|
Post by lordb on Sept 2, 2015 20:43:28 GMT
Bottom line is that the squad is better this season than last which was better than the season before. No idea how much the wage bill has gone up.
If Hughes wasn't happy he would walk.
|
|
|
Post by no1972 on Sept 2, 2015 21:04:26 GMT
We all would like us to go out and buy top players but the reality is we are not in the big spending league,All the players we have signed have most proberly had big signing on fees there no frees anymore.We can only spend the money we generate which is small compared to other clubs.We have a small stadium with low season ticket prices,most fans don't buy things on a regular basis from the shop.So on balance I think we compete well.
|
|
|
Post by stokemanusa on Sept 2, 2015 21:20:46 GMT
Borrinni £9 mill v Diouf £0 :-) Says it all mate... Sunderland in a panic buy for Fabio Borini... £9m Which coincidentally Stoke received for less than £9m pounds; Bojan (£1.26m,) Butland (£ 2.66m) Diouf (£ FREE ) Muniesa ( £ FREE ) Given (£ FREE) Johnson (£ FREE) and Joselu (£ 5.6m) Which dealing is better? £9m for Fabio Borini or the Stoke players mentioned? Quite simple really and why Stoke are the envy of alot of clubs this window because we get great deals to splash on players like Shaqiri.
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 2, 2015 21:26:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by cheeesfreeex on Sept 2, 2015 21:26:34 GMT
Does FFP matter to anyone anymore?
Genuine question, I've never understood it.
|
|
|
Post by stokemanusa on Sept 2, 2015 21:32:07 GMT
Does FFP matter to anyone anymore? Genuine question, I've never understood it. They make that shit up as they go to find money to fine the clubs to pay bills, nothing more. Barca was the fall guy for all of Europe's shady dealings, someone had to be put to the sword. Looking at all these huge signings in england for £30 here, £50 million there makes you wonder who is looking at the books at Citeh and Chelsea compared to Barca and Inter... Don't trust FiFA or the FA to ever be "impartial."
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 2, 2015 21:40:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by Stoke711 on Sept 2, 2015 21:40:19 GMT
Of course it is but since we had made £18m from sales it was covered That's the point! CPFC signed Cabaye(a next level signing) but they didn't sell their next level player, Bolasie to fund it! We only sold Bego and Nzonzi because they wanted to leave and would've gone free next season. We did not sell them because we had to, to fund Shaqiri's transfer.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 6:50:23 GMT
That's the point! CPFC signed Cabaye(a next level signing) but they didn't sell their next level player, Bolasie to fund it! We only sold Bego and Nzonzi because they wanted to leave and would've gone free next season. We did not sell them because we had to, to fund Shaqiri's transfer. But we used the monies we got to pay for Shaqiri's fees. Do you honestly think if Bego and N'Zonzi hadn't gone, Denise would have said, "Daddy, I've just found £12,000,000.00p in old one pound notes under my bed! Have them to buy that nice Swiss boy!".
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 7:07:42 GMT
We only sold Bego and Nzonzi because they wanted to leave and would've gone free next season. We did not sell them because we had to, to fund Shaqiri's transfer. But we used the monies we got to pay for Shaqiri's fees. Do you honestly think if Bego and N'Zonzi hadn't gone, Denise would have said, "Daddy, I've just found £12,000,000.00p in old one pound notes under my bed! Have them to buy that nice Swiss boy!". What you're that daft. Stoke agree a fee of about £12M in January for Shaqiri with Bayern before Bego and N'Zonzi were sold after which the club continued to try and persuade both players to sign new deals. It's fairly clear for anyone who opens their eyes that money is available, its seems however that they set a price and are not very flexible in their negotiations. It's a crazy market, what the right approach to it is remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 7:16:41 GMT
But we used the monies we got to pay for Shaqiri's fees. Do you honestly think if Bego and N'Zonzi hadn't gone, Denise would have said, "Daddy, I've just found £12,000,000.00p in old one pound notes under my bed! Have them to buy that nice Swiss boy!". What you're that daft. Stoke agree a fee of about £12M in January for Shaqiri with Bayern before Bego and N'Zonzi were sold after which the club continued to try and persuade both players to sign new deals. It's fairly clear for anyone who opens their eyes that money is available, its seems however that they set a price and are not very flexible in their negotiations. It's a crazy market, what the right approach to it is remains to be seen. Well, if money is available why is it mysteriously never spent? Six transfer windows in a row it's not been spent! Do you think it's just a coincidence? Are we just unlucky? Too tight to find Jedinak's loyalty bonus yet according to you we should have £12m available as the Bego and N'Zonzi weren't anticipated? I don't have to call you "daft" mate because I'm happy to let the facts speak for themselves!
|
|
|
Post by spuddymagoo on Sept 3, 2015 7:23:52 GMT
What gets me in all this is the assumption that owners of football clubs are somehow in a dick measuring contest with their peers, and that our owners clearly have no dick! I simply do not get the correlation between either net spend or any other form of spend and the perception of value.
I believe that any business, such as a Premier League football club, needs to find value and needs to be competitive so as to perform at a profitable or manageable level to ensure survival.
For me Stoke City are a good, stable, long term and steadily growing stock. We are geared up for longer term and solid growth with the occasional peaks in success as well as the associated troughs.
Too many clubs either try to compete with the 'shining stars' of the league and invest far too heavily, or believe that they can become a shining star just by investing at the same or similar levels. This is also true of the fans.
Personally, I like our approach to the league and our level of investment, as it means that for every year we invest sensibly, I am another year away from having to go to Rotherham for a fixture!
Steady as she goes I say!!
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 7:29:13 GMT
What you're that daft. Stoke agree a fee of about £12M in January for Shaqiri with Bayern before Bego and N'Zonzi were sold after which the club continued to try and persuade both players to sign new deals. It's fairly clear for anyone who opens their eyes that money is available, its seems however that they set a price and are not very flexible in their negotiations. It's a crazy market, what the right approach to it is remains to be seen. Well, if money is available why is it mysteriously never spent? Six transfer windows in a row it's not been spent! Do you think it's just a coincidence? Are we just unlucky? Too tight to find Jedinak's loyalty bonus yet according to you we should have £12m available as the Bego and N'Zonzi weren't anticipated? I don't have to call you "daft" mate because I'm happy to let the facts speak for themselves! You're right they do, every summer window we sign higher quality players. The transfer fees associated with those deals are irrelevant. Too tight to find Jedinak's loyalty bonus, more like it was a last minute stop gap transfer that was poor value in the first place and they weren't prepared to go any higher on the total cost of the deal which would have been regressive and back to spending dead money. I'm quite confident that when they identify the player they want to sign permanently for that position be it MVG or somebody else that the money to fund a deal will not be a problem. So yeah in conclusion you sound a bit daft to me. Opinions eh.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 7:33:07 GMT
Well, if money is available why is it mysteriously never spent? Six transfer windows in a row it's not been spent! Do you think it's just a coincidence? Are we just unlucky? Too tight to find Jedinak's loyalty bonus yet according to you we should have £12m available as the Bego and N'Zonzi weren't anticipated? I don't have to call you "daft" mate because I'm happy to let the facts speak for themselves! You're right they do, every summer window we sign higher quality players. The transfer fees associated with those deals are irrelevant. Too tight to find Jedinak's loyalty bonus, more like it was a last minute stop gap transfer that was poor value in the first place and they weren't prepared to go any higher on the total cost of the deal which would have been regressive and back to spending dead money. I'm quite confident that when they identify the player they want to sign permanently for that position be it MVG or somebody else that the money to fund a deal will not be a problem. So yeah in conclusion you sound a bit daft to me. Opinions eh. So you want us to sign MvG for a problem, he's already in the position for? Now, that sounds dead money to me! It's definitely "daft"!
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 8:03:38 GMT
You're right they do, every summer window we sign higher quality players. The transfer fees associated with those deals are irrelevant. Too tight to find Jedinak's loyalty bonus, more like it was a last minute stop gap transfer that was poor value in the first place and they weren't prepared to go any higher on the total cost of the deal which would have been regressive and back to spending dead money. I'm quite confident that when they identify the player they want to sign permanently for that position be it MVG or somebody else that the money to fund a deal will not be a problem. So yeah in conclusion you sound a bit daft to me. Opinions eh. So you want us to sign MvG for a problem, he's already in the position for? Now, that sounds dead money to me! It's definitely "daft"! MVG may settle and get up to speed, hopefully do some strength work and be a player we want to sign on a permanent basis. Your analogy of that as dead money moves you from daft to stupid, do you even understand the term. Dead money, read Peter Crouch, Mile Jedinak, old, transfer fee, high wage, no resale value and in the case of Jedinak really shit footballer to boot.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 8:10:30 GMT
So you want us to sign MvG for a problem, he's already in the position for? Now, that sounds dead money to me! It's definitely "daft"! MVG may settle and get up to speed, hopefully do some strength work and be a player we want to sign on a permanent basis. Your analogy of that as dead money moves you from daft to stupid, do you even understand the term. Dead money, read Peter Crouch, Mile Jedinak, old, transfer fee, high wage, no resale value and in the case of Jedinak really shit footballer to boot. Dead money? If 'the family's' negligible spending on transfers leads to relegation(If is the operative word here) you'll see dead money....The Academy, CW, players leaving at knock down prices. Do you think these fancy dans in the senior squad and youngsters will hang around a Championship team in the capital of empty shops? It's a sad day when you can't find a Poundland?
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 8:30:46 GMT
MVG may settle and get up to speed, hopefully do some strength work and be a player we want to sign on a permanent basis. Your analogy of that as dead money moves you from daft to stupid, do you even understand the term. Dead money, read Peter Crouch, Mile Jedinak, old, transfer fee, high wage, no resale value and in the case of Jedinak really shit footballer to boot. Dead money? If 'the family's' negligible spending on transfers leads to relegation(If is the operative word here) you'll see dead money....The Academy, CW, players leaving at knock down prices. Do you think these fancy dans in the senior squad and youngsters will hang around a Championship team in the capital of empty shops? It's a sad day when you can't find a Poundland? No I don't think the "fancy Dan's" in the senior squad would survive a relegation but I do think the label you're attaching to them say's much about your agenda. What about the youngsters would they hang around, almost certainly they're contracted so not free to leave on lowish wages for professional footballers and would have an opportunity to become mainstays of the team. Honestly speaking I can't see any reason they'd want to go or any reason we'd let them. Unless ofcourse we'd rehired someone who'd do things more to your likeing, in which case we all know they'd never play.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 3, 2015 8:33:04 GMT
The Coates family said, I think about a year or two before TP left, that their aim was to make the club self sufficient. To me self sufficient means break even or not making a loss if you prefer to look at it that way. No one at the time on this board moaned and said we should not be trying for self sufficiency or that we should be happy with continual losses. Yet, now we appear to be close (or have reached) self sufficiency, the moaners have surfaced. In the just over two years since Hughes arrived we have improved our points position in both seasons and finished 9th twice - and we appear to be close to break even. To me that is a reason for pride in the way the club is being run - because it is sustainable - unlike continual losses. The first team we played after promotion to the Prem was Bolton. They were posting regular losses but, no doubt their fans were happy because those losses were sustaining a place in the Prem. We lost that game and it was clear we had to learn fast. Since then, under two managers, we have cemented our place in the Prem and have now, apparently, eliminated our annual losses. Bolton on the other hand have managed to: # lose 5- 1 0 to us in an FA Cup semifinal # get themselves relegated # and now have accumulated debt of well over £100 million and rising. And people on here moan about the way WE are being run! For what it is worth - I DO think the money is there for further player purchases even at the cost of breaking our transfer record again. But I think the board and the manager have reached a point where their bigger purchases have to be the right ones. We'll no doubt bring in more bargains, but the big money is kept in reserve for the big purchases. That pleases me - even if it doesn't please some on here. I look at some of the other clubs in the Prem who have spent vastly more than us, and whilst some have spent well, others don't seem to have bought much for their money.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 8:42:24 GMT
Dead money? If 'the family's' negligible spending on transfers leads to relegation(If is the operative word here) you'll see dead money....The Academy, CW, players leaving at knock down prices. Do you think these fancy dans in the senior squad and youngsters will hang around a Championship team in the capital of empty shops? It's a sad day when you can't find a Poundland? No I don't think the "fancy Dan's" in the senior squad would survive a relegation but I do think the label you're attaching to them say's much about your agenda. What about the youngsters would they hang around, almost certainly they're contracted so not free to leave on lowish wages for professional footballers and would have an opportunity to become mainstays of the team. Honestly speaking I can't see any reason they'd want to go or any reason we'd let them. Unless ofcourse we'd rehired someone who'd do things more to your likeing, in which case we all know they'd never play. The only reason the foreign players at senior and junior players are is because we're in the EPL. If we were not(in the EPL) t it would all fall apart? Have a guess at the gates we would gate? I say 20,000?I've watched Afellay 3 times live and once on telly, I know what his reputation is but he hasn't had a good game yet and his petulance cost us 3 points. I call that behaviour 'fancy Dan' because it is. You might get away with it at Barca because Spanish football revolves around Barca and RM but you won't get away with anything at Stoke! If Messi, Ronaldo came to Stoke refs would send them off for next to nothing. We all know that so why didn't MH tell Afellay the facts of life here?
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 8:44:46 GMT
The Coates family said, I think about a year or two before TP left, that their aim was to make the club self sufficient. To me self sufficient means break even or not making a loss if you prefer to look at it that way. No one at the time on this board moaned and said we should not be trying for self sufficiency or that we should be happy with continual losses. Yet, now we appear to be close (or have reached) self sufficiency, the moaners have surfaced. In the just over two years since Hughes arrived we have improved our points position in both seasons and finished 9th twice - and we appear to be close to break even. To me that is a reason for pride in the way the club is being run - because it is sustainable - unlike continual losses. The first team we played after promotion to the Prem was Bolton. They were posting regular losses but, no doubt their fans were happy because those losses were sustaining a place in the Prem. We lost that game and it was clear we had to learn fast. Since then, under two managers, we have cemented our place in the Prem and have now, apparently, eliminated our annual losses. Bolton on the other hand have managed to: # lose 5-1 to us in an FA Cup semifinal # get themselves relegated # and now have accumulated debt of well over £100 million and rising. And people on here moan about the way WE are being run! For what it is worth - I DO think the money is there for further player purchases even at the cost of breaking our transfer record again. But I think the board and the manager have reached a point where their bigger purchases have to be the right ones. We'll no doubt bring in more bargains, but the big money is kept in reserve for the big purchases. That pleases me - even if it doesn't please some on here. I look at some of the other clubs in the Prem who have spent vastly more than us, and whilst some have spent well, others don't seem to have bought much for their money. Thank God for a bit of sense. I know everyone's entitled to their own opinion but some people seem just too stupid to merit one. I know I must have sounded exactly the same when I was continually moaning about Pulis, so I try to understand their fears but its hard when you can see the merit of the project even in the face of a defeat. Under the old regime I often failed to find any merit even following a win it was so turgid and at odds with the game I love.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 8:56:03 GMT
No I don't think the "fancy Dan's" in the senior squad would survive a relegation but I do think the label you're attaching to them say's much about your agenda. What about the youngsters would they hang around, almost certainly they're contracted so not free to leave on lowish wages for professional footballers and would have an opportunity to become mainstays of the team. Honestly speaking I can't see any reason they'd want to go or any reason we'd let them. Unless ofcourse we'd rehired someone who'd do things more to your likeing, in which case we all know they'd never play. The only reason the foreign players at senior and junior players are is because we're in the EPL. If we were not(in the EPL) t it would all fall apart? Have a guess at the gates we would gate? I say 20,000?I've watched Afellay 3 times live and once on telly, I know what his reputation is but he hasn't had a good game yet and his petulance cost us 3 points. I call that behaviour 'fancy Dan' because it is. You might get away with it at Barca because Spanish football revolves around Barca and RM but you won't get away with anything at Stoke! If Messi, Ronaldo came to Stoke refs would send them off for next to nothing. We all know that so why didn't MH tell Afellay the facts of life here? The players are contracted, in the unfortunate even of relegation letting many first teamers go would make sense, get their high wages out and most of them wouldn't want to play in the Championship. The young players are likewise contracted, they're on low wages, have good pedigree and potential and would probably be delighted with a chance to cement a first team role alongside some senior pro's we'd inevitably keep. Relegation nobody involved with the club wants it but given the right foundations its survivable and recoverable because you retain the tools to return. Only playing anti football with a squad packed with ageing pro's with no resale value and no youth set up worth talking about is it Armageddon.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 8:58:42 GMT
The Coates family said, I think about a year or two before TP left, that their aim was to make the club self sufficient. To me self sufficient means break even or not making a loss if you prefer to look at it that way. No one at the time on this board moaned and said we should not be trying for self sufficiency or that we should be happy with continual losses. Yet, now we appear to be close (or have reached) self sufficiency, the moaners have surfaced. In the just over two years since Hughes arrived we have improved our points position in both seasons and finished 9th twice - and we appear to be close to break even. To me that is a reason for pride in the way the club is being run - because it is sustainable - unlike continual losses. The first team we played after promotion to the Prem was Bolton. They were posting regular losses but, no doubt their fans were happy because those losses were sustaining a place in the Prem. We lost that game and it was clear we had to learn fast. Since then, under two managers, we have cemented our place in the Prem and have now, apparently, eliminated our annual losses. Bolton on the other hand have managed to: # lose 5-1 to us in an FA Cup semifinal # get themselves relegated # and now have accumulated debt of well over £100 million and rising. And people on here moan about the way WE are being run! For what it is worth - I DO think the money is there for further player purchases even at the cost of breaking our transfer record again. But I think the board and the manager have reached a point where their bigger purchases have to be the right ones. We'll no doubt bring in more bargains, but the big money is kept in reserve for the big purchases. That pleases me - even if it doesn't please some on here. I look at some of the other clubs in the Prem who have spent vastly more than us, and whilst some have spent well, others don't seem to have bought much for their money. Sorry, Lakeland you're wrong about the moaners not complaining about the aim for self-sufficiency. I did because I don't see how one of the lowest income clubs in the EPL could stay in the top tier without a degree of subsidy from 'the owners'. Yes, Bolton has got into a mountain of debt because the owners aren't prepared to write it off! That's why Portsmouth got into trouble too. But,many owners want the power and status of football but ultimately they don't want to pay for it! Now, Stoke aren't that different. The Coates family investment of ca. £120m will be recouped 1. if we are relegated by parachute payments, player sales OR 2. if we stay in the EPL by the sale of the club. The real reason 'the family'has stopped putting more money in is they wouldn't get any of it back e.g. parachute payments aren't increasing on a par with debts of clubs! It isn't because the money is not being made by bet365, it is! This is a personal, political decision. Fine but I think it is too risky! I have always said this and I've said so! It's alright for you! You can continue to salivate over that female Chelsea doctor whilst the rest us will end up watching lower tier football!
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 9:02:50 GMT
The only reason the foreign players at senior and junior players are is because we're in the EPL. If we were not(in the EPL) t it would all fall apart? Have a guess at the gates we would gate? I say 20,000?I've watched Afellay 3 times live and once on telly, I know what his reputation is but he hasn't had a good game yet and his petulance cost us 3 points. I call that behaviour 'fancy Dan' because it is. You might get away with it at Barca because Spanish football revolves around Barca and RM but you won't get away with anything at Stoke! If Messi, Ronaldo came to Stoke refs would send them off for next to nothing. We all know that so why didn't MH tell Afellay the facts of life here? The players are contracted, in the unfortunate even of relegation letting many first teamers go would make sense, get their high wages out and most of them wouldn't want to play in the Championship. The young players are likewise contracted, they're on low wages, have good pedigree and potential and would probably be delighted with a chance to cement a first team role alongside some senior pro's we'd inevitably keep. Relegation nobody involved with the club wants it but given the right foundations its survivable and recoverable because you retain the tools to return. Only playing anti football with a squad packed with ageing pro's with no resale value and no youth set up worth talking about is it Armageddon. The young players may be contracted but how many would want to stay? I doubt any of them would? Are you going to hold a gun to their heads and say you're stuck here, tough luck!?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 3, 2015 9:09:12 GMT
The Coates family said, I think about a year or two before TP left, that their aim was to make the club self sufficient. To me self sufficient means break even or not making a loss if you prefer to look at it that way. No one at the time on this board moaned and said we should not be trying for self sufficiency or that we should be happy with continual losses. Yet, now we appear to be close (or have reached) self sufficiency, the moaners have surfaced. In the just over two years since Hughes arrived we have improved our points position in both seasons and finished 9th twice - and we appear to be close to break even. To me that is a reason for pride in the way the club is being run - because it is sustainable - unlike continual losses. The first team we played after promotion to the Prem was Bolton. They were posting regular losses but, no doubt their fans were happy because those losses were sustaining a place in the Prem. We lost that game and it was clear we had to learn fast. Since then, under two managers, we have cemented our place in the Prem and have now, apparently, eliminated our annual losses. Bolton on the other hand have managed to: # lose 5-1 to us in an FA Cup semifinal # get themselves relegated # and now have accumulated debt of well over £100 million and rising. And people on here moan about the way WE are being run! For what it is worth - I DO think the money is there for further player purchases even at the cost of breaking our transfer record again. But I think the board and the manager have reached a point where their bigger purchases have to be the right ones. We'll no doubt bring in more bargains, but the big money is kept in reserve for the big purchases. That pleases me - even if it doesn't please some on here. I look at some of the other clubs in the Prem who have spent vastly more than us, and whilst some have spent well, others don't seem to have bought much for their money. Sorry, Lakeland you're wrong about the moaners not complaining about the aim for self-sufficiency. I did because I don't see how one of the lowest income clubs in the EPL could stay in the top tier without a degree of subsidy from 'the owners'. Yes, Bolton has got into a mountain of debt because the owners aren't prepared to write it off! That's why Portsmouth got into trouble too. But,many owners want the power and status of football but ultimately they don't want to pay for it! Now, Stoke aren't that different. The Coates family investment of ca. £120m will be recouped 1. if we are relegated by parachute payments, player sales OR 2. if we stay in the EPL by the sale of the club. The real reason 'the family'has stopped putting more money in is they wouldn't get any of it back e.g. parachute payments aren't increasing on a par with debts of clubs! It isn't because the money is not being made by bet365, it is! This is a personal, political decision. Fine but I think it is too risky! I have always said this and I've said so! It's alright for you! You can continue to salivate over that female Chelsea doctor whilst the rest us will end up watching lower tier football! We are poles apart on this, I'm afraid. I don't have a problem with owners subsidising their club's stadia or their training facilities but I'm a firm believer in clubs being self sufficient (or close to it) where transfers and wages are concerned. I can't see that Rich billionaires like the owners of Chelsea and Man City bring anything positive to the competitive side of the Premier league. I realise that financial fair play regulations have been watered down so as to be almost worthless and I regret it. I'm grateful to the Coates family for buying the club and the stadium and for creating a good training facility and an Academy with potential instead of what we had before. And I won't begrudge them recouping their outlay if/when they sell the club. But, most of all, I applaud their aim to try to make the club sustainable where transfers (in and out) and the wage bill are concerned relative to the club's income. Next season middle ranked Premier League clubs will have an income of upwards of £140 million pa. There should be no need to subsidise the playing side of ANY Premier League club.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 9:19:30 GMT
Sorry, Lakeland you're wrong about the moaners not complaining about the aim for self-sufficiency. I did because I don't see how one of the lowest income clubs in the EPL could stay in the top tier without a degree of subsidy from 'the owners'. Yes, Bolton has got into a mountain of debt because the owners aren't prepared to write it off! That's why Portsmouth got into trouble too. But,many owners want the power and status of football but ultimately they don't want to pay for it! Now, Stoke aren't that different. The Coates family investment of ca. £120m will be recouped 1. if we are relegated by parachute payments, player sales OR 2. if we stay in the EPL by the sale of the club. The real reason 'the family'has stopped putting more money in is they wouldn't get any of it back e.g. parachute payments aren't increasing on a par with debts of clubs! It isn't because the money is not being made by bet365, it is! This is a personal, political decision. Fine but I think it is too risky! I have always said this and I've said so! It's alright for you! You can continue to salivate over that female Chelsea doctor whilst the rest us will end up watching lower tier football! We are poles apart on this, I'm afraid. I don't have a problem with owners subsidising their club's stadia or their training facilities but I'm a firm believer in clubs being self sufficient (or close to it) where transfers and wages are concerned. I can't see that Rich billionaires like the owners of Chelsea and Man City bring anything positive to the competitive side of the Premier league. I realise that financial fair play regulations have been watered down so as to be almost worthless and I regret it. I'm grateful to the Coates family for buying the club and the stadium and for creating a good training facility and an Academy with potential instead of what we had before. And I won't begrudge them recouping their outlay if/when they sell the club. But, most of all, I applaud their aim to try to make the club sustainable where transfers (in and out) and the wage bill are concerned relative to the club's income. We are poles apart on this 'L-P' because I believe your strategy of long term investment could yield very little.You think of Crewe who've had a fantastic development programme but that hasn't produced anything other than survival in the lower leagues. I agree, that with Stoke's bigger residual support, our natural level might be 'The Championship'. Unless The Academy produces Bales, Walcotts like Soton Stoke being a smaller club than Leeds, Derby, Sheff Wed. would gravitate back to The Championship. Now, I wouldn't want to see this happen but it is the logic of the 'no family subsidy' policy you advocate!
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 3, 2015 9:25:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Sept 3, 2015 9:25:41 GMT
Whatever your interpretation the manager said in the spring we need to invest to progress at the top end of the first 11 . Only two of our 9 signings could be considered define starters in our best 11 Johnson and shaq and to achieve that we have sold 2 nzozni and Bego .
Net net CEO summer rhetoric absolute bollocks as ever and then we go on a trolley dash in the dying embers of the window for Jedinak and Naismith and as normal we can't Acually execute that either
|
|
|
Post by Staying up for Grandadstokey on Sept 3, 2015 9:28:32 GMT
The Coates family said, I think about a year or two before TP left, that their aim was to make the club self sufficient. To me self sufficient means break even or not making a loss if you prefer to look at it that way. No one at the time on this board moaned and said we should not be trying for self sufficiency or that we should be happy with continual losses. Yet, now we appear to be close (or have reached) self sufficiency, the moaners have surfaced. In the just over two years since Hughes arrived we have improved our points position in both seasons and finished 9th twice - and we appear to be close to break even. To me that is a reason for pride in the way the club is being run - because it is sustainable - unlike continual losses. The first team we played after promotion to the Prem was Bolton. They were posting regular losses but, no doubt their fans were happy because those losses were sustaining a place in the Prem. We lost that game and it was clear we had to learn fast. Since then, under two managers, we have cemented our place in the Prem and have now, apparently, eliminated our annual losses. Bolton on the other hand have managed to: # lose 5-1 to us in an FA Cup semifinal # get themselves relegated # and now have accumulated debt of well over £100 million and rising. And people on here moan about the way WE are being run! For what it is worth - I DO think the money is there for further player purchases even at the cost of breaking our transfer record again. But I think the board and the manager have reached a point where their bigger purchases have to be the right ones. We'll no doubt bring in more bargains, but the big money is kept in reserve for the big purchases. That pleases me - even if it doesn't please some on here. I look at some of the other clubs in the Prem who have spent vastly more than us, and whilst some have spent well, others don't seem to have bought much for their money. I must have missed the Bolton goal.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 9:28:52 GMT
Whatever your interpretation the manager said in the spring we need to invest to progress at the top end of the first 11 . Only two of our 9 signings could be considered define starters in our best 11 Johnson and shaq and to achieve that we have sold 2 nzozni and Bego . Net net CEO summer rhetoric absolute bollocks as ever and then we go on a trolley dash in the dying embers of the window for Jedinak and Naismith and as normal we can't Acually execute that either Carto and Scholesy are going to execute people? Crikey! Stoke's new hit squad.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 3, 2015 9:29:41 GMT
We are poles apart on this, I'm afraid. I don't have a problem with owners subsidising their club's stadia or their training facilities but I'm a firm believer in clubs being self sufficient (or close to it) where transfers and wages are concerned. I can't see that Rich billionaires like the owners of Chelsea and Man City bring anything positive to the competitive side of the Premier league. I realise that financial fair play regulations have been watered down so as to be almost worthless and I regret it. I'm grateful to the Coates family for buying the club and the stadium and for creating a good training facility and an Academy with potential instead of what we had before. And I won't begrudge them recouping their outlay if/when they sell the club. But, most of all, I applaud their aim to try to make the club sustainable where transfers (in and out) and the wage bill are concerned relative to the club's income. We are poles apart on this 'L-P' because I believe your strategy of long term investment could yield very little.You think of Crewe who've had a fantastic development programme but that hasn't produced anything other than survival in the lower leagues. I agree, that with Stoke's bigger residual support, our natural level might be 'The Championship'. Unless The Academy produces Bales, Walcotts like Soton Stoke being a smaller club than Leeds, Derby, Sheff Wed. would gravitate back to The Championship. Now, I wouldn't want to see this happen but it is the logic of the 'no family subsidy' policy you advocate! I notice Swansea City have posted a profit in their last two financial years for which accounts are available. They seem to be doing ok - last time I checked they were doing even better than Crewe! I'm not asking for continual profits - a mix of smallish profits and smallish losses resulting in a break even position taken over a few years is fine by me. As I said above - if we can't manage to fund our transfers and our wages on an annual income of £140 million then something is very wrong.
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 3, 2015 9:37:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 3, 2015 9:37:22 GMT
We are poles apart on this, I'm afraid. I don't have a problem with owners subsidising their club's stadia or their training facilities but I'm a firm believer in clubs being self sufficient (or close to it) where transfers and wages are concerned. I can't see that Rich billionaires like the owners of Chelsea and Man City bring anything positive to the competitive side of the Premier league. I realise that financial fair play regulations have been watered down so as to be almost worthless and I regret it. I'm grateful to the Coates family for buying the club and the stadium and for creating a good training facility and an Academy with potential instead of what we had before. And I won't begrudge them recouping their outlay if/when they sell the club. But, most of all, I applaud their aim to try to make the club sustainable where transfers (in and out) and the wage bill are concerned relative to the club's income. We are poles apart on this 'L-P' because I believe your strategy of long term investment could yield very little.You think of Crewe who've had a fantastic development programme but that hasn't produced anything other than survival in the lower leagues. I agree, that with Stoke's bigger residual support, our natural level might be 'The Championship'. Unless The Academy produces Bales, Walcotts like Soton Stoke being a smaller club than Leeds, Derby, Sheff Wed. would gravitate back to The Championship. Now, I wouldn't want to see this happen but it is the logic of the 'no family subsidy' policy you advocate! So essentially what you're saying, is that you believe it's impossible for a club of our size to remain in the Premier League, whilst at the same time being self sufficient? And that no matter how much increased TV revenue flows into the game, nothing will change your mind? Do you also believe that Swansea and Southampton will be relegated if they continue with a similar strategy? EDIT: I see that Lakeland has just posted something very similar.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 9:40:37 GMT
We are poles apart on this 'L-P' because I believe your strategy of long term investment could yield very little.You think of Crewe who've had a fantastic development programme but that hasn't produced anything other than survival in the lower leagues. I agree, that with Stoke's bigger residual support, our natural level might be 'The Championship'. Unless The Academy produces Bales, Walcotts like Soton Stoke being a smaller club than Leeds, Derby, Sheff Wed. would gravitate back to The Championship. Now, I wouldn't want to see this happen but it is the logic of the 'no family subsidy' policy you advocate! I notice Swansea City have posted a profit in their last two financial years for which accounts are available. They seem to be doing ok - last time I checked they were doing even better than Crewe! I'm not asking for continual profits - a mix of smallish profits and smallish losses resulting in a break even position taken over a few years is fine by me. As I said above - if we can't manage to fund our transfers and our wages on an annual income of £140 million then something is very wrong. Swansea went to a 'buy foreign, they're cheaper' policy several seasons before Stoke. The problem is, most other clubs have a bigger income than £140m and in a competitive enviroment, it's your relative buying power that counts. So, the argument £140m is a lot of money is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 3, 2015 9:49:01 GMT
I notice Swansea City have posted a profit in their last two financial years for which accounts are available. They seem to be doing ok - last time I checked they were doing even better than Crewe! I'm not asking for continual profits - a mix of smallish profits and smallish losses resulting in a break even position taken over a few years is fine by me. As I said above - if we can't manage to fund our transfers and our wages on an annual income of £140 million then something is very wrong. Swansea went to a 'buy foreign, they're cheaper' policy several seasons before Stoke. The problem is, most other clubs have a bigger income than £140m and in a competitive enviroment, it's your buying power that counts. So, the argument £140m is a lot of money is irrelevant. It isn't necessarily just your buying power that counts. How wisely you spend your money counts for just as much if not more. There were many clubs who earned more and spent more than us in the last two seasons, who finished below us last season. Can anyone remember when Sunderland or Villa last earned less or spent less than us? Can anyone remember when they last finished above us?
|
|