|
Post by lordb on Mar 5, 2014 18:28:00 GMT
Bendtner or Olic. Both free's. Either or both? Different kind of players Olic would surely cost significantly less re wages too (possibly 25% of Bendtners wages?) Bendtner a lot younger who if successful could end up going for a decent fee though
|
|
|
Post by andrewguk on Mar 5, 2014 20:13:03 GMT
Is Ivica Olic playing for Croatia tonight?
If he is, he's just scored
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 5, 2014 20:14:35 GMT
It is him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2014 20:43:17 GMT
Do eet Les
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2014 20:46:16 GMT
Bagged two tonight hasn't he?
|
|
|
Post by StokieAsh13 on Mar 5, 2014 20:51:16 GMT
Absolute quality player, I definitely want him here. Get him signed up Hughes!!
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Mar 5, 2014 20:55:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 5, 2014 21:02:40 GMT
Bit of strength, pace and a finish. We don't want that!
|
|
|
Post by dieguito88 on Mar 6, 2014 0:53:18 GMT
He still have it, he past Lichsteiner, one of the best fullback in the Serie A. He will be a brillant buy at free.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 6, 2014 7:40:38 GMT
3 good seasons out of Crouch though True, but at a cost of maybe £3 million per season, plus wages - say £5 million per season. But Palacios came as part of the same deal - how much has he cost per year including wages? Another £3 million? That's £8 million per season for the 2 of them If we get a good year out of Olic (on a free plus wages) - that will seem like a bargin. I don't think they came as a pair. We just bought both of them. Crouch will have been worth it...Pally won't. I'm just more surprised than anything given how we were supposed to have this new strategy of buying players that we could sell on at a profit. Acquiring 34 year olds seems an odd way to be going about that. Couldn't give a fuck personally as long as he does the business.
|
|
|
Post by The battheader chronicles on Mar 6, 2014 7:47:00 GMT
True, but at a cost of maybe £3 million per season, plus wages - say £5 million per season. But Palacios came as part of the same deal - how much has he cost per year including wages? Another £3 million? That's £8 million per season for the 2 of them If we get a good year out of Olic (on a free plus wages) - that will seem like a bargin. I don't think they came as a pair. We just bought both of them. Crouch will have been worth it...Pally won't. I'm just more surprised than anything given how we were supposed to have this new strategy of buying players that we could sell on at a profit. Acquiring 34 year olds seems an odd way to be going about that. Couldn't give a fuck personally as long as he does the business. Yeh but if he's on a free we won't really have to worry bout resale value
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 6, 2014 7:49:43 GMT
True, but at a cost of maybe £3 million per season, plus wages - say £5 million per season. But Palacios came as part of the same deal - how much has he cost per year including wages? Another £3 million? That's £8 million per season for the 2 of them If we get a good year out of Olic (on a free plus wages) - that will seem like a bargin. I don't think they came as a pair. We just bought both of them. Crouch will have been worth it...Pally won't. I'm just more surprised than anything given how we were supposed to have this new strategy of buying players that we could sell on at a profit. Acquiring 34 year olds seems an odd way to be going about that. Couldn't give a fuck personally as long as he does the business. Admittedly, we are talking rumours here, but there was talk on here and on the Spurs forums at the time, that 'arry, had insisted on a double deal. Palacios's loss of form/fitness since his brother's death was also well documented and it is clear why Spurs wanted rid of a player who, a year or so earlier had been central to their game. Anyway, we'll probably never know the truth of it but, taken as a whole, the double deal was far too expensive in cost/benefit terms and we are still paying a big bill in amortisation - see latest comment by the club in today's Sentinel. EDIT: I don't think we have said we won't be signing older players - Wingie gives the lie to that theory. What we have said is we won't be paying big money to sign players unless they are young enough to have resale value.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 6, 2014 7:50:48 GMT
I don't think they came as a pair. We just bought both of them. Crouch will have been worth it...Pally won't. I'm just more surprised than anything given how we were supposed to have this new strategy of buying players that we could sell on at a profit. Acquiring 34 year olds seems an odd way to be going about that. Couldn't give a fuck personally as long as he does the business. Yeh but if he's on a free we won't really have to worry bout resale value ...but then it would be a missed opportunity? I'd be surprised if he signs tbh and as I think others will be in for him but we will see.
|
|
|
Post by huuuuuth on Mar 6, 2014 7:53:04 GMT
I don't think they came as a pair. We just bought both of them. Crouch will have been worth it...Pally won't. I'm just more surprised than anything given how we were supposed to have this new strategy of buying players that we could sell on at a profit. Acquiring 34 year olds seems an odd way to be going about that. Couldn't give a fuck personally as long as he does the business. Yeh but if he's on a free we won't really have to worry bout resale value He'll be 35 by the time he gets here too Sure he'll do us a job for a year. Still looks like he's got it
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 6, 2014 7:55:34 GMT
I don't think they came as a pair. We just bought both of them. Crouch will have been worth it...Pally won't. I'm just more surprised than anything given how we were supposed to have this new strategy of buying players that we could sell on at a profit. Acquiring 34 year olds seems an odd way to be going about that. Couldn't give a fuck personally as long as he does the business. Admittedly, we are talking rumours here, but there was talk on here and on the Spurs forums at the time, that 'arry, had insisted on a double deal. Palacios's loss of form/fitness since his brother's death was also well documented and it is clear why Spurs wanted rid of a player who, a year or so earlier had been central to their game. Anyway, we'll probably never know the truth of it but, taken as a whole, the double deal was far too expensive in cost/benefit terms and we are still paying a big bill in amortisation - see latest comment by the club in today's Sentinel. The the stupid cunts shouldn't have given Pulis the budget then should they? I never understood the financial sense of it all at the time. I only presumed that the owners loved being in the Premiership that much that they were happy to spend such monies. To then change their minds some 18 months later seemed daft. The Europa league money brings in fuck all, each Prem place is worth peanuts and we've seen plenty of clubs spent absolute fortunes to try and reach the top 4 - and still miss out. I still today don't understand why we went as far as we did.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 6, 2014 8:09:47 GMT
Admittedly, we are talking rumours here, but there was talk on here and on the Spurs forums at the time, that 'arry, had insisted on a double deal. Palacios's loss of form/fitness since his brother's death was also well documented and it is clear why Spurs wanted rid of a player who, a year or so earlier had been central to their game. Anyway, we'll probably never know the truth of it but, taken as a whole, the double deal was far too expensive in cost/benefit terms and we are still paying a big bill in amortisation - see latest comment by the club in today's Sentinel. The the stupid cunts shouldn't have given Pulis the budget then should they? I never understood the financial sense of it all at the time. I only presumed that the owners loved being in the Premiership that much that they were happy to spend such monies. To then change their minds some 18 months later seemed daft. The Europa league money brings in fuck all, each Prem place is worth peanuts and we've seen plenty of clubs spent absolute fortunes to try and reach the top 4 - and still miss out. I still today don't understand why we went as far as we did. Finally, we agree, Merkin. Its the Portsmouth syndrome all over again. You can lay all the blame at 'arry's door for Portsmouth's overspend. More sensibly the owners and the chief exec should take more responsibility for the resulting crisis. Fortunately, we appear to have pulled back from the brink whilst the situation is still recoverable - albeit with a bit more belt tightening than we fans would wish. I'm sure Hughes will have been made aware of the situation - he's always looked like he has to keep his spending in check at least until the financial situation has stabilised. The good news (I hope) is that I think this season's profit and loss account will be much healthier. I don't say we will have returned to profit (or even that we'll have broken even) but we should have made a huge dent in the loss - aided partly, of course, by the much bigger TV money coming in. If you can cut your costs (even modestly)whilst your income increases by, maybe, £20 million, you're on the road to happiness!
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 6, 2014 8:18:54 GMT
We are no where near the brink though are we?
Our owners can easily afford it.
If we were truly near the brink and the spending was unacceptable then we would never have brought in 8-9 new players would we?
Like Pugsley said on another thread - it would be helpful if the owners stated what the intention was.
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Mar 6, 2014 8:36:24 GMT
I think it's a case of trim the fat before he is allowed to push on with any sort of significance
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 6, 2014 8:50:16 GMT
We are no where near the brink though are we? Our owners can easily afford it. If we were truly near the brink and the spending was unacceptable then we would never have brought in 8-9 new players would we? Like Pugsley said on another thread - it would be helpful if the owners stated what the intention was. First, you are right, the owners can afford it. But given that Denise Coates has all the muscle in terms of Bet365 votes, and she has commented that she doesn't want Bet365 to continue to fund losses, Peter Coates and Tony Scholes have to keep her on board and that obviously meant that there had to be a turnaround in the financial performance for the current year. Second, I'm sure most clubs, including ourselves, will have done a few bits of creative accounting to advance as many losses as possible into the last financial year to enable easier compliance with the new premier League financial regulations in this financial year and future years. As regards Pugsley's point, the owners have said what the intention is - it is to make the club self sufficient financially and the Academy developments and the new policy on transfers is geared towards that in the longer term. Trouble is no one actually believed them! Or at least no one paid much attention to the timescale. The new Premier League financial regulations (which Stoke City enthusiastically signed up to) probably advanced the timetable somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 6, 2014 9:04:22 GMT
We are no where near the brink though are we? Our owners can easily afford it. If we were truly near the brink and the spending was unacceptable then we would never have brought in 8-9 new players would we? Like Pugsley said on another thread - it would be helpful if the owners stated what the intention was. First, you are right, the owners can afford it. But given that Denise Coates has all the muscle in terms of Bet365 votes, and she has commented that she doesn't want Bet365 to continue to fund losses, Peter Coates and Tony Scholes have to keep her on board and that obviously meant that there had to be a turnaround in the financial performance for the current year. Second, I'm sure most clubs, including ourselves, will have done a few bits of creative accounting to advance as many losses as possible into the last financial year to enable easier compliance with the new premier League financial regulations in this financial year and future years. As regards Pugsley's point, the owners have said what the intention is - it is to make the club self sufficient financially and the Academy developments and the new policy on transfers is geared towards that in the longer term. Trouble is no one actually believed them! Or at least no one paid much attention to the timescale. The new Premier League financial regulations (which Stoke City enthusiastically signed up to) probably advanced the timetable somewhat. No one believed them because they were saying exactly the same thing before we spent a £30-£40M on transfers over 2 seasons. They went and did the complete opposite.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 6, 2014 9:09:56 GMT
First, you are right, the owners can afford it. But given that Denise Coates has all the muscle in terms of Bet365 votes, and she has commented that she doesn't want Bet365 to continue to fund losses, Peter Coates and Tony Scholes have to keep her on board and that obviously meant that there had to be a turnaround in the financial performance for the current year. Second, I'm sure most clubs, including ourselves, will have done a few bits of creative accounting to advance as many losses as possible into the last financial year to enable easier compliance with the new premier League financial regulations in this financial year and future years. As regards Pugsley's point, the owners have said what the intention is - it is to make the club self sufficient financially and the Academy developments and the new policy on transfers is geared towards that in the longer term. Trouble is no one actually believed them! Or at least no one paid much attention to the timescale. The new Premier League financial regulations (which Stoke City enthusiastically signed up to) probably advanced the timetable somewhat. No one believed them because they were saying exactly the same thing before we spent a £30-£40M on transfers over 2 seasons. They went and did the complete opposite. No they weren't. H
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 6, 2014 9:12:30 GMT
Coates has pretty much being saying that from the minute we got into the Premiership.
|
|
mvtt
Academy Starlet
Posts: 150
|
Post by mvtt on Mar 6, 2014 9:16:52 GMT
honestly, if we pull this off, I will be ecstatic. I'm drooling at the thought of Arnautovic and Olic on the wings. I doesn't have to be a long term solution, but it would go a long way in demonstrating the club's evolution. And if sum of such quick and clever parts turns out to be anything close to its potential, Stoke will become a far more attractive place for players to want to play.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 6, 2014 9:18:38 GMT
First, you are right, the owners can afford it. But given that Denise Coates has all the muscle in terms of Bet365 votes, and she has commented that she doesn't want Bet365 to continue to fund losses, Peter Coates and Tony Scholes have to keep her on board and that obviously meant that there had to be a turnaround in the financial performance for the current year. Second, I'm sure most clubs, including ourselves, will have done a few bits of creative accounting to advance as many losses as possible into the last financial year to enable easier compliance with the new premier League financial regulations in this financial year and future years. As regards Pugsley's point, the owners have said what the intention is - it is to make the club self sufficient financially and the Academy developments and the new policy on transfers is geared towards that in the longer term. Trouble is no one actually believed them! Or at least no one paid much attention to the timescale. The new Premier League financial regulations (which Stoke City enthusiastically signed up to) probably advanced the timetable somewhat. No one believed them because they were saying exactly the same thing before we spent a £30-£40M on transfers over 2 seasons. They went and did the complete opposite. On promotion Peter Coates said that the long term objective was to make the club self sufficient - he was bound to say this - no way was the major shareholder of Bet365 (Denise)going to agree to fund losses indefinately . But when the new TV money was announced (giving clubs up to £20 million extra per season) Tony Scholes and Peter Coates immediately said that this would give the club a realistic chance of breaking even when the new money was available. This has been repeated in the Sentinel today. The first financial year where the increased income is applicable is the CURRENT SCFC financial year which runs to the end of June. So our chances of meeting the target for self sufficiency should be judged on THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR not the LAST one.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 6, 2014 9:30:46 GMT
No one believed them because they were saying exactly the same thing before we spent a £30-£40M on transfers over 2 seasons. They went and did the complete opposite. On promotion Peter Coates said that the long term objective was to make the club self sufficient - he was bound to say this - no way was the major shareholder of Bet365 (Denise)going to agree to fund losses indefinately . But when the new TV money was announced (giving clubs up to £20 million extra per season) Tony Scholes and Peter Coates immediately said that this would give the club a realistic chance of breaking even when the new money was available. This has been repeated in the Sentinel today. The first financial year where the increased income is applicable is the CURRENT SCFC financial year which runs to the end of June. So our chances of meeting the target for self sufficiency should be judged on THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR not the LAST one. The issue was always going to be what happens when Coates snuffed it/lost interest/influence etc etc If Aunty Denise isn't going to fund indefinite losses then I think it will end badly for us. I have no idea whether break even will allow us to fund enough as it will depend on what our peers do and what difference the financial regulations will make remain to be seen. We've seen plenty of clubs go down that are unable to keep pace with the financial demands.
|
|
|
Post by vahl on Mar 6, 2014 9:34:13 GMT
All this goddamn bartering and, as usual, we'll probably get pipped at the post by a club that can actually close a deal. It will probably be someone like fucking Leicester as well, just to rub salt into the wound a bit more.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 6, 2014 9:43:22 GMT
I don't think they came as a pair. We just bought both of them. Crouch will have been worth it...Pally won't. I'm just more surprised than anything given how we were supposed to have this new strategy of buying players that we could sell on at a profit. Acquiring 34 year olds seems an odd way to be going about that. Couldn't give a fuck personally as long as he does the business. Admittedly, we are talking rumours here, but there was talk on here and on the Spurs forums at the time, that 'arry, had insisted on a double deal. Palacios's loss of form/fitness since his brother's death was also well documented and it is clear why Spurs wanted rid of a player who, a year or so earlier had been central to their game. Anyway, we'll probably never know the truth of it but, taken as a whole, the double deal was far too expensive in cost/benefit terms and we are still paying a big bill in amortisation - see latest comment by the club in today's Sentinel. EDIT: I don't think we have said we won't be signing older players - Wingie gives the lie to that theory. What we have said is we won't be paying big money to sign players unless they are young enough to have resale value. It is an absolute myth that to have Crouch we had to take Palacios. It was actually the other way around. The deal to sign Palacios was agreed 3 weeks before the move for Crouch was made but we delayed the completion of the deal due to a minor op he had to have. We then went in for Crouch and were hoping to get him for 5-6 million. At or around that point, Levy basically threatened to pull the plug on the Palacios deal if we failed to agree a deal to take Crouch. That is why the fee went up and the wage aspect went up because Crouch didn't want to come. In the end it took 50k per week wages and a threat from Spurs that if he stayed he wouldn't be given a squad number. Pulis wanted them both but not necessarily at the fee we ended up paying but it was very much a case of "if you don't sign Crouch, the Palacios deal is off rather than the other way around. We should have walked away from both.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 6, 2014 9:49:28 GMT
Admittedly, we are talking rumours here, but there was talk on here and on the Spurs forums at the time, that 'arry, had insisted on a double deal. Palacios's loss of form/fitness since his brother's death was also well documented and it is clear why Spurs wanted rid of a player who, a year or so earlier had been central to their game. Anyway, we'll probably never know the truth of it but, taken as a whole, the double deal was far too expensive in cost/benefit terms and we are still paying a big bill in amortisation - see latest comment by the club in today's Sentinel. EDIT: I don't think we have said we won't be signing older players - Wingie gives the lie to that theory. What we have said is we won't be paying big money to sign players unless they are young enough to have resale value. It is an absolute myth that to have Crouch we had to take Palacios. It was actually the other way around. The deal to sign Palacios was agreed 3 weeks before the move for Crouch was made but we delayed the completion of the deal due to a minor op he had to have. We then went in for Crouch and were hoping to get him for 5-6 million. At or around that point, Levy basically threatened to pull the plug on the Palacios deal if we failed to agree a deal to take Crouch. That is why the fee went up and the wage aspect went up because Crouch didn't want to come. In the end it took 50k per week wages and a threat from Spurs that if he stayed he wouldn't be given a squad number. Pulis wanted them both but not necessarily at the fee we ended up paying but it was very much a case of "if you don't sign Crouch, the Palacios deal is off rather than the other way around. We should have walked away from both. Nah...Crouch has proved to be a good signing for my money.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Mar 6, 2014 11:59:47 GMT
Admittedly, we are talking rumours here, but there was talk on here and on the Spurs forums at the time, that 'arry, had insisted on a double deal. Palacios's loss of form/fitness since his brother's death was also well documented and it is clear why Spurs wanted rid of a player who, a year or so earlier had been central to their game. Anyway, we'll probably never know the truth of it but, taken as a whole, the double deal was far too expensive in cost/benefit terms and we are still paying a big bill in amortisation - see latest comment by the club in today's Sentinel. EDIT: I don't think we have said we won't be signing older players - Wingie gives the lie to that theory. What we have said is we won't be paying big money to sign players unless they are young enough to have resale value. It is an absolute myth that to have Crouch we had to take Palacios. It was actually the other way around. The deal to sign Palacios was agreed 3 weeks before the move for Crouch was made but we delayed the completion of the deal due to a minor op he had to have. We then went in for Crouch and were hoping to get him for 5-6 million. At or around that point, Levy basically threatened to pull the plug on the Palacios deal if we failed to agree a deal to take Crouch. That is why the fee went up and the wage aspect went up because Crouch didn't want to come. In the end it took 50k per week wages and a threat from Spurs that if he stayed he wouldn't be given a squad number. Pulis wanted them both but not necessarily at the fee we ended up paying but it was very much a case of "if you don't sign Crouch, the Palacios deal is off rather than the other way around. We should have walked away from both. wow, if thats the truth we were completely screwed over by Arry and Levi. And that single incident really lead to the end of Pulis at Stoke - Coates never forgot about the Crouch deal, and the football on the pitch went downhill from there. I wonder if TP is still on talking terms with floppy chops? I bet he was livid when he found out Palacios career was basically over.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Mar 6, 2014 12:02:14 GMT
and back to the subject of the thread. So Ollic is lined up to play on the right or left hand side.
ok sounds good as long as we still can push the boat out for a new mobile central striker. Thats the key to any "evolution" in playing style. While we have Crouch we have to keep lumping it to his head and look for flick-ons, running off him.
oh for a mobile striker that can make runs from thru-balls.
|
|