|
|
Post by deliasmith on Dec 16, 2014 1:36:03 GMT
It hasn't been much commented on, but there's been a big change in the kind of manager, or the kind of management, in many, I'd say most, of the clubs in the Premier League. Managing money - transfer fees and, particularly, wages - is now the most important job. Retain and transfer actions are not being decided primarily on footballing criteria.
It was clear in August that Mark Hughes, for instance, was given a very rigid cash limit to work to. Tony Pulis was shown the door at our club because of his failure to keep control over expenditure: the owner and his daughter said quite openly before he left that there had to be a radical change in the costs of the football business. And the same thing happened to him at Palace - the owner insisted on moderation in transfer and wage expenditure and TP wouldn't agree. The guy responsible for spending Leicester's money got the sack yesterday. West Brom's last few managerial appointments have been of coach types not dealers. Southampton, Swansea, Newcastle, Aston Villa ... when it comes to signing players, agreeing fees and terms, the manager is somewhere between being part of a decision-making team and just the head coach who can advise but not decide, or even vote, on who's in - or out.
The deal for Crouch and Palacios was the last straw for the Coates family. The pair of them together - amortised transfer fees, signing-on money and wages - take ALL our matchday income. There will be no more such deals for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by slother on Dec 16, 2014 1:53:22 GMT
Yeahhh, staying in the uber-lucrative Premier League for as little outlay as possible while watching exciting football. What a stupid strategy that is. And I'd wager you know more about how to clean shit out of a carseat than you do about the Coates family's attitude to anything, you miserable spoiled spunk-bubble you.
You're right that wasting the chairman's cash has always been the most heinous sin a manager can commit. That's why Pardew has hung on as long as he has, and why Brendan Rodgers isn't getting enough sleep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 5:05:27 GMT
I'm not being funny, but why are you stating the blindingly obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 16, 2014 7:49:40 GMT
It hasn't been much commented on, but there's been a big change in the kind of manager, or the kind of management, in many, I'd say most, of the clubs in the Premier League. Managing money - transfer fees and, particularly, wages - is now the most important job. Retain and transfer actions are not being decided primarily on footballing criteria. It was clear in August that Mark Hughes, for instance, was given a very rigid cash limit to work to. Tony Pulis was shown the door at our club because of his failure to keep control over expenditure: the owner and his daughter said quite openly before he left that there had to be a radical change in the costs of the football business. And the same thing happened to him at Palace - the owner insisted on moderation in transfer and wage expenditure and TP wouldn't agree. The guy responsible for spending Leicester's money got the sack yesterday. West Brom's last few managerial appointments have been of coach types not dealers. Southampton, Swansea, Newcastle, Aston Villa ... when it comes to signing players, agreeing fees and terms, the manager is somewhere between being part of a decision-making team and just the head coach who can advise but not decide, or even vote, on who's in - or out. The deal for Crouch and Palacios was the last straw for the Coates family. The pair of them together - amortised transfer fees, signing-on money and wages - take ALL our matchday income. There will be no more such deals for us. I don't see what is particularly surprising about the Owners/Board of Directors saying to a manger that the aim of their club is to be run on a "break even" basis, rather than losing money hand over fist, year on year. OK, there are some owners to whom the losses on running a football club are hardly noticeable but there are many more who refuse to issue blank cheques to their manager. And why wouldn't they feel that way? In Stoke's case Bet 365 could easily cope with losses but Peter Coates is also a fan and he knows that he won't be here for ever and, as a fan, he'll want to leave the club on a solid financial footing. Examples of clubs which have not been run in that way abound. When Leeds fell foul of football's financial regulations (and they were much less strict then than they are now) how many people would have expected that they would still be trying to claw their way back into the Premier League years later? Portsmouth is a more recent case of a club whose failure to keep expenditure under control led to a dramatic fall from grace from which they only just survived. QPR may be next in the hall of shame. Since the Leeds and Porstmouth debacles, the authorities, both in England and Europe have tightened their financial regulations - maybe not as much as some people wanted - but now even mega rich clubs like Man City and PSG are having to take account of the rules and run the playing side of their clubs on a more sustainable model. Stoke have in the main been well run since the second coming of Peter Coates, but he and his family will have felt they were looking into an abyss when they looked at the losses TP's recruitment policies had racked up in his last two years - and I'm speaking as a fully paid up rimmer who backed him all the way until he seemed to lose his way (in terms of building for a sustainable future) after the Cup Final season. It couldn't go on - Hughes is still suffering from the resulting restrictions, but he is intelligent enough to realise what has to be done. One benefit of the new financial regime, is that we might finally start to produce players with decent resale value in sufficient numbers that we can afford to sell some of them at a profit without decimating the team. One of the things that has pissed me off over the years is the sheer number of squad players who we have kept long past their "best before" date because they are worthless to any other club at the wages we pay them. If Palacios was the only such example I could chuckle but there are too many players clogging up the wage bill because we can't get rid of them. I bet the board have a party each June when some of our deadwood reaches the end of its contract. |
|
|
|
Post by skip on Dec 16, 2014 8:40:15 GMT
I've never understood - as in really don't understand - how those contracts were sanctioned. I wouldn't last five minutes in my job if I employed people on top whack who I can't get rid of or utilise better.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Dec 16, 2014 9:14:02 GMT
I've never understood - as in really don't understand - how those contracts were sanctioned. I wouldn't last five minutes in my job if I employed people on top whack who I can't get rid of or utilise better. They were sanctioned because the chairman wanted to support the manager and Tone's stock was very high having just got us to our first FA Cup Final. However, when Coates said he never approved of the finance in the deal it was clear change was afoot. |
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Dec 16, 2014 9:24:08 GMT
It hasn't been much commented on, but there's been a big change in the kind of manager, or the kind of management, in many, I'd say most, of the clubs in the Premier League. Managing money - transfer fees and, particularly, wages - is now the most important job. Retain and transfer actions are not being decided primarily on footballing criteria. It was clear in August that Mark Hughes, for instance, was given a very rigid cash limit to work to. Tony Pulis was shown the door at our club because of his failure to keep control over expenditure: the owner and his daughter said quite openly before he left that there had to be a radical change in the costs of the football business. And the same thing happened to him at Palace - the owner insisted on moderation in transfer and wage expenditure and TP wouldn't agree. The guy responsible for spending Leicester's money got the sack yesterday. West Brom's last few managerial appointments have been of coach types not dealers. Southampton, Swansea, Newcastle, Aston Villa ... when it comes to signing players, agreeing fees and terms, the manager is somewhere between being part of a decision-making team and just the head coach who can advise but not decide, or even vote, on who's in - or out. The deal for Crouch and Palacios was the last straw for the Coates family. The pair of them together - amortised transfer fees, signing-on money and wages - take ALL our matchday income. There will be no more such deals for us. I don't see what is particularly surprising about the Owners/Board of Directors saying to a manger that the aim of their club is to be run on a "break even" basis, rather than losing money hand over fist, year on year. OK, there are some owners to whom the losses on running a football club are hardly noticeable but there are many more who refuse to issue blank cheques to their manager. And why wouldn't they feel that way? In Stoke's case Bet 365 could easily cope with losses but Peter Coates is also a fan and he knows that he won't be here for ever and, as a fan, he'll want to leave the club on a solid financial footing. Examples of clubs which have not been run in that way abound. When Leeds fell foul of football's financial regulations (and they were much less strict then than they are now) how many people would have expected that they would still be trying to claw their way back into the Premier League years later? Portsmouth is a more recent case of a club whose failure to keep expenditure under control led to a dramatic fall from grace from which they only just survived. QPR may be next in the hall of shame. Since the Leeds and Porstmouth debacles, the authorities, both in England and Europe have tightened their financial regulations - maybe not as much as some people wanted - but now even mega rich clubs like Man City and PSG are having to take account of the rules and run the playing side of their clubs on a more sustainable model. Stoke have in the main been well run since the second coming of Peter Coates, but he and his family will have felt they were looking into an abyss when they looked at the losses TP's recruitment policies had racked up in his last two years - and I'm speaking as a fully paid up rimmer who backed him all the way until he seemed to lose his way (in terms of building for a sustainable future) after the Cup Final season. It couldn't go on - Hughes is still suffering from the resulting restrictions, but he is intelligent enough to realise what has to be done. One benefit of the new financial regime, is that we might finally start to produce players with decent resale value in sufficient numbers that we can afford to sell some of them at a profit without decimating the team. One of the things that has pissed me off over the years is the sheer number of squad players who we have kept long past their "best before" date because they are worthless to any other club at the wages we pay them. If Palacios was the only such example I could chuckle but there are too many players clogging up the wage bill because we can't get rid of them. I bet the board have a party each June when some of our deadwood reaches the end of its contract. Tony was never about a sustainable future - it was always front of house. The stuff he spouted about due diligence on players and looking after the family's money was also dubious - I don't think he would have bought Palacios had this been the case. He definitely wouldn't have extended Tonge's contract had that been the case. And as for employing his own son when money was really tight... |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Dec 16, 2014 9:28:59 GMT
I don't see what is particularly surprising about the Owners/Board of Directors saying to a manger that the aim of their club is to be run on a "break even" basis, rather than losing money hand over fist, year on year. OK, there are some owners to whom the losses on running a football club are hardly noticeable but there are many more who refuse to issue blank cheques to their manager. And why wouldn't they feel that way? In Stoke's case Bet 365 could easily cope with losses but Peter Coates is also a fan and he knows that he won't be here for ever and, as a fan, he'll want to leave the club on a solid financial footing. Examples of clubs which have not been run in that way abound. When Leeds fell foul of football's financial regulations (and they were much less strict then than they are now) how many people would have expected that they would still be trying to claw their way back into the Premier League years later? Portsmouth is a more recent case of a club whose failure to keep expenditure under control led to a dramatic fall from grace from which they only just survived. QPR may be next in the hall of shame. Since the Leeds and Porstmouth debacles, the authorities, both in England and Europe have tightened their financial regulations - maybe not as much as some people wanted - but now even mega rich clubs like Man City and PSG are having to take account of the rules and run the playing side of their clubs on a more sustainable model. Stoke have in the main been well run since the second coming of Peter Coates, but he and his family will have felt they were looking into an abyss when they looked at the losses TP's recruitment policies had racked up in his last two years - and I'm speaking as a fully paid up rimmer who backed him all the way until he seemed to lose his way (in terms of building for a sustainable future) after the Cup Final season. It couldn't go on - Hughes is still suffering from the resulting restrictions, but he is intelligent enough to realise what has to be done. One benefit of the new financial regime, is that we might finally start to produce players with decent resale value in sufficient numbers that we can afford to sell some of them at a profit without decimating the team. One of the things that has pissed me off over the years is the sheer number of squad players who we have kept long past their "best before" date because they are worthless to any other club at the wages we pay them. If Palacios was the only such example I could chuckle but there are too many players clogging up the wage bill because we can't get rid of them. I bet the board have a party each June when some of our deadwood reaches the end of its contract. Tony was never about a sustainable future - it was always front of house. The stuff he spouted about due diligence on players and looking after the family's money was also dubious - I don't think he would have bought Palacios had this been the case. He definitely wouldn't have extended Tonge's contract had that been the case. And as for employing his own son when money was really tight... I wonder if Palacios was a makeweight in the Crouch deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Dec 16, 2014 9:33:51 GMT
I've never understood - as in really don't understand - how those contracts were sanctioned. I wouldn't last five minutes in my job if I employed people on top whack who I can't get rid of or utilise better. They were sanctioned because the chairman wanted to support the manager and Tone's stock was very high having just got us to our first FA Cup Final. However, when Coates said he never approved of the finance in the deal it was clear change was afoot.
Support or indulge? It's a fine line.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Dec 16, 2014 9:40:31 GMT
They were sanctioned because the chairman wanted to support the manager and Tone's stock was very high having just got us to our first FA Cup Final. However, when Coates said he never approved of the finance in the deal it was clear change was afoot.
Support or indulge? It's a fine line.
Both I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Dec 16, 2014 9:56:16 GMT
Tony was never about a sustainable future - it was always front of house. The stuff he spouted about due diligence on players and looking after the family's money was also dubious - I don't think he would have bought Palacios had this been the case. He definitely wouldn't have extended Tonge's contract had that been the case. And as for employing his own son when money was really tight... I wonder if Palacios was a makeweight in the Crouch deal. Expensive makeweight as it turned out. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Dec 16, 2014 10:01:41 GMT
Tony was never about a sustainable future - it was always front of house. The stuff he spouted about due diligence on players and looking after the family's money was also dubious - I don't think he would have bought Palacios had this been the case. He definitely wouldn't have extended Tonge's contract had that been the case. And as for employing his own son when money was really tight... I wonder if Palacios was a makeweight in the Crouch deal. Not a very balanced scale if so, he probably weighs double what Crouch does. |
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Dec 16, 2014 10:03:56 GMT
I will always defend Tony Pulis's transfers.
He got Stoke City into the Prem with a collection of loan players and a distinctly Championship squad.
We all heard the phrase "going to do a Derby" and it must have been almost impossible to attract the right kind of player for the right kind of money.
2 of the biggest disappointments were 2 of the signings I thought would be brilliant for us - Kitson and Palacios. You take a risk with every signing. Some people go on about the money, but Delap, Lawrence, Fuller, Whelan, Shawcross, Faye, Sorenson, Huth, Begovic, Beattie, Etheington, Pennant, Walters, Wilson and N'Zonzi were all superb signings who became established Premier League players for not much money. That's not a bad record.
Even Whitehead, Jones and Crouch look to have been bought at the going rate.
Coates and Pulis invested in a Premier League squad which was initially way behind the 8 ball. That investment has led to 7 years Premier League revenues. From this point, things can be run a little differently.
I would also guess that the club have turned down offers for Shawcross, Begovic, Huth and maybe even N'Zonzi, so he could have got a return on some of those investments if he had chosen too.
The real test will be whether they cash in some chips as the clock winds down on some of the current contracts. Don't know if Ryan would go, but I would have thought they could still sell Bego for big money.
Our wage bill as a proportion of turnover looks a lot better with the new TV deal, but this will always be the biggest handicap for a club like Stoke.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Dec 16, 2014 10:07:36 GMT
I wonder if Palacios was a makeweight in the Crouch deal. Expensive makeweight as it turned out. Worst value for money in our history? |
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Dec 16, 2014 10:34:14 GMT
It hasn't been much commented on, but there's been a big change in the kind of manager, or the kind of management, in many, I'd say most, of the clubs in the Premier League. Managing money - transfer fees and, particularly, wages - is now the most important job. Retain and transfer actions are not being decided primarily on footballing criteria. It was clear in August that Mark Hughes, for instance, was given a very rigid cash limit to work to. Tony Pulis was shown the door at our club because of his failure to keep control over expenditure: the owner and his daughter said quite openly before he left that there had to be a radical change in the costs of the football business. And the same thing happened to him at Palace - the owner insisted on moderation in transfer and wage expenditure and TP wouldn't agree. The guy responsible for spending Leicester's money got the sack yesterday. West Brom's last few managerial appointments have been of coach types not dealers. Southampton, Swansea, Newcastle, Aston Villa ... when it comes to signing players, agreeing fees and terms, the manager is somewhere between being part of a decision-making team and just the head coach who can advise but not decide, or even vote, on who's in - or out. The deal for Crouch and Palacios was the last straw for the Coates family. The pair of them together - amortised transfer fees, signing-on money and wages - take ALL our matchday income. There will be no more such deals for us. I agree. But only if we can call them Planagers. Tone was a trail blazer. He was a Fouryearplanager. |
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Dec 16, 2014 10:37:25 GMT
I think that the board will if neccersary make money available for the right deal. They know Hughes has a reputation though for finding low priced quality, ie Kompany 6m which even in 2008 was a great price. It was Hughes who really set Man City on its way. Zaballetta for a buy out fee, was another. I think any quality players will be funded if their is a good sell on return available. Apart from Tuncay our buys didnt attract any demand and thats what made the board nervous IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Dec 16, 2014 11:30:35 GMT
I agree with the general theme of the opening post with a couple of exceptions.
Firstly I think it is a case of normal service being resumed rather than "big change". Football club owners have traditionally been tight with the purse strings and had to restrain managers from over expenditure. We can all think of examples. To quote one, Tommy Docherty wrote in his autobiography that when working for ManU, the richest club, he was prevented from buying Banks from Stoke because the Board/Matt Busby wouldn't authorise the expenditure on a goal keeper. There has been a "feeding frenzy" in the Premier League and resultant casualties, but now things are returning to normality, as owners generally realise that things were unsustainable for most clubs.
I don't subscribe to the view that MH is not permitted to spend significantly. I agree he is probably under tighter constraints than his predecessor but I do believe PC when he says money is available for the right player. I also feel that if Stoke sold a player for a large amount, then MH would be permitted to recycle the money back into the team, but he hasn't, thank goodness. IMO the lack of a big money signing is because the players that have come available have either chosen to go elsewhere, or have been ridiculously over priced, or, have been demanding too high terms. I don't think Stoke have missed out on anyone during last transfer window who met the criteria of a sensible transfer price and employment cost and have been a roaring success at another club. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do believe that if club officials negotiate a sensible deal and MH really wants the individual then the owners will back his judgement and provide the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 11:55:16 GMT
Not read every post on this topic, but I still maintain that we had to have Palacios to get Crouchy! Just read the above post about Gordon Banks being wanted by Manure! Greedy pigs. So glad they pulled the plug on that one. Like I say on many of my posts. Why should the big clubs have all the best players? I won't rest until it stops!
|
|
