|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2013 12:09:07 GMT
Scoring goals is rubbish isn't it. DOWN WITH GOALS.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 20, 2013 12:11:34 GMT
Firstly it's an achievement because it's never been done by a Stoke team before. Secondly and more importantly it shows how relatively safe Stoke are with Tony Pulis. Make no mistake relegation for Stoke would create a major financial problem, with the potential too destabilise the club and create massive uncertainty. You have no right to an opinion. Go away.
|
|
|
Post by scfcrmagic on May 20, 2013 12:12:29 GMT
It's a manufactured stat to help Tony's job re-application meeting. I think from 1939-45 they called it propaganda. He needs all the endorsements he can get to reinforce what a smashing job he's doing. You won't find stats like this being peddled at any other club this summer. . It's not manufactured at all, it's true and it's something a small club like ourselves should be proud of. I swear some of you will twist f*cking anything to suit your agendas. I bet your family life is a real blast. My family life is actually pretty good ...as it happens ....and as for twisting anything to suit agendas ...what do you think Pulis was doing by quoting the little known record ? As for being proud of the club ...I am very proud to support Stoke City ...With regards to agendas ...I have none ...but opinion's ..well that's a different matter, I have plenty of those, But it's a free country and I'm entitled to them as are you ...without the need to get personal ...
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on May 20, 2013 12:17:27 GMT
So to those stating that it is a 'real' record.... i've googled "most consecutive seasons outside the bottom six in the top tier of English football" and oddly no other club seems to acknowledge it. I can find most goals scored in a season, least number of defeats, consecutive clean sheets.... very strange. Maybe we are the overall record holders for this stat, hence why no other club have it listed?
More reason to celebrate!!
|
|
|
Post by shiftyfifty on May 20, 2013 12:18:05 GMT
. It's not manufactured at all, it's true and it's something a small club like ourselves should be proud of. I swear some of you will twist f*cking anything to suit your agendas. I bet your family life is a real blast. My family life is actually pretty good ...as it happens ....and as for twisting anything to suit agendas ...what do you think Pulis was doing by quoting the little known record ? As for being proud of the club ...I am very proud to support Stoke City ...With regards to agendas ...I have none ...but opinion's ..well that's a different matter, I have plenty of those, But it's a free country and I'm entitled to them as are you ...without the need to get personal ... It seems that I touched a raw nerve. I was just thinking that if you always turn an achievement into something negative then your kids must love having you around.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on May 20, 2013 12:19:03 GMT
But still a fact. More than can be said for the likes of Tony Waddington and Martinez. I think the trophy wins look better on Waddo and Martinez's CVs personally. People will actually remember them.
|
|
|
Ha ha ha
May 20, 2013 12:22:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by Kjones9 on May 20, 2013 12:22:07 GMT
Q: When's a agenda, not an agenda?
A: When you love a Mr Pulis.
Shifty, are your kids named tony by chance?
|
|
|
Post by Alvechurch Assassin on May 20, 2013 12:22:47 GMT
Is it possible that he could make us anymore small-time?
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on May 20, 2013 12:24:38 GMT
My family life is actually pretty good ...as it happens ....and as for twisting anything to suit agendas ...what do you think Pulis was doing by quoting the little known record ? As for being proud of the club ...I am very proud to support Stoke City ...With regards to agendas ...I have none ...but opinion's ..well that's a different matter, I have plenty of those, But it's a free country and I'm entitled to them as are you ...without the need to get personal ... It seems that I touched a raw nerve. I was just thinking that if you always turn an achievement into something negative then your kids must love having you around. It. Is. Not. An. Achievement. Most throw-ins in the last 20 minutes of a match. Least number of sports drinks used by a team during a match. Longest queue for a piss. Wettest fan at a 'rainy' game. More pointless stats that mean nothing. If this was the season where we had scored the most goals in any top flight season, conceded the least number of goals, had our longest unbeaten run, then I would acknowledge it as a good stat. "Most number of consecutive seasons outside the bottom 6 in the top flight" is a ridiculous stat that nobody else would acknowledge or celebrate. Last season then would have been our "joint longest number of consecutive seasons outside the bottom 6 in the top flight" yet nobody mentioned it and we didn't all celebrate it? Why? Because nobody gives a shit!!!
|
|
|
Post by scfcrmagic on May 20, 2013 12:26:59 GMT
My family life is actually pretty good ...as it happens ....and as for twisting anything to suit agendas ...what do you think Pulis was doing by quoting the little known record ? As for being proud of the club ...I am very proud to support Stoke City ...With regards to agendas ...I have none ...but opinion's ..well that's a different matter, I have plenty of those, But it's a free country and I'm entitled to them as are you ...without the need to get personal ... It seems that I touched a raw nerve. I was just thinking that if you always turn an achievement into something negative then your kids must love having you around. Average is not exactly an achievement .....but then maybe I have been lucky as my upbringing included a World Cup winners medal and a league cup winners medal, .. I was brought up to aim high by my father ..
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on May 20, 2013 12:27:12 GMT
My family life is actually pretty good ...as it happens ....and as for twisting anything to suit agendas ...what do you think Pulis was doing by quoting the little known record ? As for being proud of the club ...I am very proud to support Stoke City ...With regards to agendas ...I have none ...but opinion's ..well that's a different matter, I have plenty of those, But it's a free country and I'm entitled to them as are you ...without the need to get personal ... It seems that I touched a raw nerve. I was just thinking that if you always turn an achievement into something negative then your kids must love having you around. FFS - Stop saying it's an "achievement"! It's not an "achievement"! It's just a random fact! It's like me claiming that, despite an almost complete lack of gardening ability, the grass in my lawn has been green for 5 consecutive years is an achievement. You may have missed this when I posted it earlier, but never before have we had 5 consecutive seasons in the top flight without having at least 1 top-half finish. Yep - good old Tone is the only top-flight manager we've ever had who couldn't get us into the top half at least once in a 5 year period. That's despite spending more than almost every other manager in the league. Spin that into an "achievement" if you dare!
|
|
|
Post by shiftyfifty on May 20, 2013 12:27:39 GMT
Is it possible that he could make us anymore small-time? We are "small time", his comment puts it all into perspective. We've never really achieved anything in our history.
|
|
|
Post by whereami on May 20, 2013 12:30:18 GMT
"ive just been told". Yeah sure Tony, I bet all the staff at the brit were doing cartwheels that we'd finally broken that well known barrier "not being in the bottom 6 for 5 years".
He really is a prized bellend
|
|
|
Ha ha ha
May 20, 2013 12:33:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by oggyoggy on May 20, 2013 12:33:50 GMT
Whilst the stat is by no means something to get massively excited about, it is still a positive. People shouldnt be criticising pulis for achieving it. I wouldnt rank us as one of the 14 biggest clubs in england therefore it shows that results wise, pulis is consistently overachieving. That is not a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on May 20, 2013 12:34:40 GMT
Is it possible that he could make us anymore small-time? We are "small time", his comment puts it all into perspective. We've never really achieved anything in our history. Neither had Swansea until they got a new manager at the end of last season.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on May 20, 2013 12:34:50 GMT
Is it possible that he could make us anymore small-time? We are "small time", his comment puts it all into perspective. We've never really achieved anything in our history. This encompasses the whole Pulis philosophy in one handy post. We've never won anything, so why try now? We've always been shit, we can't win anything, best we can do is grin and be happy. Let's just try not to be the shittest, and we'll be ok. Wigan hadn't won a major trophy in their history until this season, I now wonder why they bothered even turning up for the final - how could they be expected to do well at anything if they had never done so before?
|
|
|
Post by shiftyfifty on May 20, 2013 12:39:43 GMT
We are "small time", his comment puts it all into perspective. We've never really achieved anything in our history. This encompasses the whole Pulis philosophy in one handy post. We've never won anything, so why try now? We've always been shit, we can't win anything, best we can do is grin and be happy. Let's just try not to be the shittest, and we'll be ok. Wigan hadn't won a major trophy in their history until this season, I now wonder why they bothered even turning up for the final - how could they be expected to do well at anything if they had never done so before? No, it's saying that these times are amongst our most successful times ever. Anyway, I'm off before I catch some of the depression that's sweeping through this website. "Onwards and upwards"
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on May 20, 2013 12:41:07 GMT
This encompasses the whole Pulis philosophy in one handy post. We've never won anything, so why try now? We've always been shit, we can't win anything, best we can do is grin and be happy. Let's just try not to be the shittest, and we'll be ok. Wigan hadn't won a major trophy in their history until this season, I now wonder why they bothered even turning up for the final - how could they be expected to do well at anything if they had never done so before? No, it's saying that these times are amongst our most successful times ever. Anyway, I'm off before I catch some of the depression that's sweeping through this website. "Onwards and upwards" Keep smiling. I will too.
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on May 20, 2013 12:45:20 GMT
When I heard it I thought I'd mis-heard it. I did think thats a bit random !!
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 20, 2013 12:48:59 GMT
A lot is made of Stoke being high spenders in the transfer market, but that overlooks a couple of basic points.
Firstly Stoke were promoted quickly after Tony Pulis was appointed and therefore team strengthening was always going to be a priority to bring the squad up to Premier League standard. The key issue here was that Stoke needed a number of signings to achieve this.
Secondly if you examine the fees paid they are relatively low, the highest being £10m. In terms of attracting truly top players Stoke have not been in the elite group of clubs, so the argument about them being the third highest spenders does not really stand up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by stokedrich on May 20, 2013 12:51:57 GMT
Will some bright statistician have a trawl through the records and see if the stat is true. That would be a start. I have a feeling that it's wrong. During the war years and just after we were a force to be reckoned with. OS. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics (Twain)
|
|
|
Post by whereami on May 20, 2013 12:55:48 GMT
A lot is made of Stoke being high spenders in the transfer market, but that overlooks a couple of basic points. Firstly Stoke were promoted quickly after Tony Pulis was appointed and therefore team strengthening was always going to be a priority to bring the squad up to Premier League standard. The key issue here was that Stoke needed a number of signings to achieve this. Secondly if you examine the fees paid they are relatively low, the highest being £10m. In terms of attracting truly top players Stoke have not been in the elite group of clubs, so the argument about them being the third highest spenders does not really stand up to scrutiny. Geoff, if youre not gonna answer the very reasonable questions put forward by a growing number of people on here, just do one. The quoted post here is as ridiculous as the Pulis quote the thead is about, but you're not worth the effort of rebuking. Who are you Geoff, why are you here?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 20, 2013 12:56:35 GMT
A lot is made of Stoke being high spenders in the transfer market, but that overlooks a couple of basic points. Firstly Stoke were promoted quickly after Tony Pulis was appointed and therefore team strengthening was always going to be a priority to bring the squad up to Premier League standard. The key issue here was that Stoke needed a number of signings to achieve this. Secondly if you examine the fees paid they are relatively low, the highest being £10m. In terms of attracting truly top players Stoke have not been in the elite group of clubs, so the argument about them being the third highest spenders does not really stand up to scrutiny. You have no right to an opinion. Go away.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on May 20, 2013 12:59:01 GMT
Can someone please post some photies of the open top bus parade?
|
|
|
Post by thesandbankskid on May 20, 2013 12:59:23 GMT
A lot is made of Stoke being high spenders in the transfer market, but that overlooks a couple of basic points. Firstly Stoke were promoted quickly after Tony Pulis was appointed and therefore team strengthening was always going to be a priority to bring the squad up to Premier League standard. The key issue here was that Stoke needed a number of signings to achieve this. Secondly if you examine the fees paid they are relatively low, the highest being £10m. In terms of attracting truly top players Stoke have not been in the elite group of clubs, so the argument about them being the third highest spenders does not really stand up to scrutiny. "so the argument about them being the third highest spenders does not really stand up to scrutiny." It does when you can't give your shrewd investments away. £10M for a 31 year old for a club of our size I would not class as low. Neither would I class £8M for Wilson Palacios low either, this guy can't even get a game.
|
|
|
Post by stokedrich on May 20, 2013 13:00:00 GMT
What next.... "Our record versus Scunthorpe United over the last 50 years has been outstanding. We've won every single game we've played against them. It's an incredible record". awesome, nice work
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on May 20, 2013 13:01:42 GMT
Will there be a specially extended news at ten to cover the victory parade?
|
|
|
Post by KyleLightbulb on May 20, 2013 13:09:40 GMT
Secondly if you examine the fees paid they are relatively low, the highest being £10m. In terms of attracting truly top players Stoke have not been in the elite group of clubs, so the argument about them being the third highest spenders does not really stand up to scrutiny. Utter idiocy. If you spend £100 million on one player or £1 million on a hundred players, you've still spent the same amount. The fact is we are the third highest net spenders in the Premier League since our arrival. This is a fact. Out of those players only Begovic promises a sizeable return on the investment (though Butland may prove to earn a similar return in the future) and by and large we have a very large squad, which promises to deliver very little in resale value.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2013 13:13:22 GMT
A lot is made of Stoke being high spenders in the transfer market, but that overlooks a couple of basic points. Firstly Stoke were promoted quickly after Tony Pulis was appointed and therefore team strengthening was always going to be a priority to bring the squad up to Premier League standard. The key issue here was that Stoke needed a number of signings to achieve this. Secondly if you examine the fees paid they are relatively low, the highest being £10m. In terms of attracting truly top players Stoke have not been in the elite group of clubs, so the argument about them being the third highest spenders does not really stand up to scrutiny. Does it matter if 100m was spunked on two players or ten? either way it still is 100m. With us being closer to the latter, I'd say the manager is not spending wisely i.e Crouch, Palacios and is certainly not investing in the required areas.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 20, 2013 13:23:06 GMT
Kyle,
Manchester United spend £22m on Robin Van Persie and £17m on Ashley Young. Arsenal spend £20m on Santi Cazorla and£13m on Oliver Giroud. Chelsea spend £32m on Eden Hazard and £25m on Oscar. Manchester City spend £38m on Sergio Aguero and £22m on Samir Nasri. Stoke spend £10m on Peter Crouch and £8m on Kenwyne Jones.
There are many other examples I could highlight. This shows two things to me, firstly Stoke are not able to afford the best players and even if they could afford the transfer fees, they wouldn't be able to afford the wage bill.
|
|