|
|
Post by muglump on Jul 29, 2015 10:58:26 GMT
I know this has been debated to death but i was just reading about Di Maria leaving the shit, and all of their past 'marquee signings' and how most of them didn't work out. And I was thinking, do we need such a thing, is the only way a Chairman can show his support for a club just splashing the cash? I know it's obvious but look at Bojan, the biggest bargain in football history. I think that players are going to be more interested in coming here based on league position, winning a cup etc. than if someone they've heard of signs. Or is it all down to wages?
|
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Jul 29, 2015 11:02:38 GMT
You will occasionally drop on a Bojan but in this world you tend to get what you pay for and quality does cost money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 29, 2015 11:08:20 GMT
Depends who it is and how successful they are. The best Marquee signing in my 60+ years of watching Stoke was the return of Stan Matthews. It is no exaggeration to say that his signing possibly kept the club alive - we were in grave danger of dying through lack of interest before he returned. The crowd tripled for his comeback game compared to the average of the season up to then. And a lot of that increased crowd stuck with the club to promotion and beyond.
Hudson and Banks were other signings who took us to the next level - and in the case of Banks, that meant buying arguably the best keeper in the world at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Jul 29, 2015 11:08:33 GMT
It's a team game and there is a danger of getting fixated on one player to the extent that he becomes "irreplaceable" in some minds. However good that player is he needs the other ten. A good blend of quality players is better in my opinion than a couple of star quality players and nine mediocre ones.
Not fussed about a big name signing unless that paves the way for further quality signings.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Jul 29, 2015 11:13:16 GMT
Depends who it is and how successful they are. The best Marquee signing in my 60+ years of watching Stoke was the return of Stan Matthews. It is no exaggeration to say that his signing possibly kept the club alive - we were in grave danger of dying through lack of interest before he returned. The crowd tripled for his comeback game compared to the average of the season up to then. And a lot of that increased crowd stuck with the club to promotion and beyond. Hudson and Banks were other signings who took us to the next level. I was writing a post while you posted yours. Totally agree. When Stan signed the club was on its uppers but he boosted gates and morale which picked up the club and local morale. The big difference was that Stan was a meaningful marquee signing because of his history and local roots. |
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Jul 29, 2015 11:16:12 GMT
I think Crouch, Bojan and Afellay are all marquee signings the way I see it! I would say no, we don't need a Konoplianka, Shaqiri or Yarmolenko, but it would have been very exciting to see one of those in Stoke City shirt this season!  |
|
|
|
Post by muglump on Jul 29, 2015 11:18:36 GMT
You will occasionally drop on a Bojan but in this world you tend to get what you pay for and quality does cost money. I'm not sure you always do in football though with even mediocre players going for a fortune. We all know developing good kids is the way to go but we don't seem to manage many of them. Or perhaps that will improve after a few years of hughes |
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Jul 29, 2015 11:19:06 GMT
Depends who it is and how successful they are. The best Marquee signing in my 60+ years of watching Stoke was the return of Stan Matthews. It is no exaggeration to say that his signing possibly kept the club alive - we were in grave danger of dying through lack of interest before he returned. The crowd tripled for his comeback game compared to the average of the season up to then. And a lot of that increased crowd stuck with the club to promotion and beyond. Hudson and Banks were other signings who took us to the next level - and in the case of Banks, that meant buying arguably the best keeper in the world at the time. I'd add Hudson to that list as well John. |
|
|
|
Post by Orbs on Jul 29, 2015 11:19:55 GMT
Can't remember TP making a marquee signing.
|
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Jul 29, 2015 11:21:09 GMT
Can't remember TP making a marquee signing. Crouch ? |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 29, 2015 11:22:36 GMT
Depends who it is and how successful they are. The best Marquee signing in my 60+ years of watching Stoke was the return of Stan Matthews. It is no exaggeration to say that his signing possibly kept the club alive - we were in grave danger of dying through lack of interest before he returned. The crowd tripled for his comeback game compared to the average of the season up to then. And a lot of that increased crowd stuck with the club to promotion and beyond. Hudson and Banks were other signings who took us to the next level - and in the case of Banks, that meant buying arguably the best keeper in the world at the time. I'd add Hudson to that list as well John. Hudson is already there as the first word of the second paragraph!  |
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Jul 29, 2015 11:25:11 GMT
I'd add Hudson to that list as well John. Hudson is already there as the first word of the second paragraph! Ha ha  I have absolutely no idea how I missed that !! |
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Jul 29, 2015 11:33:00 GMT
As Borat says, it would be 'niiiiiiiiiiiice' but if we have to wait 'til next year's merry-go-round of out-of-contract players then so be it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 11:33:18 GMT
Jimmy Greenhoff!
|
|
|
|
Post by cymap on Jul 29, 2015 11:40:41 GMT
For us, the down to earth people of Stoke no. As we can see though the plastic world of football is very fickle and shallow and for them and in turn the players we need to move forward to sign for us we will have to be just as plastic and fickle.
|
|
|
|
Post by philb on Jul 29, 2015 11:40:46 GMT
Can't remember TP making a marquee signing. Crouch ? Crouch was a massive signing at the time with our standing in the game etc so I'd class him as a marquee signing definitely (just a shame what turned up with him at the time lol) |
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Jul 29, 2015 11:41:04 GMT
I think MARQUEE signings are more important now than in days gone by, because football has become a business and market value, brand awareness is closely linked to star players.
Whether we need a Yarmolenko from a purely footballing sense then its not such a big deal as he might possibly fail in the Premier League - who really knows?
BUT if want to attract more fans, get more media coverage and therefore increase our merchandising and other revenues then a MARQUEE signing can make a big difference.
I personally think SHAQIRI would be the name that would sell most shirts and make most non-Stoke fans sit up and take notice. Remember back in the day when Juninho signed for Middlesborough? It would be on a par with that I reckon
|
|
|
|
Post by rovingpotter on Jul 29, 2015 11:45:48 GMT
I think the significance of a "marque signing" is dependant upon the strategy we are looking to pursuit. Teams such as Man City, who were unfashionable and relatively unsuccessful compared to their near neighbours had a change of owner and to achieve success were prepared to pay way above the market value, at the time in both fees and wages, as a statement of future intent and to demonstrate their financial power. The signings weren't purely a single token player but a whole cluster of them.
We show no signs of wanted to follow that path. So what are the benefits of a single marque signing? Commercially it increases global awareness, it motivates the existing squad and depending upon age, can be a source of future transfer profit, it may attract younger quality players to develop. Will it improve results? Not on its own, a team performance is required, not many players can carry a team on their own. Most important is the attitude of the player and why he wants to be here. Is it to prove a point, a stepping stone to bigger clubs, to become a legend or just a reluctant wage taker?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 11:46:53 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up settling for Aaron Lennon in a couple of weeks time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Jul 29, 2015 11:48:46 GMT
For the progression of the team, league position wise, I'd say no. It's not important.
But for fhe fans a marquee signing is seemingly a sure fire way to success on the face of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by philb on Jul 29, 2015 11:49:30 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up settling for Aaron Lennon in a couple of weeks time. Marquee signing? Yes/No? |
|
|
|
Post by potteringermany on Jul 29, 2015 11:51:24 GMT
Has Germany got a marquee player? But they're not a bad team (unfortunately!)
|
|
|
|
Post by breakonthrough on Jul 29, 2015 11:51:44 GMT
I think MARQUEE signings are more important now than in days gone by, because football has become a business and market value, brand awareness is closely linked to star players. Whether we need a Yarmolenko from a purely footballing sense then its not such a big deal as he might possibly fail in the Premier League - who really knows? BUT if want to attract more fans, get more media coverage and therefore increase our merchandising and other revenues then a MARQUEE signing can make a big difference. I personally think SHAQIRI would be the name that would sell most shirts and make most non-Stoke fans sit up and take notice. Remember back in the day when Juninho signed for Middlesborough? It would be on a par with that I reckon Good point,also Emerson and ravanelli they made some good signings...just a shame about the rest of the team ay. |
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Jul 29, 2015 11:53:52 GMT
Oddly enough I think Afellay is a marquee signing.
All other supporters are talking about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Jul 29, 2015 11:57:50 GMT
I'd be happy with a modest tent personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 12:01:53 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up settling for Aaron Lennon in a couple of weeks time. Marquee signing? Yes/No? Good question. Without thinking about it the answer would be no. He's not the same calibre as the players we have been linked with, hence why I said 'settled'. Having a think about the bigger picture, if you think back to 2006 World Cup where he was one of England's brightest young stars, if somebody said he would play for Stoke in his career, I don't think I would have believed them. This to me shows outstanding progression. I know his career hasn't exactly panned out as well as some might have hoped, but I still think he would be a big signing for us and definitely improve our team. Perhaps a 'big signing' would be more fitting than 'marquee'. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jul 29, 2015 12:09:15 GMT
A 'marquee signing' isn't as important as the right signing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Jul 29, 2015 12:13:25 GMT
A 'marquee signing' isn't as important as the right signing.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokesaint1 on Jul 29, 2015 12:13:45 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up settling for Aaron Lennon in a couple of weeks time. Marquee signing? Yes/No? Aaron Lennon, a marquee signing? Absolutely not. As far as marquee signings go, I think it's all about someone that just "wows" us, as supporters. I have only ever thought about such a signing since we were "promised", several years ago (can't remember exactly when it was), a rock the city signing, which hasn't really materalised. Although being fair, there have been signings that have rocked the city, albeit we didn't think it was so at the time. A real big name signing on the dotted line raises our profile considerably and makes top quality players believe we are a serious proposition. So to answer the original question,in my opinion, a marquee signing really is that important. But whoever it is really has to add great value to the team and make us better.. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jul 29, 2015 12:20:59 GMT
A 'marquee signing' isn't as important as the right signing.
☺ |
|
I have absolutely no idea how I missed that !! 
