other staff in a small village with a reputation for coiffeuring OAPs but no real job security and a wage of £25k) and 1 from Toni & Guy (an internationally renowned business with a reputation of being cutting edge, innovative and with plenty of opportunity for personal, professional and economic development and growth with a wage of £23k)which would you choose? most would think about the long term prospects of their career and that's precisely what footballers do because it's their CAREER and not a one-off gig at the club buying them! THAT'S the point okey....it's about their WHOLE career NOT just what ONE club is willing to offer them right now!! to take it to it's logical conclusion, if Messi was offered £60m by Wigan and also offered £50m by Everton who do you think he'd choose? the higher fee from a team who've only just stayed up on the last day of the season for the last 3 years or the lower fee from a team that are going to be far more noticed for a longer period of time due to their Premiership security therefore increasing his chances of engineering further moves to bigger clubs as time goes on?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 14:40:24 GMT
Your rant about what Pulis says in interviews just about sums up your posts on this thread. You dislike Pulis and that influences your opinions. Do you really think anyone other than a few Stokies care what Pulis in interviews? He talks bollocks like all managers oh dear oh dear!!!!!! another one who's fallen into the trap of "They disagree with me and they're not happy with what's happening at the club so therefore they must despise the manager" i DON'T dislike Pulis you troll!!! never have and never will i simply feel he's reached his peak is all and there's bugger all wrong with that..everyone does at some point. i have an immense amount of gratitude,time and respect for Pulis and have stated on many many occasions that i dislike the bile and vitriol that people spout without any good reason and have actually stated one of the major reasons i want him to go is simply because i don't want to see him hounded out and being remembered as a figure the fans hated because he deserves far far more respect than that!!!!!! although that has absolutely sod all to do with the discussion anyway but just sums you up completely as someone who rather than putting together a formulated argument will happily just make shit up that suits himself in a desperate attempt to win by punching below the belt in the absence of anything rational to say and getting it completely wrong!!! Well done, award for biggest pile of shite 2013 goes to eddieg!!! if you're going to disagree then fine but don't tell me what i think just so it's easy for you to wrap up and put into a PHW/Rimmers argument!!! sad, very sad!
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on May 3, 2013 14:42:22 GMT
what if we offered players the same as they could get at Anzi? Do you think they would say 'i'd rather live under armed guard in the arsehole of Russia than play for a team who have a reputation for not playing entertaining football'? no, they'd come here because even the Championship (if we ended up there) is of a higher level and has more opportunities in terms of being in a shop window than being there does, so automatically they increase their chance of increasing their future earnings...simples! Out of many odd things you have posted, this could be the strangest. First you say that players wouldn't come to Stoke because somehow in your world we've become favourites for relegation and play the wrong kind of football. Then above, you say they'd choose us over Anzhi even if we were in the Championship (?) because it would increase their future earnings. Anzhi have been in the Europa League. I would have thought that might increase a players worth above the Championship using your argument. I have some sympathy for your 8 year old if he or she is trying to follow the logic of your argument, because I sure as hell am struggling.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on May 3, 2013 14:43:15 GMT
Cobham and mickmills you two have completely justified my OP so thankyou I dont particularly care what others think about our style as such, (especially houston dynamo, that was an example of how far it has spread) but when possible signings see the negative, dreary football we are playing under a manager who keeps his best players on the bench I do start to care. Its not helping to build our fanbase either if nobody wants to watch us.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on May 3, 2013 14:45:15 GMT
Why do you think players like Santa Cruz are content to sit outside of Man City's 25 man squad, training with the kids? Because he would have to take such a massive pay cut to play for any other team, he would rather not play. i can see your point but thats a poor example mate as he scored to put Malaga into the champions league last 8 for the first time in their history Thanks for putting me straight on that one! You're right though, it is a problem for players on massive contracts to get a move if they are going to be worse off. The very fact that it is a short career might mean they are better off seeing out their huge contract not playing, rather than playing for another club.
|
|