|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 21, 2014 9:56:10 GMT
If you like.. Interviewer, "Can we replicate the positives from Stoke City's time with TP in charge?" Interviewee, "Stoke have a much, much smaller catchment area than Palace and has smaller potential because you have the big Manchester clubs a bit further north and not a very large population. We are the biggest club in South London and within an hour of Selhurst Park there are more than 5 million people" Interviewer, "That had no real relevance to what I asked, and gave me no indication as to what your answer to my question might be. Mickmillslovechild is wrong it seems" Ok, so he didn't say that last part, I just thought it would be a nice addition. It seems a pefectly reasonable comparison to me, he is saying that not only can they replicate what Stoke have achieved but have the opportunity to do even better because demographics are in their favour. It is not a pop at Stoke but a compliment and a very good way of illustrating the opportunity for Palace. I agree, on the whole mate, but his comments highlight the limitations on Stoke in terms of catchment area (quite rightly) whilst looking only at the positives of his own club's catchment area. He's being very simplistic with one whilst highlighting the drawbacks in our case. Crystal Palace face far greater competition for support than Stoke City do, in reality, even if there are greater numbers available. I don't blame him for looking to the positive but, if he's going to make the comparison with us, then it needs to be balanced.
|
|
|
Post by Birchesheadpotter on May 21, 2014 9:57:56 GMT
It seems a pefectly reasonable comparison to me, he is saying that not only can they replicate what Stoke have achieved but have the opportunity to do even better because demographics are in their favour. It is not a pop at Stoke but a compliment and a very good way of illustrating the opportunity for Palace. In your opinion you mean? Because you don't actually know what he means, do you? For a start, we don't even know what question was pitched to him. It might well be a direct answer to a relevant question, but I'm not sure how their 'catchment area' has a direct correlation with our two clubs 'potential' over the course of 6 years or less.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 9:59:30 GMT
If he's dick measuring against the Mighty Potters, Palace's micropenis is in no way a match for our 12 inch bald headed yogurt slinger.....
|
|
|
Post by kevkj on May 21, 2014 10:00:09 GMT
With regards to there support .Lots of people have slagged there ultras off ,but they stand together and make a racket which encourages others around the ground to get involved. At Stoke we can hear a pin drop nowadays unless we are somewhat wronged by a ref etc. Personaly think they will be fine next year with a good home record.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on May 21, 2014 10:04:50 GMT
Crystal are just excited. Let em enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by unknown182 on May 21, 2014 10:27:20 GMT
I think he's forgotton about the three 'top six' clubs around the corner from them.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on May 21, 2014 10:29:25 GMT
Building a cricket pitch may increase attendances more.
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on May 21, 2014 10:30:52 GMT
What he says in a way is true, they have a larger catchment area, but like QPR not many people want to go and watch them.They never really increase their support even when they are doing well, which isn't very often, they have too much competition.
|
|
|
Post by JetBlack on May 21, 2014 11:14:18 GMT
I had to leave a comment in the story in the Sentinel. This is pretty much it...
I would have thought it has more to do with where Palace finish in the league! Newcastle have twice the following of Stoke City F.C. yet we finished one spot above them. Is this due to the Stoke fans shouting louder?!!! The amount of fans ANY Club have is largely irrelevant. Could the Palace chairman be using Stoke City F.C. as a yardstick for his own teams future development? Both teams earned their respective league positions on merit, not on the fanbase.
Or, he's just being a prize throbber...
It would be interesting to see the Clubs in a league table going by the crowd size rather than where they finished in the league.
|
|
|
Post by MrMagic on May 21, 2014 11:33:47 GMT
I suspect that the Palace man was talking about future aspirations for the club under pulis.
The interviewer may then have said that based on his time at Stoke Pulis may have already achieved pretty much everything he could at palace - mid table etc.
The response from the palace man then is what's in the story
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 21, 2014 11:36:55 GMT
What an arse. Why is he even mentioning Stoke at all? Almost some sort of obsession. Or jealous? Should tell him to come back when they make an FA Cup final and finish 9th in the Premier League. Why is he mentioning Stoke? Maybe because the bloke who managed us for a decade has been in his ear. The poor fucker of a Palace chairman has a summer of hearing all about none existent "second season syndrome" to look forward to and help along with his coffers being emptied on "proven Premier League" players of a certain vintage. Let him hang onto his delusions and have something other than misery to think about.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 21, 2014 11:45:11 GMT
Why is he mentioning Stoke? Maybe because the bloke who managed us for a decade has been in his ear. The poor fucker of a Palace chairman has a summer of hearing all about none existent "second season syndrome" to look forward to and help along with his coffers being emptied on "proven Premier League" players of a certain vintage. Let him hang onto his delusions and have something other than misery to think about. Actually he sort of did, here is another extract from the article: "Pulis has already warned that survival is the prime target for next season..."
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 21, 2014 11:53:14 GMT
The poor fucker of a Palace chairman has a summer of hearing all about none existent "second season syndrome" to look forward to and help along with his coffers being emptied on "proven Premier League" players of a certain vintage. Let him hang onto his delusions and have something other than misery to think about. Actually he sort of did, here is another extract from the article: "Pulis has already warned that survival is the prime target for next season..." It clearly IS and so it should be and if Palace think any other way they will be in big trouble.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 21, 2014 12:09:09 GMT
Why is he mentioning Stoke? Maybe because the bloke who managed us for a decade has been in his ear. The poor fucker of a Palace chairman has a summer of hearing all about none existent "second season syndrome" to look forward to and help along with his coffers being emptied on "proven Premier League" players of a certain vintage. Let him hang onto his delusions and have something other than misery to think about. I read the whole article and another one on the inside pages, my only real thought was the only bit it failed to mention was the what £80m-£90m they need to spend on players, the other article also said they'd agreed TP's transfer funds and there would be no repeat of the influx of players that happened under Holloway, I can see trouble ahead espicially if one of the board is raising the expectations of fans when their esteemed leader is playing down expectations as usual Pulis has already warned that survival is the prime target for next season but Browett is confident the club do not need to limit themselves to simply ending the campaign in 17th.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 21, 2014 12:14:18 GMT
Regardless of the reason why these comments have been made, Stoke City ARE a bigger club than Crystal Palace and we will forever be the BIGGEST club on Tony Pulis' CV.
|
|
|
Post by dadofsam on May 21, 2014 12:19:48 GMT
I wonder what budget Tone has agreed to? £25 million as a minimum?
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on May 21, 2014 12:24:25 GMT
I wonder what budget Tone has agreed to? £25 million as a minimum? Whatever it is it won't be enough. Wait for the "front of house" comments start to emerge sometime soon.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on May 21, 2014 12:44:35 GMT
The poor fucker of a Palace chairman has a summer of hearing all about none existent "second season syndrome" to look forward to and help along with his coffers being emptied on "proven Premier League" players of a certain vintage. Let him hang onto his delusions and have something other than misery to think about. I read the whole article and another one on the inside pages, my only real thought was the only bit it failed to mention was the what £80m-£90m they need to spend on players, the other article also said they'd agreed TP's transfer funds and there would be no repeat of the influx of players that happened under Holloway, I can see trouble ahead espicially if one of the board is raising the expectations of fans when their esteemed leader is playing down expectations as usual Pulis has already warned that survival is the prime target for next season but Browett is confident the club do not need to limit themselves to simply ending the campaign in 17th. I can see TP not liking that at all. Infact it's a pretty stupid thing to do, contradicting the manager who saved them from relegation.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 21, 2014 13:16:25 GMT
Charlton Athletic are bigger according to this fun website...... (we're 24th btw but it only goes up to the 2011-12 season) Charlton 34th...... Palace 46th......While I was there I noticed this bit of news...... Crystal Palace pre-season tour of the US announced...Owd TP likes it over there doesn't he?? "Games against Manchester United and Liverpool at Selhurst Park during the latter stages of the season also drew high audience numbers, as Palace’s reputation and fan base continues to grow across the pond." Or, people were tuning in to watch Manchester United and Liverpool !!
|
|
|
Post by gothicstokelover on May 21, 2014 13:46:15 GMT
Not to mention that being a London based club....they also have to share their catchment area with other London clubs Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, West Ham I'm sure I've missed a few out.....Crystal Palace can't boast of being the best club in the area either, yet were the top club in Midlands.
|
|
|
Post by interestedobserver on May 21, 2014 13:53:47 GMT
Tone's toughest ever job is now managing their expectations, they're a much more refined bunch than us country bumpkins. Filet Mignon et gratin dauphinois
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on May 21, 2014 14:03:47 GMT
It seems a pefectly reasonable comparison to me, he is saying that not only can they replicate what Stoke have achieved but have the opportunity to do even better because demographics are in their favour. It is not a pop at Stoke but a compliment and a very good way of illustrating the opportunity for Palace. In your opinion you mean? Because you don't actually know what he means, do you? For a start, we don't even know what question was pitched to him. It might well be a direct answer to a relevant question, but I'm not sure how their 'catchment area' has a direct correlation with our two clubs 'potential' over the course of 6 years or less. well I can read and having read the whole article, having heard him speak previously and spoken with people who work with him, I have made an interpretation which seems to fit with the thrust of the article and the economic situation he alludes to. This article was not about Stoke and I have seen nothing to suggest that either of the owners at Palace have any animosity towards Stoke. The 5 million people he refers to are in South London and the rest of the greater South East and excludes most of west, east and south London where the other London clubs tend to draw fans from. Given this, as a professional economist, he seems to me to have put forward a very reasonable argument that Palace have the potential to be a bigger club than Stoke, having more supporters nearby, with less competition for their target segment and typically having potential supporters with higher incomes than Stoke. currently Stoke are more successful and the challenge for him is to deliver on the potential opportunity but it seems a reasonable hypothesis
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 14:09:50 GMT
They have had a catchment area of 5,000,000 for many years now, its not like that has just happened. Given they had cracking team in the early 1990s (3rd in the first division and an FA cup final) ... much better than what we have achieved so far (debatable I know, but you get my point).....I wonder what makes them think these new "fans" will flock to the club now compared to the early 1990s....
....maybe its the free flowing attractive brand of football...with TP ....maybe its the family atmosphere attracting people to a south London club....with the 19 year old, benders the " Palace Ultras" in tow
Given they have been surrounded by these millions of new potential "fans" I wonder why they think they have had an average attendance of lower than 20,000 fans 81 times in the clubs 90 years?
...maybe, maybe they are just full of shit.....
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on May 21, 2014 14:16:44 GMT
Not to mention that being a London based club....they also have to share their catchment area with other London clubs Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, West Ham I'm sure I've missed a few out.....Crystal Palace can't boast of being the best club in the area either, yet were the top club in Midlands. All north of the river though. Sarf londoners don't like them
|
|
|
Post by passtheoatcakes on May 21, 2014 14:31:36 GMT
With regards to there support .Lots of people have slagged there ultras off ,but they stand together and make a racket which encourages others around the ground to get involved. At Stoke we can hear a pin drop nowadays unless we are somewhat wronged by a ref etc. Personaly think they will be fine next year with a good home record. Pin drop? Bit of an over statement this season I think me old mucker ;-) As for their support (Ultras??!!), I would shove their drum where the sun don't shine if I had to put up with that nonsense every week. I put it in the same bracket as the Norwich cardboard fans, singing Chelsea Dagger when your team scores and vuvuzelas. Plastic, plastic, plastic!!!
|
|
|
Post by Birchesheadpotter on May 21, 2014 14:38:17 GMT
In your opinion you mean? Because you don't actually know what he means, do you? For a start, we don't even know what question was pitched to him. It might well be a direct answer to a relevant question, but I'm not sure how their 'catchment area' has a direct correlation with our two clubs 'potential' over the course of 6 years or less. well I can read and having read the whole article, having heard him speak previously and spoken with people who work with him, I have made an interpretation which seems to fit with the thrust of the article and the economic situation he alludes to. This article was not about Stoke and I have seen nothing to suggest that either of the owners at Palace have any animosity towards Stoke. The 5 million people he refers to are in South London and the rest of the greater South East and excludes most of west, east and south London where the other London clubs tend to draw fans from. Given this, as a professional economist, he seems to me to have put forward a very reasonable argument that Palace have the potential to be a bigger club than Stoke, having more supporters nearby, with less competition for their target segment and typically having potential supporters with higher incomes than Stoke. currently Stoke are more successful and the challenge for him is to deliver on the potential opportunity but it seems a reasonable hypothesis So, yes it's your opinion then I'm not suggesting that it's said with anomosity or a backhand snide dig myself, just that if he thinks because London is overpopulated, that equates to Palace having greater potential than Stoke, then he is making a pretty misguided assumption. One that does come across a little condescending and understandably may offend some.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 21, 2014 14:42:57 GMT
I had to leave a comment in the story in the Sentinel. This is pretty much it... I would have thought it has more to do with where Palace finish in the league! Newcastle have twice the following of Stoke City F.C. yet we finished one spot above them. Is this due to the Stoke fans shouting louder?!!! The amount of fans ANY Club have is largely irrelevant. Could the Palace chairman be using Stoke City F.C. as a yardstick for his own teams future development? Both teams earned their respective league positions on merit, not on the fanbase. Or, he's just being a prize throbber... It would be interesting to see the Clubs in a league table going by the crowd size rather than where they finished in the league. We finished 15th with an average attendance of 26137 and a highest attendance of 27429 Palarse finished 19th with an average of 24114 and a highest attendance of 25564 So much for the catchment area! H
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 21, 2014 14:51:04 GMT
well I can read and having read the whole article, having heard him speak previously and spoken with people who work with him, I have made an interpretation which seems to fit with the thrust of the article and the economic situation he alludes to. This article was not about Stoke and I have seen nothing to suggest that either of the owners at Palace have any animosity towards Stoke. The 5 million people he refers to are in South London and the rest of the greater South East and excludes most of west, east and south London where the other London clubs tend to draw fans from. Given this, as a professional economist, he seems to me to have put forward a very reasonable argument that Palace have the potential to be a bigger club than Stoke, having more supporters nearby, with less competition for their target segment and typically having potential supporters with higher incomes than Stoke. currently Stoke are more successful and the challenge for him is to deliver on the potential opportunity but it seems a reasonable hypothesis So, yes it's your opinion then I'm not suggesting that it's said with anomosity or a backhand snide dig myself, just that if he thinks because London is overpopulated, that equates to Palace having greater potential than Stoke, then he is making a pretty misguided assumption. As I said earlier, I don't think the man was being derogatory about Stoke at all but I do think his comments were simplistic in the extreme with regard to the 'potential' of his own club whilst being very particular in pointing out the negatives affecting Stoke's potential. In reality, Palace face most (if not all) of the same negatives to some degree. After all, we too have (within an hour of the Brit) a potential following of many millions, just so long as we ignore Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Everton, Aston Villa, West Brom, Wolves, Derby, Nottingham Forest, Leicester, Birmingham and a fair few others. For him to believe, for one second, that Palace could significantly increase their support from the area to the south and east of Selhurst Park is pure fantasy since they never have before and they've been far better than they are now. Don't blame the fella at all for looking to the positives but he's dreaming.
|
|
|
Post by mozzer68 on May 21, 2014 14:56:21 GMT
Well i reckon with all that they seem to have going for them, them he will be giving TP a massive budget too, say something around £90m should keep the capped one happy.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 21, 2014 15:15:12 GMT
I think Browett's comments are a huge compliment to Stoke. Firstly he is literally correct in what he says and is effectively waking up to the fact that "small club" Stoke have achieved 9th position in the world's premier league. He is clearly giving Pulis the objective of emulating what Stoke have achieved, while big city clubs in Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield, Bristol, and now Fulham in London languish in lower divisions.
He says there are 5 million people within an hour of Selhurst Park, but doesn't mention how many other football clubs there are, or how much passion there is for football. Wimbledon moved out.
All the more reason for MH and his lads to stuff them next season.
|
|