|
|
Post by scfc1234 on May 23, 2015 8:30:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 8:50:50 GMT
As good as the Bojan signing was -this one is probably as bad as it gets
and I would have have thought a player with any shred of integrity would've approached the club and looked to be settled up earlier than this so, he can at least ply his trade somewhere else
pretty shameful all around
but hey -thats 'modern football' for you
|
|
|
|
Post by scfc1234 on May 23, 2015 8:59:47 GMT
What I still don't understand is how any issues with WP were't picked up b4 we signed him. Especially considering how much Pulis liked to research players and their attitude prior to signing.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackpoolred on May 23, 2015 9:00:18 GMT
Had some shocking games and some decent games early doors - safe to say nobody could make their minds up about him in the beginning, but slowly lost favour and has drifted into obscurity and lost his fitness & interest in the process.
Was looking forward to see how he fared in the world cup, but he was absolutely shocking, he genuinly looked like he was suffering from some kind of bone disorder(he looked hunched over and was unable to run).
Cant blame him for seeing his contract out at Stoke, it is his living afterall, and he clearly wont be playing professional football again after his time with us.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfc2014 on May 23, 2015 11:26:26 GMT
Everyone has a dig at him and admitingly he was a very poor signing,but the goon which bought him gets no stick at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfc1234 on May 23, 2015 11:36:41 GMT
I was/am a huge pulis fan but allot of the blame should be placed with the management here. His good friend Harry should have given him a heads up as well!
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on May 23, 2015 11:39:28 GMT
Too shocking for me to even look at. Like a really awful car crash |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on May 23, 2015 11:50:29 GMT
Can't listen to the podcast, but I'm guessing it's about 16-18 million?
|
|
|
|
Post by viewfrominside on May 23, 2015 12:00:45 GMT
What I still don't understand is how any issues with WP were't picked up b4 we signed him. Especially considering how much Pulis liked to research players and their attitude prior to signing. Obviously the homework was ignored done in depth much less when a player become available he would of cut off his right bollock for |
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on May 23, 2015 12:15:18 GMT
I wonder how much that cheeky chappy Harry made out of the deal?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 12:26:09 GMT
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. No doubt Palacios has turned out to be the worst signing the club have made when it comes to value for money but when he signed everyone was creaming themselves and chuffed to bits that we got him (feel free to link to old posts if you thought he was a bad signing at the time).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 13:01:14 GMT
Never mind Pulis -he was suckered by Harry - giving his supposed 'good friend' a hearty kick in the balls as much as anything else
just proves the kind of man he is too
a bit like selling your best mate who's strapped for cash, a duff car you knew about all along
|
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on May 23, 2015 14:56:38 GMT
Never mind Pulis -he was suckered by Harry - giving his supposed 'good friend' a hearty kick in the balls as much as anything else just proves the kind of man he is too bit like selling your best mate who's strapped for cash, a duff car you knew about all along As in most businesses, caveat emptor? It's up to the buyer to do the 'due diligence', the seller does not have to admit anything. Remember watching the 'Waddington Years' video wherein Tony said that, on his appointment as Stoke boss, Joe Mercer rang to congratulate him and then told Tony that when the phone went down, not to trust anyone. including Mercer!! Not much has changed! |
|
|
|
Post by Silkystoke on May 23, 2015 14:59:03 GMT
Why couldn't we just sack him for being wank...!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by 2004 on May 23, 2015 15:00:26 GMT
I really don't want to hear how much. A very poor signing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bojan Mackey on May 23, 2015 15:06:47 GMT
I was genuinely more excited by him than Crouch when he arrived as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on May 23, 2015 15:31:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on May 23, 2015 15:38:28 GMT
I was genuinely more excited by him than Crouch when he arrived as well. So was I, thought Crouch was just the makeweight. How wrong can you get. |
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on May 23, 2015 15:40:59 GMT
Palacios isn't a bad player though, he was just part of the deal to get Crouch.
|
|
|
|
Post by onionman on May 23, 2015 15:48:01 GMT
Roll up man was right all along |
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on May 23, 2015 15:52:22 GMT
Palacios isn't a bad player though, he was just part of the deal to get Crouch. He most definitely was a bad player for Stoke City. And there's no way he was 'just' a part of the Crouch deal. That isn't the way Tony Pulis works. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 16:08:08 GMT
Palacios isn't a bad player though, he was just part of the deal to get Crouch. He most definitely was a bad player for Stoke City. And there's no way he was 'just' a part of the Crouch deal. That isn't the way Tony Pulis works. There's no way of knowing. But there were rumours that this was the case before Crouch signed, and considering other sources had been claiming the Palacios signing had been a done deal for days, it seemed strange to me that the signing wasn't confirmed until Crouch was in the bag. |
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 23, 2015 16:11:43 GMT
Got to be around 15m. Which is 8m transfer and around 30k per week.
|
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on May 23, 2015 16:16:14 GMT
He most definitely was a bad player for Stoke City. And there's no way he was 'just' a part of the Crouch deal. That isn't the way Tony Pulis works. There's no way of knowing. But there were rumours that this was the case before Crouch signed, and considering other sources had been claiming the Palacios signing had been a done deal for days, it seemed strange to me that the signing wasn't confirmed until Crouch was in the bag. It was us pushing for that and playing hardball though, not Spurs holding us to ransom. There's no way on this planet that Tony Pulis didn't want to sign Wilson Palacios. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 16:26:57 GMT
There's no way of knowing. But there were rumours that this was the case before Crouch signed, and considering other sources had been claiming the Palacios signing had been a done deal for days, it seemed strange to me that the signing wasn't confirmed until Crouch was in the bag. It was us pushing for that and playing hardball though, not Spurs holding us to ransom. There's no way on this planet that Tony Pulis didn't want to sign Wilson Palacios. I can't remember hearing that before. You mean we would only sign one if we could have the other. I don't get how that would make any sense either. If you want two players, surely you'd rather have just one rather than risk losing both. And Pulis may have wanted Palacios, but he seemed to lose interest in him very quickly. There was certainly something Uncle Peter didn't like about the way the family fortune was used on the deal(s). Whether that was in the detail, or just the apparent lack of homework done on Palacios, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on May 23, 2015 16:30:50 GMT
It was us pushing for that and playing hardball though, not Spurs holding us to ransom. There's no way on this planet that Tony Pulis didn't want to sign Wilson Palacios. I can't remember hearing that before. You mean we would only sign one if we could have the other. I don't get how that would make any sense either. If you want two players, surely you'd rather have just one rather than risk losing both. And Pulis may have wanted Palacios, but he seemed to lose interest in him very quickly. There was certainly something Uncle Peter didn't like about the way the family fortune was used on the deal(s). Whether that was In the detail, or just the apparent lack of homework done on Palacios, I don't know. I agree it's a weird way do doing business, I think Spurs needed to get players off the books and Pulis used it as a way of getting Crouch as well. That's what Redknapp claimed, though we know what he's like. Coates was critical of the Crouch deal but lamented that "we thought we were getting a good player" with Palacios. Pulis presumably lost interest in him once it became clear he was less use than a wheelie bin. |
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on May 23, 2015 16:34:43 GMT
Palacios isn't a bad player though, he was just part of the deal to get Crouch. He most definitely was a bad player for Stoke City. And there's no way he was 'just' a part of the Crouch deal. That isn't the way Tony Pulis works. Coates and Pulis stated how desperate they were for Crouch. It was obvious Pulis wasn't interested in Palacios, but brought him in as part of the Crouch deal. Palacios was rarely given any time to prove himself at Stoke, it's not exactly his fault. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 16:36:14 GMT
Pulis is still costing the club dead money
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 16:41:12 GMT
I can't remember hearing that before. You mean we would only sign one if we could have the other. I don't get how that would make any sense either. If you want two players, surely you'd rather have just one rather than risk losing both. And Pulis may have wanted Palacios, but he seemed to lose interest in him very quickly. There was certainly something Uncle Peter didn't like about the way the family fortune was used on the deal(s). Whether that was In the detail, or just the apparent lack of homework done on Palacios, I don't know. I agree it's a weird way do doing business, I think Spurs needed to get players off the books and Pulis used it as a way of getting Crouch as well. That's what Redknapp claimed, though we know what he's like. Coates was critical of the Crouch deal but lamented that "we thought we were getting a good player" with Palacios. Pulis presumably lost interest in him once it became clear he was less use than a wheelie bin. That's the bit where us playing hardball with Spurs doesn't stack up. If they needed to get players off their books and Pulis was using this, how come we ended up paying the absolute top dollar for both? You'd have thought we'd have got the pair for £10m or so even if Palacios wasn't the irreparably damaged goods we ended up with. We seemed to be more desperate than they were, which brings me back to the suspicion that we wanted Crouch at any cost. |
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on May 23, 2015 16:41:57 GMT
He most definitely was a bad player for Stoke City. And there's no way he was 'just' a part of the Crouch deal. That isn't the way Tony Pulis works. Coates and Pulis stated how desperate they were for Crouch. It was obvious Pulis wasn't interested in Palacios, but brought him in as part of the Crouch deal. Palacios was rarely given any time to prove himself at Stoke, it's not exactly his fault. He wasn't given time because he wasn't remotely fit enough at any stage. On paper he was Pulis' wet dream of a midfielder and Tony Pulis doesn't sign players he doesn't want to sign - ask 'Triggy and Ziggy'. Do people genuinely think that Pulis, who treated Deadline Day like Christmas Day, would dedicate a huge amount of time and resource at the business end of the transfer window to negotiating with a player he didn't want? That's selling the club to him, spending hours negotiating a big salary, getting things like image rights sorted, all of which takes a lot of time and money. It also means creating a problem by lying to a 'name' player you have no intention of using, potentially creating a bad apple in a dressing room where unity and team ethic was a huge part of the club's success? Break it down and it just doesn't make sense and isn't how he operated or how it works. |
|
