|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Mar 3, 2015 17:12:00 GMT
No one said anything about not wanting him at all. I simply said one was not going to happen without the other. What TP thought of Palacios and what he thought he could extract from him that 'Arry couldn't I have no idea. So we're agreed that he wanted both then? It's the idea that Palacios was just collateral chaff in an £18m Crouch deal that I don't buy. There's a fair few players he'd managed to get a tune out of when it looked like they'd hit the skids, can only assume he thought he could do the same with Palacios. No you are putting words into my mouth. He wanted Crouch...desperately in a Bobby Zamora way. The other thing was a consequence.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Mar 3, 2015 17:16:23 GMT
So we're agreed that he wanted both then? It's the idea that Palacios was just collateral chaff in an £18m Crouch deal that I don't buy. There's a fair few players he'd managed to get a tune out of when it looked like they'd hit the skids, can only assume he thought he could do the same with Palacios. No you are putting words into my mouth. He wanted Crouch...desperately in a Bobby Zamora way. The other thing was a consequence. I'm confused here Mark. Do you think Tony Pulis wanted to sign Wilson Palacios, yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 3, 2015 17:21:48 GMT
So we're agreed that he wanted both then? It's the idea that Palacios was just collateral chaff in an £18m Crouch deal that I don't buy. There's a fair few players he'd managed to get a tune out of when it looked like they'd hit the skids, can only assume he thought he could do the same with Palacios. No you are putting words into my mouth. He wanted Crouch...desperately in a Bobby Zamora way. The other thing was a consequence. I was under the impression that the Palacios deal was all but sewn up weeks in advance, but that we used it as a bit of leverage to get Crouch. No Crouch, no Palacios deal. Redknapp wanted him to stay as a squad player, but Levy was keen to get Palacios off the books and sacrificed Crouch to do so. The idea of the Crouch deal supposedly didn't occur until partway through the Palacios negotiations. That is a very different narrative, though.
|
|
|
Post by KevinWhimper on Mar 3, 2015 17:24:19 GMT
Please tell me Palacios' contract is up this summer? Surely.
|
|
|
Post by retired1 on Mar 3, 2015 17:53:59 GMT
Yes he has been, look around at some of the shite other teams have bought for much more and got less on the field.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2015 18:41:38 GMT
In hindsight was he worth it? Yeah of course. Should Stoke try that kind of deal again? No.
|
|
|
Post by mywaydesolzan on Mar 3, 2015 19:04:21 GMT
Please tell me Palacios' contract is up this summer? Surely. Yes it is.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Mar 3, 2015 19:15:14 GMT
No sorry I'm not. I've seen all those players mentioned and more and for me Crouch does not even come close to being one of the best players I've ever seen in the Red and White. Andy Cooke does not even enter the debate he's not even one of the best players I've ever seen play for Market Drayton Town. Perhaps the fact that Andy Cooke was pushing 40 when he played for Drayton explains that a little. Back on topic Peter Crouch has been a very decent player for us who has represented us well both on and off the pitch. And he's not finished with us yet. Though I'm sure Drayton will take him when he is.
|
|
|
Post by hartzchoco on Mar 3, 2015 19:17:00 GMT
Please tell me Palacios' contract is up this summer? Surely. Yes it is. Thank Christ.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Mar 3, 2015 19:22:56 GMT
My wife says Crouchie's worth 10 million so who am I to argue - she's always right. She has loved Crouchie since he was at Liverpool. Not sure what that says about her taste in men.
|
|
|
Post by haway on Mar 3, 2015 22:37:32 GMT
As a neutral looking in, he's a very good buy - seems to be getting important goals a lot of the time
|
|
|
Post by bobthethrob on Mar 3, 2015 23:48:54 GMT
Of course he as worth ten million. This is one of them questions that is there to be knocked down for the ske of it
At stoke we are used to "stealing " players who shaped the season and the team- steino, Vincent overson, JOHNY Walters, and not least Shawcross. We paid peanuts for them and loads of others.
When we actually pay the going rate cos we've arrived as a BIG CLUB, it was a culture shock to some.
Compounded Evan more by stealing the boy Bojan in recent times
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Mar 4, 2015 9:00:01 GMT
He has played a big part in establishing us as a Premier League club, he's worked hard, raised our profiles and played well. Of course he's been worth it. What do people want?
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Mar 4, 2015 13:50:00 GMT
All this talk of Palacios is (IMO) irrelevant to the value we've had out of Crouch. Not for one second do I think Palacios was FORCED upon us since he looked exactly the player we needed at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but many on here (me included) though Palacios was a player who would massively improve our team at that time. I think Pulis thought so too, although I'm not privy to his personal opinions. So £7 million for him, at that time, was NOT an inflated fee. We all know it didn't work out as we'd hoped and that happens at all clubs with individuals but, let's be fair, had Palacios performed anywhere near his true capabilities whilst here, the £17 million for him and Crouch would have been bloody good business.
Crouch has been excellent value (even when he was getting blamed for other players' failings a while back).
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 4, 2015 15:11:04 GMT
John No you are putting words into my mouth. He wanted Crouch...desperately in a Bobby Zamora way. The other thing was a consequence. I was under the impression that the Palacios deal was all but sewn up weeks in advance, but that we used it as a bit of leverage to get Crouch. No Crouch, no Palacios deal. Redknapp wanted him to stay as a squad player, but Levy was keen to get Palacios off the books and sacrificed Crouch to do so. The idea of the Crouch deal supposedly didn't occur until partway through the Palacios negotiations. That is a very different narrative, though. That is almost exactly how it was but the threat to pull the deal, I was led to believe, came from spurs rather than us. Pulis wanted them both and having agreed a deal for Palacios weeks before, levy threatened to pull that deal if we didn't reach a deal on crouch. Tottenham wanted 12m and we wouldn't pay more than 8m for crouch. We met in the middle to get both deals through. Further delay in completing the deal came when crouch didn't want to come and it ended up going down to the wire.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 4, 2015 15:33:29 GMT
John I was under the impression that the Palacios deal was all but sewn up weeks in advance, but that we used it as a bit of leverage to get Crouch. No Crouch, no Palacios deal. Redknapp wanted him to stay as a squad player, but Levy was keen to get Palacios off the books and sacrificed Crouch to do so. The idea of the Crouch deal supposedly didn't occur until partway through the Palacios negotiations. That is a very different narrative, though. That is almost exactly how it was but the threat to pull the deal, I was led to believe, came from spurs rather than us. Pulis wanted them both and having agreed a deal for Palacios weeks before, levy threatened to pull that deal if we didn't reach a deal on crouch. Tottenham wanted 12m and we wouldn't pay more than 8m for crouch. We met in the middle to get both deals through. Further delay in completing the deal came when crouch didn't want to come and it ended up going down to the wire. Thanks for posting that, very interesting.
|
|