|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 18:53:16 GMT
It does seem to be high on his personal agenda I agree, and you have to wonder if he's attached too much importance to that and has second guessed himself a bit in that regard?
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Nov 12, 2013 19:46:26 GMT
There is no evidence to suggest that money was not available to Hughes for the right players. The only evidence is that he didn't spend a lot. None of us know why this is, perhaps the players hewanted wweren't available at a price he was willing to pay, perhaps he wasn't certain who he wanted to replace. The only restriction we can be sure of is that imposed on all clubs this season. We have to move players on to replace them to comply with the wage limits. Given that we had been consistantly sound in defence it was prudent to wait, unfortunately we are not as sound as we were but still a lot better than others. Look again at the goals for and against and we are not as bad as some would have you think. There is time to put things right this season and I believe we will address some of those problems in the January window. Meantime a little more discipline is called for. Ireland, Assaidi, Arnie and Palacios are getting game time which will get them match fit. They have not had this previously which is why they appear to be unfit. Time will tell but fortunately none of the comments on here can influence that. What can help is vocal support for the team and patience.
|
|
|
Post by wearestoke80 on Nov 12, 2013 21:06:39 GMT
Funny how the rimmers were quite happy to stick with Pulis when we were looking in trouble in March April last season,but now want Hughes out because we are in trouble. We in trouble like you say- for me it's doesn't mater if it's Pulis or MH we are in trouble,
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 21:09:36 GMT
There is no evidence to suggest that money was not available to Hughes for the right players. The only evidence is that he didn't spend a lot. None of us know why this is, perhaps the players hewanted wweren't available at a price he was willing to pay, perhaps he wasn't certain who he wanted to replace. The only restriction we can be sure of is that imposed on all clubs this season. We have to move players on to replace them to comply with the wage limits. Given that we had been consistantly sound in defence it was prudent to wait, unfortunately we are not as sound as we were but still a lot better than others. Look again at the goals for and against and we are not as bad as some would have you think. There is time to put things right this season and I believe we will address some of those problems in the January window. Meantime a little more discipline is called for. Ireland, Assaidi, Arnie and Palacios are getting game time which will get them match fit. They have not had this previously which is why they appear to be unfit. Time will tell but fortunately none of the comments on here can influence that. What can help is vocal support for the team and patience. What evidence there is suggests there wasn't exactly a warchest.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Nov 12, 2013 21:11:15 GMT
There is no evidence to suggest that money was not available to Hughes for the right players. The only evidence is that he didn't spend a lot. None of us know why this is, perhaps the players hewanted wweren't available at a price he was willing to pay, perhaps he wasn't certain who he wanted to replace. The only restriction we can be sure of is that imposed on all clubs this season. We have to move players on to replace them to comply with the wage limits. Given that we had been consistantly sound in defence it was prudent to wait, unfortunately we are not as sound as we were but still a lot better than others. Look again at the goals for and against and we are not as bad as some would have you think. There is time to put things right this season and I believe we will address some of those problems in the January window. Meantime a little more discipline is called for. Ireland, Assaidi, Arnie and Palacios are getting game time which will get them match fit. They have not had this previously which is why they appear to be unfit. Time will tell but fortunately none of the comments on here can influence that. What can help is vocal support for the team and patience. What evidence there is suggests there wasn't exactly a warchest. And what evidence is that?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 21:15:42 GMT
What evidence there is suggests there wasn't exactly a warchest. And what evidence is that? The numerous times the chairman preached self-suffiency and stated we weren't likely to go on a spree and the fact that the deals we did do or try to conduct we wanted to do on the cheap.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Nov 12, 2013 21:23:28 GMT
And what evidence is that? The numerous times the chairman preached self-suffiency and stated we weren't likely to go on a spree and the fact that the deals we did do or try to conduct we wanted to do on the cheap. He did not say he wanted deals on the cheap. He said he wanted value for money and that money would be available for the right players. He did say we should aim for self sufficiency but that means buying players with resale value, growing our own or as he did say money would be available for older players. This is as reported in the Sentinel or on video so not absolutely conclusive but the best available. It is just not true that Hughes didn't have funds available.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 21:25:21 GMT
The numerous times the chairman preached self-suffiency and stated we weren't likely to go on a spree and the fact that the deals we did do or try to conduct we wanted to do on the cheap. He did not say he wanted deals on the cheap. He said he wanted value for money and that money would be available for the right players. He did say we should aim for self sufficiency but that means buying players with resale value, growing our own or as he did say money would be available for older players. This is as reported in the Sentinel or on video so not absolutely conclusive but the best available. It is just not true that Hughes didn't have funds available. Are you saying it's just not true or we don't know? Do you think Hughes had the kind of budget Pulis had every summer available to him?
|
|
|
Post by wearestoke80 on Nov 12, 2013 21:29:27 GMT
He did not say he wanted deals on the cheap. He said he wanted value for money and that money would be available for the right players. He did say we should aim for self sufficiency but that means buying players with resale value, growing our own or as he did say money would be available for older players. This is as reported in the Sentinel or on video so not absolutely conclusive but the best available. It is just not true that Hughes didn't have funds available. Are you saying it's just not true or we don't know? Do you think Hughes had the kind of budget Pulis had every summer available to him? Let's look at it from this seasons point of view; he's had more money than Poyet! How many games has he had and how many wins?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 21:33:40 GMT
Are you saying it's just not true or we don't know? Do you think Hughes had the kind of budget Pulis had every summer available to him? Let's look at it from this seasons point of view; he's had more money than Poyet! How many games has he had and how many wins? He's benefiting considerably from not being Paolo Di Canio. Although I think he's a decent manager as well. They also have the opposite problem to us in that they signed 14 new players in the summer.
|
|
|
Post by wearestoke80 on Nov 12, 2013 21:45:04 GMT
Let's look at it from this seasons point of view; he's had more money than Poyet! How many games has he had and how many wins? He's benefiting considerably from not being Paolo Di Canio. Although I think he's a decent manager as well. They also have the opposite problem to us in that they signed 14 new players in the summer. They sign 14 players every season. They have no better squad than us worse if anything. How many seasons since we've been the the top flight have they finished above us?
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Nov 12, 2013 21:47:41 GMT
He did not say he wanted deals on the cheap. He said he wanted value for money and that money would be available for the right players. He did say we should aim for self sufficiency but that means buying players with resale value, growing our own or as he did say money would be available for older players. This is as reported in the Sentinel or on video so not absolutely conclusive but the best available. It is just not true that Hughes didn't have funds available. Are you saying it's just not true or we don't know? Do you think Hughes had the kind of budget Pulis had every summer available to him? I am saying that none of us knows. On thst basis saying that money wasn't available is an opinion and not evidence I keep trying to paste the sky sports comments from Coates but this phone won't let me. I will try to put it in the reply box. Do I think that Hughes would have as much available as Pulis did? Again I don't think so but that is also not evidence that he didn't. It is on record that funds were available for the right players. I do think that Hughes would have been allowed to spend more if he had wanted to and I am pleased he didn't waste it by spending for spendings sake. I aldo believe that having appointed Hughes from a selection of one thst Coates fully backs him ( Peter snd John)
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Nov 12, 2013 21:50:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Nov 12, 2013 21:54:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 22:01:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Nov 12, 2013 22:04:12 GMT
Coates is talking down significant activity in that piece straight away ' I don't think there will be huge changes' If you honestly think tha there has no been a shift in our approach to transfers and that money / funds availale are not much tighter then you are very out of touch. You do know that the family recorded a loss of £30m last season don't you ?
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Nov 12, 2013 22:06:45 GMT
I respect your opinion Rob but it is only opinion and not evidence which is what we started from. I accept that mine is only opinion as well.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 22:09:26 GMT
It's not hard evidence but it's all we have to go on, and it points more clearly in one direction than the other.
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Nov 12, 2013 22:09:34 GMT
I respect your opinion Rob but it is only opinion and not evidence which is what we started from. I accept that mine is only opinion as well. Stokes spent less than 1% of the total amount spent on transfer fees this summer - I think that points towards us reigning itin pretty dramatically
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Nov 12, 2013 22:15:54 GMT
Coates is talking down significant activity in ha piece straight away ' I don't think there will be huge changes' If you honestly think tha there has no been a shift in our approach to transfers and that money / funds availale are not much tighter then you are very out of touch. You do know that the family recorded a loss of £30m last season don't you ? Read the thread higher up please. I said there is no evidence. A more prudent approach is being taken which is what is being said. I am not out of touch but I am not into making things up. There is no evidence only an impression. The £30m loss is a red herring in comparison to the increased value of the club, probably written off against gains elsewhere. It is a lot to you and me but not that much to a very very rich family. We are all entitled to our opinions but must be careful not put it forward as fact without evidence to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Nov 12, 2013 22:17:48 GMT
Yay, this thread was a success.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Nov 12, 2013 22:22:41 GMT
It's not hard evidence but it's all we have to go on, and it points more clearly in one direction than the other. It is interpretation, for all either of us know the money may have been available but the targeted player wasn't, that would also fit into statements made by Hughes. What it does point to is a more prudent, value for money approach which I for one applaud. It should not be a stick to beat a benefactor like Coates with. We have wasted money in the past and no-one can be happy with that.
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Nov 12, 2013 22:26:01 GMT
Coates is talking down significant activity in ha piece straight away ' I don't think there will be huge changes' If you honestly think tha there has no been a shift in our approach to transfers and that money / funds availale are not much tighter then you are very out of touch. You do know that the family recorded a loss of £30m last season don't you ? Read the thread higher up please. I said there is no evidence. A more prudent approach is being taken which is what is being said. I am not out of touch but I am not into making things up. There is no evidence only an impression. The £30m loss is a red herring in comparison to the increased value of the club, probably written off against gains elsewhere. It is a lot to you and me but not that much to a very very rich family. We are all entitled to our opinions but must be careful not put it forward as fact without evidence to back it up. There is a huge difference between evidence and fact There has been plenty of evidence quoted on this thread alone. The fact you wish to ignore I is up to you. Clearly Only very few people are privy to the facts and that isn't a single person who posts on here.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 22:31:18 GMT
It's not hard evidence but it's all we have to go on, and it points more clearly in one direction than the other. It is interpretation, for all either of us know the money may have been available but the targeted player wasn't, that would also fit into statements made by Hughes. What it does point to is a more prudent, value for money approach which I for one applaud. It should not be a stick to beat a benefactor like Coates with. We have wasted money in the past and no-one can be happy with that. I think we're arguing the same thing - that things have been reigned in and we're looking to be more prudent. We don't know for a fact but it does very much look that way - compared to other windows there was never the sense we'd be spending heavily. Long-term of course that's sensible but when you look at the gaps in the squad it does seem an odd time to be doing it given we had a new manager and given the new TV deal was allowing our rivals to splash the cash.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Nov 13, 2013 9:27:59 GMT
Read the thread higher up please. I said there is no evidence. A more prudent approach is being taken which is what is being said. I am not out of touch but I am not into making things up. There is no evidence only an impression. The £30m loss is a red herring in comparison to the increased value of the club, probably written off against gains elsewhere. It is a lot to you and me but not that much to a very very rich family. We are all entitled to our opinions but must be careful not put it forward as fact without evidence to back it up. There is a huge difference between evidence and fact There has been plenty of evidence quoted on this thread alone. The fact you wish to ignore I is up to you. Clearly Only very few people are privy to the facts and that isn't a single person who posts on here. As you say there is a huge difference between evidence and fact but there is also a huge difference between conjecture or supposition and evidence. I do not ignore evidence but have yet to see any. We none on us know is exactly the point I am making. We agree if you would only see it. It is annoying when people present conjecture as fact that's all. The only fact is that we have spent less. None of us know why and it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the budget has been restricted, it is equally feasible that the wanted targets were not available or that Hughes had not identified where he wanted to strengthen. I don't pretend to know the answer but for whatever reason some do.
|
|
|
Post by jarhead on Nov 13, 2013 10:07:23 GMT
Funny how the rimmers were quite happy to stick with Pulis when we were looking in trouble in March April last season,but now want Hughes out because we are in trouble. Correct. The tools don't support stoke city,they support that former joke of a manager in his 2 sizes to big shell suit!
|
|
|
Post by travisio92 on Nov 13, 2013 10:11:52 GMT
The Pies are good.
And KJ features less and less, meaning the bloke behind me only has 24 squad members to make derogatory comments about throughout the game.
|
|
|
Post by Old School Stokie on Nov 13, 2013 20:53:19 GMT
We are leaking goals one minute can't score the next. Its going to take some balls to turn this around. lack of results tends to dent confidence, so we need points in any way possible to give us time to do the style change. The defence has been laid bare and needs a very long hard look at how to plug it. Lescott would be a start. Jones of Man U would be ac dream if we dared push the boat out, but would he come. I hear Terry might be up for it and what a captain he'd make. He's soon sort out the defensive frailities
|
|
|
Post by wearestoke80 on Nov 13, 2013 21:15:28 GMT
Funny how the rimmers were quite happy to stick with Pulis when we were looking in trouble in March April last season,but now want Hughes out because we are in trouble. Correct. The tools don't support stoke city,they support that former joke of a manager in his 2 sizes to big shell suit! Great now he's gone? How much better we really are? Don't take the piss unless everything is much better else your on a hiding to nothing! Let me guess; Pulis worst manager stoke have ever had! Concentrate on telling everybody the positives since June and if you can't find any get back to slagging off Pulis .
|
|