|
Post by lordb on Sept 18, 2014 12:30:46 GMT
It's not peculiar but it's a particularly egregious example given what we'd done for him. Isn't that a two-way street though Rob? You're saying we rescued his career, but if we've rescued it to the point where the player in question is having a cracking season, then surely, the club are benefitting from a better than expected performance from the player - thereby resulting in the player wanting more. Wasn't it a similar, if not slightly more exaggerated case with Steino? It was widely reported that he was only on £400 per week at Stoke, having been taken from Oxford's reserve team. Two years later, that contract looked a bit sick because he'd played a major part in transforming the team. There was talk at the time of Stein being homesick when he asked for a transfer, but I think Macari has said he wanted an improvement on his contract. Either way, he ended up at Chelsea earning 10 times what he was on at Stoke. Could you blame him for wanting an improvement, or would you say he should have stuck with what he was happy to sign before we rescued his career? I'm not comparing the two players' merits by the way, I'm just interested in your thoughts as to whether you believe the two situations were the same in principle. re Stein story was Coates refused to offer him a new contract.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 18, 2014 12:32:15 GMT
It's not peculiar but it's a particularly egregious example given what we'd done for him. Isn't that a two-way street though Rob? You're saying we rescued his career, but if we've rescued it to the point where the player in question is having a cracking season, then surely, the club are benefitting from a better than expected performance from the player - thereby resulting in the player wanting more. Wasn't it a similar, if not slightly more exaggerated case with Steino? It was widely reported that he was only on £400 per week at Stoke, having been taken from Oxford's reserve team. Two years later, that contract looked a bit sick because he'd played a major part in transforming the team. There was talk at the time of Stein being homesick when he asked for a transfer, but I think Macari has said he wanted an improvement on his contract. Either way, he ended up at Chelsea earning 10 times what he was on at Stoke. Could you blame him for wanting an improvement, or would you say he should have stuck with what he was happy to sign before we rescued his career? I'm not comparing the two players' merits by the way, I'm just interested in your thoughts as to whether you believe the two situations were the same in principle. I think the Akinbiyi thing needs putting into context. He had become a national laughing stock after he failed at Leicester. He was talked about in the media the way we talk about Pericard on here, as an utter joke. Palace £1.6m for him in the Championship and he was again simply dreadful - they hated him there. He was at his absolute lowest ebb, nobody else would touch him, and TP, who'd had him before at Gillingham, rolled the dice on him and he got his confidence back and looked like a player again. Each to their own, but for me, given how far he'd fallen and that we were a huge reason why he was suddenly valued and in demand again, the haste with which he asked for loads more money seemed indecent and bitterly disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 12:55:26 GMT
Isn't that a two-way street though Rob? You're saying we rescued his career, but if we've rescued it to the point where the player in question is having a cracking season, then surely, the club are benefitting from a better than expected performance from the player - thereby resulting in the player wanting more. Wasn't it a similar, if not slightly more exaggerated case with Steino? It was widely reported that he was only on £400 per week at Stoke, having been taken from Oxford's reserve team. Two years later, that contract looked a bit sick because he'd played a major part in transforming the team. There was talk at the time of Stein being homesick when he asked for a transfer, but I think Macari has said he wanted an improvement on his contract. Either way, he ended up at Chelsea earning 10 times what he was on at Stoke. Could you blame him for wanting an improvement, or would you say he should have stuck with what he was happy to sign before we rescued his career? I'm not comparing the two players' merits by the way, I'm just interested in your thoughts as to whether you believe the two situations were the same in principle. I think the Akinbiyi thing needs putting into context. He had become a national laughing stock after he failed at Leicester. He was talked about in the media the way we talk about Pericard on here, as an utter joke. Palace £1.6m for him in the Championship and he was again simply dreadful - they hated him there. He was at his absolute lowest ebb, nobody else would touch him, and TP, who'd had him before at Gillingham, rolled the dice on him and he got his confidence back and looked like a player again. Each to their own, but for me, given how far he'd fallen and that we were a huge reason why he was suddenly valued and in demand again, the haste with which he asked for loads more money seemed indecent and bitterly disappointing. Akinbiyi had become a joke through being high profile, and missing a lot of chances in front of the MotD cameras, but you could just as easily argue that Stein was a forgotten man with a career heading nowhere. Either way, you could say that Stoke rescued both of them. The only real difference for me was that Akinbiyi was perhaps more aggressive in his dealings with the club, whereas Stein appeared more low-key, with admittedly more reason to be unhappy with his contract. In principle though, I don't see a lot of difference with their respective situations. They both agreed to lesser contracts when their stock was low and asked for more money when this was no longer the case.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Sept 18, 2014 14:53:27 GMT
John Rudge was Peter Coates' eyes and ears while the Icelandics were keeping the board room warm for him after Tony was sacked.
He was rewarded with a contract that allowed him to do fuck all after Coates retook control.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 18, 2014 15:03:53 GMT
I think the Akinbiyi thing needs putting into context. He had become a national laughing stock after he failed at Leicester. He was talked about in the media the way we talk about Pericard on here, as an utter joke. Palace £1.6m for him in the Championship and he was again simply dreadful - they hated him there. He was at his absolute lowest ebb, nobody else would touch him, and TP, who'd had him before at Gillingham, rolled the dice on him and he got his confidence back and looked like a player again. Each to their own, but for me, given how far he'd fallen and that we were a huge reason why he was suddenly valued and in demand again, the haste with which he asked for loads more money seemed indecent and bitterly disappointing. Akinbiyi had become a joke through being high profile, and missing a lot of chances in front of the MotD cameras, but you could just as easily argue that Stein was a forgotten man with a career heading nowhere. Either way, you could say that Stoke rescued both of them. The only real difference for me was that Akinbiyi was perhaps more aggressive in his dealings with the club, whereas Stein appeared more low-key, with admittedly more reason to be unhappy with his contract. In principle though, I don't see a lot of difference with their respective situations. They both agreed to lesser contracts when their stock was low and asked for more money when this was no longer the case. The Akinbiyi situation had no similarity to Stein at all. Steino was one of the hottest properties in the game, left for CHELSEA, featured as a winner and a loser in 2 FA cup finals and for a spell was the best striker in the country holding a premier league record for a number of years in the process. Akinbiyi was a joke figure who did well on loan then next to nothing as a permanent signing before getting a move to BURNLEY for marginally more money when they were equally as shit as us. Pulis was furious with Akinbiyi and they didn't speak for a few years afterwards as a result. I think that says a lot about the so-called legitimacy of Akinbiyi's gripes. Akinbiyi is a c**t.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 18, 2014 15:31:28 GMT
I think the Akinbiyi thing needs putting into context. He had become a national laughing stock after he failed at Leicester. He was talked about in the media the way we talk about Pericard on here, as an utter joke. Palace £1.6m for him in the Championship and he was again simply dreadful - they hated him there. He was at his absolute lowest ebb, nobody else would touch him, and TP, who'd had him before at Gillingham, rolled the dice on him and he got his confidence back and looked like a player again. Each to their own, but for me, given how far he'd fallen and that we were a huge reason why he was suddenly valued and in demand again, the haste with which he asked for loads more money seemed indecent and bitterly disappointing. Akinbiyi had become a joke through being high profile, and missing a lot of chances in front of the MotD cameras, but you could just as easily argue that Stein was a forgotten man with a career heading nowhere. Either way, you could say that Stoke rescued both of them. The only real difference for me was that Akinbiyi was perhaps more aggressive in his dealings with the club, whereas Stein appeared more low-key, with admittedly more reason to be unhappy with his contract. In principle though, I don't see a lot of difference with their respective situations. They both agreed to lesser contracts when their stock was low and asked for more money when this was no longer the case. The reason why his stock was lower isn't relevant I don't think. By Akinbiyi's time football was much more the media-crazed, hyped-up beast it is today and the stick he took was fearful. To me it was ungrateful for him to act the way he did so soon after we'd helped rebuild him. The difference is that Stein was wanted by a pretty big club and in his time here had already scored a Wembley winner and fired us to promotion. He was always going to move on to bigger and better things. Akinbiyi wanted to go to literally the first club that showed an interest if we weren't prepared to suddenly offer him a stack more money after we'd thrown him a lifeline.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 18, 2014 15:40:39 GMT
Akinbiyi had become a joke through being high profile, and missing a lot of chances in front of the MotD cameras, but you could just as easily argue that Stein was a forgotten man with a career heading nowhere. Either way, you could say that Stoke rescued both of them. The only real difference for me was that Akinbiyi was perhaps more aggressive in his dealings with the club, whereas Stein appeared more low-key, with admittedly more reason to be unhappy with his contract. In principle though, I don't see a lot of difference with their respective situations. They both agreed to lesser contracts when their stock was low and asked for more money when this was no longer the case. The reason why his stock was lower isn't relevant I don't think. By Akinbiyi's time football was much more the media-crazed, hyped-up beast it is today and the stick he took was fearful. To me it was ungrateful for him to act the way he did so soon after we'd helped rebuild him. The difference is that Stein was wanted by a pretty big club and in his time here had already scored a Wembley winner and fired us to promotion. He was always going to move on to bigger and better things. Akinbiyi wanted to go to literally the first club that showed an interest if we weren't prepared to suddenly offer him a stack more money after we'd thrown him a lifeline. It's also worth pointing out that there probably weren't many - if any - better paid players at Stoke at the time than Ade Akinbiyi. Mark Stein was on less money than Graham Harbey.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 18, 2014 16:20:21 GMT
The reason why his stock was lower isn't relevant I don't think. By Akinbiyi's time football was much more the media-crazed, hyped-up beast it is today and the stick he took was fearful. To me it was ungrateful for him to act the way he did so soon after we'd helped rebuild him. The difference is that Stein was wanted by a pretty big club and in his time here had already scored a Wembley winner and fired us to promotion. He was always going to move on to bigger and better things. Akinbiyi wanted to go to literally the first club that showed an interest if we weren't prepared to suddenly offer him a stack more money after we'd thrown him a lifeline. It's also worth pointing out that there probably weren't many - if any - better paid players at Stoke at the time than Ade Akinbiyi. Mark Stein was on less money than Graham Harbey. A very, very good point well made.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 18, 2014 16:29:11 GMT
Ade was a wanker, the Icelanders were neglectful cretins. Have we learned anything new today?
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 18, 2014 17:07:23 GMT
The reason why his stock was lower isn't relevant I don't think. By Akinbiyi's time football was much more the media-crazed, hyped-up beast it is today and the stick he took was fearful. To me it was ungrateful for him to act the way he did so soon after we'd helped rebuild him. The difference is that Stein was wanted by a pretty big club and in his time here had already scored a Wembley winner and fired us to promotion. He was always going to move on to bigger and better things. Akinbiyi wanted to go to literally the first club that showed an interest if we weren't prepared to suddenly offer him a stack more money after we'd thrown him a lifeline. It's also worth pointing out that there probably weren't many - if any - better paid players at Stoke at the time than Ade Akinbiyi. Mark Stein was on less money than Graham Harbey. I had no idea that was true re Steino Dave. Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 17:10:12 GMT
It's also worth pointing out that there probably weren't many - if any - better paid players at Stoke at the time than Ade Akinbiyi. Mark Stein was on less money than Graham Harbey. A very, very good point well made. Which indicates that at least one person in a position of power at Stoke didn't believe Akinbiyi was such a joke, and also demonstrates how low Steino's stock was when we bought him. This isn't about the respective players and what they achieved for us. Maybe Akinbiyi is a c**t, and Stein is rightly worshipped by Stokies. My point was simply about the principle of two players who signed for us when they were at a low ebb, then wanted a pay-rise when they obviously achieved more than they were expected to. The degree to which they achieved that isn't relevant. And for what it's worth, I thought Akinbiyi did well for us, but was given the rough hand dealt to most Pulis strikers. He also left Burnley for a fee about three times what they paid to us, so presumably there was a decent player in there. Stein is probably my all time favourite player, and yes, the amount he was paid by us was shocking. Personally, I'd have paid him whatever we could have afforded to keep him. If we'd done so, he'd have probably had a more satisfying career, and we'd have reached the promised land over a decade earlier than we did.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 18, 2014 17:10:48 GMT
Ade was a wanker, the Icelanders were neglectful cretins. Have we learned anything new today? Maybe tomorrow we can learn where we would have ended up if the 'neglectful cretins' hadn't stepped in when PC was potless?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 17:14:39 GMT
Ade was a wanker, the Icelanders were neglectful cretins. Have we learned anything new today? Maybe tomorrow we can learn where we would have ended up if the 'neglectful cretins' hadn't stepped in when PC was potless? Down down deeper and down...
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 18, 2014 17:14:50 GMT
The reason why his stock was lower isn't relevant I don't think. By Akinbiyi's time football was much more the media-crazed, hyped-up beast it is today and the stick he took was fearful. To me it was ungrateful for him to act the way he did so soon after we'd helped rebuild him. The difference is that Stein was wanted by a pretty big club and in his time here had already scored a Wembley winner and fired us to promotion. He was always going to move on to bigger and better things. Akinbiyi wanted to go to literally the first club that showed an interest if we weren't prepared to suddenly offer him a stack more money after we'd thrown him a lifeline. It's also worth pointing out that there probably weren't many - if any - better paid players at Stoke at the time than Ade Akinbiyi. Mark Stein was on less money than Graham Harbey. Stoke did not pay all Ade's wages. Nick Hancock paid part of his salary as Stoke could not afford his wage
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 18, 2014 17:17:41 GMT
Ade was a wanker, the Icelanders were neglectful cretins. Have we learned anything new today? Maybe tomorrow we can learn where we would have ended up if the 'neglectful cretins' hadn't stepped in when PC was potless? They bought a lottery ticket and when they realised it didn't guarantee the jackpot they took their bat and ball home and ended up treating the club in an horrendous fashion, particularly that mental fucker Magnus.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 18, 2014 17:21:05 GMT
It's also worth pointing out that there probably weren't many - if any - better paid players at Stoke at the time than Ade Akinbiyi. Mark Stein was on less money than Graham Harbey. Stoke did not pay all Ade's wages. Nick Hancock paid part of his salary as Stoke could not afford his wage Multi millionaire turnip magnate, Magnus Kristinsson couldn't afford to pay players wages or didn't want to pay players wages?
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 18, 2014 17:24:44 GMT
Maybe tomorrow we can learn where we would have ended up if the 'neglectful cretins' hadn't stepped in when PC was potless? They bought a lottery ticket and when they realised it didn't guarantee the jackpot they took their bat and ball home and ended up treating the club in an horrendous fashion, particularly that mental fucker Magnus. The biggest fuck up they made was allowing PC and Humpty the infamous golden shares, neither were prepared to invest any money to match what the Icelanders were prepared to put in is the way I remember it. There was also the ITV fiasco iirc. In the end they did lose faith, so would I if I owned a business where my partners wouldn't invest but still wanted to reap the rewards, if it wasn't Stoke anyhow. Regardless of that, back to the point had the 'neglectful cretins' not stepped in where do you think we'd have ended up?
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Sept 18, 2014 17:28:45 GMT
Maybe tomorrow we can learn where we would have ended up if the 'neglectful cretins' hadn't stepped in when PC was potless? Down down deeper and down... I'm not sure we would, as Megson was doing a cracking job and I felt optimistic that we would have won promotion that season. I seem to remember he was sacked following a 10 game unbeaten run. Uncle Peter started to rake in the £Ms almost as soon as he sold the club in late 1999 and within a few months he was starting to get frustrated as Bet365 was underway. By 2001, Bet365 was really starting to build momentum. An alternative view is that Megson would have won promotion that season or the next and as the money flow started from Uncle Peter we would have won promotion to the Prem under Megson a couple of years before we did so under TP. Let's not forget that after leaving us, Megson took WBA from relegation candidates to promotion to the Prem within a couple of years. I've never subscribed to the accepted view that the Icelanders 'saved' us, in fact I feel that you can sensibly argue that they hindered our progress. Had they given the money to Megson that they gave to Gudjon then surely we would have gone up straight away.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 18, 2014 17:35:52 GMT
Down down deeper and down... I'm not sure we would, as Megson was doing a cracking job and I felt optimistic that we would have won promotion that season. I seem to remember he was sacked following a 10 game unbeaten run. Uncle Peter started to rake in the £Ms almost as soon as he sold the club in late 1999 and within a few months he was starting to get frustrated as Bet365 was underway. By 2001, Bet365 was really starting to build momentum. An alternative view is that Megson would have won promotion that season or the next and as the money flow started from Uncle Peter we would have won promotion to the Prem under Megson a couple of years before we did so under TP. Let's not forget that after leaving us, Megson took WBA from relegation candidates to promotion to the Prem within a couple of years. I've never subscribed to the accepted view that the Icelanders 'saved' us, in fact I feel that you can sensibly argue that they hindered our progress. Had they given the money to Megson that they gave to Gudjon then surely we would have gone up straight away. You do remember how Coates MK1 was regarded by the fans at that time? Just checking. Edit - And you think they were going to divert the funds from growing their business into a failing football team? Really?
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Sept 18, 2014 17:39:28 GMT
Down down deeper and down... I'm not sure we would, as Megson was doing a cracking job and I felt optimistic that we would have won promotion that season. I seem to remember he was sacked following a 10 game unbeaten run. Uncle Peter started to rake in the £Ms almost as soon as he sold the club in late 1999 and within a few months he was starting to get frustrated as Bet365 was underway. By 2001, Bet365 was really starting to build momentum. An alternative view is that Megson would have won promotion that season or the next and as the money flow started from Uncle Peter we would have won promotion to the Prem under Megson a couple of years before we did so under TP. Let's not forget that after leaving us, Megson took WBA from relegation candidates to promotion to the Prem within a couple of years. I've never subscribed to the accepted view that the Icelanders 'saved' us, in fact I feel that you can sensibly argue that they hindered our progress. Had they given the money to Megson that they gave to Gudjon then surely we would have gone up straight away. In 1999 Icelanders took over a. decent third tier team. In 2006 they left a decent 2nd tier team. In the absence of Abramovic type money that is reasonable progress.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 18, 2014 17:42:24 GMT
They bought a lottery ticket and when they realised it didn't guarantee the jackpot they took their bat and ball home and ended up treating the club in an horrendous fashion, particularly that mental fucker Magnus. The biggest fuck up they made was allowing PC and Humpty the infamous golden shares, neither were prepared to invest any money to match what the Icelanders were prepared to put in is the way I remember it. There was also the ITV fiasco iirc. In the end they did lose faith, so would I if I owned a business where my partners wouldn't invest but still wanted to reap the rewards, if it wasn't Stoke anyhow. Regardless of that, back to the point had the 'neglectful cretins' not stepped in where do you think we'd have ended up? Impossible to say but with Coates's lottery ticket about to come in and Rawlins on the scene I don't think it would have been the oblivion that many like to paint.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 18, 2014 17:45:31 GMT
I never liked Ade, it had nothing to do with any contract wrangles and everything to do with being a wank footballer.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Sept 18, 2014 17:51:01 GMT
I'm not sure we would, as Megson was doing a cracking job and I felt optimistic that we would have won promotion that season. I seem to remember he was sacked following a 10 game unbeaten run. Uncle Peter started to rake in the £Ms almost as soon as he sold the club in late 1999 and within a few months he was starting to get frustrated as Bet365 was underway. By 2001, Bet365 was really starting to build momentum. An alternative view is that Megson would have won promotion that season or the next and as the money flow started from Uncle Peter we would have won promotion to the Prem under Megson a couple of years before we did so under TP. Let's not forget that after leaving us, Megson took WBA from relegation candidates to promotion to the Prem within a couple of years. I've never subscribed to the accepted view that the Icelanders 'saved' us, in fact I feel that you can sensibly argue that they hindered our progress. Had they given the money to Megson that they gave to Gudjon then surely we would have gone up straight away. In 1999 Icelanders took over a. decent third tier team. In 2006 they left a decent 2nd tier team. In the absence of Abramovic type money that is reasonable progress. True, but had Uncle Peter not sold the club or if the Icelanders had kept Megson as manager, it is a reasonable argument to suggest that by 2006 we would have been even better off. The club was not about to go bankrupt when Uncle Peter sold it. Another alternative possibility is that had Uncle Peter soldiered on, he might not have taken the risks with his main businesses and Bet365 would not have been born. It is all conjecture!!
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 18, 2014 17:55:04 GMT
The biggest fuck up they made was allowing PC and Humpty the infamous golden shares, neither were prepared to invest any money to match what the Icelanders were prepared to put in is the way I remember it. There was also the ITV fiasco iirc. In the end they did lose faith, so would I if I owned a business where my partners wouldn't invest but still wanted to reap the rewards, if it wasn't Stoke anyhow. Regardless of that, back to the point :) had the 'neglectful cretins' not stepped in where do you think we'd have ended up? Impossible to say but with Coates's lottery ticket about to come in and Rawlins on the scene I don't think it would have been the oblivion that many like to paint. So you also think Bet365 would've started pumping money in before or as soon as they became profitable?
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 18, 2014 18:00:11 GMT
In 1999 Icelanders took over a. decent third tier team. In 2006 they left a decent 2nd tier team. In the absence of Abramovic type money that is reasonable progress. True, but had Uncle Peter not sold the club or if the Icelanders had kept Megson as manager, it is a reasonable argument to suggest that by 2006 we would have been even better off. The club was not about to go bankrupt when Uncle Peter sold it. Another alternative possibility is that had Uncle Peter soldiered on, he might not have taken the risks with his main businesses and Bet365 would not have been born. It is all conjecture!! I don't think Uncle Peter soldiering on was much of an option at the time, I gather he was dubious about his welcome when he re-bought, fuck knows how bad things would've got between the fans and him at that particular time. I don't remember ANYONE at the time complaining about the Icelandics buying the club at the time, as far as the people I spoke to were concerned they were our only hope *at the time*. To call them neglectful cretins is a bit fucking disrespectful regardless of how things turned out, which as pointed out above, wasn't all that bad anyway.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Sept 18, 2014 18:24:01 GMT
Impossible to say but with Coates's lottery ticket about to come in and Rawlins on the scene I don't think it would have been the oblivion that many like to paint. So you also think Bet365 would've started pumping money in before or as soon as they became profitable? That is a good question, but Uncle Peter was still making a good profit from his other businesses and Bet365 added to that. He then sold those other businesses to pay off the loans that were needed to support Bet365. One thing is certain, he was getting frustrated very quickly after selling the club. Within 18moths of the sale, the online part of Bet365 was born and that is when the money really began to flow. And lets not forget, that the Icelanders inadvertently halted a promising improvement under Megson. The club was not about to go bankrupt (that is a myth), however at the time of the sale Uncle Peter could not afford the sort of investment needed to drive the club forwards. As I said earlier, it could well have been that had Uncle Peter remained in charge at SCFC he could have been distracted in helping Denise launch Bet365 and the company might not have thrived. I also feel that a large part of Uncle Peter's passion to support the club on his return was born out of his sheer determination to show those who had previously jeered him that he was a decent bloke and a true supporter of the club.
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 18, 2014 18:35:28 GMT
So you also think Bet365 would've started pumping money in before or as soon as they became profitable? That is a good question, but Uncle Peter was still making a good profit from his other businesses and Bet365 added to that. He then sold those other businesses to pay off the loans that were needed to support Bet365. One thing is certain, he was getting frustrated very quickly after selling the club. Within 18moths of the sale, the online part of Bet365 was born and that is when the money really began to flow. And lets not forget, that the Icelanders inadvertently halted a promising improvement under Megson. The club was not about to go bankrupt (that is a myth), however at the time of the sale Uncle Peter could not afford the sort of investment needed to drive the club forwards. As I said earlier, it could well have been that had Uncle Peter remained in charge at SCFC he could have been distracted in helping Denise launch Bet365 and the company might not have thrived. I also feel that a large part of Uncle Peter's passion to support the club on his return was born out of his sheer determination to show those who had previously jeered him that he was a decent bloke and a true supporter of the club. We must thank Phil Rawlins for selling his shares at a low price to Peter so he could establish a controlling stake so he could force the Icelandic's to sell their shares to him.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 18, 2014 18:37:37 GMT
So you also think Bet365 would've started pumping money in before or as soon as they became profitable? That is a good question, but Uncle Peter was still making a good profit from his other businesses and Bet365 added to that. He then sold those other businesses to pay off the loans that were needed to support Bet365. One thing is certain, he was getting frustrated very quickly after selling the club. Within 18moths of the sale, the online part of Bet365 was born and that is when the money really began to flow. And lets not forget, that the Icelanders inadvertently halted a promising improvement under Megson. The club was not about to go bankrupt (that is a myth), however at the time of the sale Uncle Peter could not afford the sort of investment needed to drive the club forwards. As I said earlier, it could well have been that had Uncle Peter remained in charge at SCFC he could have been distracted in helping Denise launch Bet365 and the company might not have thrived. I also feel that a large part of Uncle Peter's passion to support the club on his return was born out of his sheer determination to show those who had previously jeered him that he was a decent bloke and a true supporter of the club. BET365 didn't even exist back then did it? He owned Stadia?? Catering and his betting company was the very localised Provincial racing.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 18, 2014 18:38:58 GMT
A very, very good point well made. Which indicates that at least one person in a position of power at Stoke didn't believe Akinbiyi was such a joke, and also demonstrates how low Steino's stock was when we bought him. This isn't about the respective players and what they achieved for us. Maybe Akinbiyi is a c**t, and Stein is rightly worshipped by Stokies. My point was simply about the principle of two players who signed for us when they were at a low ebb, then wanted a pay-rise when they obviously achieved more than they were expected to. The degree to which they achieved that isn't relevant. And for what it's worth, I thought Akinbiyi did well for us, but was given the rough hand dealt to most Pulis strikers. He also left Burnley for a fee about three times what they paid to us, so presumably there was a decent player in there. Stein is probably my all time favourite player, and yes, the amount he was paid by us was shocking. Personally, I'd have paid him whatever we could have afforded to keep him. If we'd done so, he'd have probably had a more satisfying career, and we'd have reached the promised land over a decade earlier than we did. Players had a lot more power by Ade's time though, even in the Championship. I still maintain Ade had fallen further. His confidence was absolutely in the gutter and he'd taken high-profile pelters. Stein was the equivalent of a Lawrence or Rory, a player who'd lost his way but hadn't gone through anything like the high-profile opprobrium Akinbiyi did. I also think Steino would probably have done the business anywhere and it was extremely savvy of Lou to snap him up, whereas I don't think Ade would - he needed someone to build him up again and Pulis was the man to do that - not sure many others would have been able to turn him round. And Ade's gratitude was that was to come back with a begging bowl sharpish.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 18, 2014 18:40:07 GMT
So you also think Bet365 would've started pumping money in before or as soon as they became profitable? That is a good question, but Uncle Peter was still making a good profit from his other businesses and Bet365 added to that. He then sold those other businesses to pay off the loans that were needed to support Bet365. One thing is certain, he was getting frustrated very quickly after selling the club. Within 18moths of the sale, the online part of Bet365 was born and that is when the money really began to flow. And lets not forget, that the Icelanders inadvertently halted a promising improvement under Megson. The club was not about to go bankrupt (that is a myth), however at the time of the sale Uncle Peter could not afford the sort of investment needed to drive the club forwards. As I said earlier, it could well have been that had Uncle Peter remained in charge at SCFC he could have been distracted in helping Denise launch Bet365 and the company might not have thrived. I also feel that a large part of Uncle Peter's passion to support the club on his return was born out of his sheer determination to show those who had previously jeered him that he was a decent bloke and a true supporter of the club. Myth or not, the club was only heading in one direction - we weren't even prepared to pay transfer fees or signing on fees at the time were we?
|
|