|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 12:48:43 GMT
What was the three year plan?
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 2, 2016 12:53:41 GMT
What was the three year plan? Collectivisation, Industrialisation, Modernisation. No, wait, that was Stalin's five-year plan. Always getting those two mixed up.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 2, 2016 13:03:02 GMT
He spend the fabled £80m-plus here on a mix of decent solid players, but for every one of those, there was also a complete shitter. Michael Kightly is still having four wanks a day even now, after his multiple contract extensions that Tone handed him, based on contibuting 2/5 of fuck all. He then went to Palace, and a couple of months in, was asked by a reporter how and why he was managing to play a better standard of 'football' there, than he'd become renowned for here. He stated that the squad of players at Palace was better than he had at Stoke, and this allowed him to play in a different style. That 'better' Palace team was built by Neil Warnock for around £15m iirc. Supertone in a nutshell. Michael Kightly was only here for 2 years what bollocks is this? I think he meant Michael tonge. The argument is still valid
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 2, 2016 13:13:21 GMT
does TP have a grandson who cant play football to save his life who is now old enough to be given a contract at WBA yet?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 2, 2016 13:14:16 GMT
Albion, all you need to know is that the basic balance sheet for us for TP reads:
+ he took us up
- he's a massive twat
That said, you obviously have the broad measure of him already. He did bring in some decent players obviously but also made some absolute car crash purchases too - and, as others have already alluded to, he did like to get up to some real fun and games in the transfer market.
And clearly, he is still at it with the saga that is SB. As alster says, it has been widely mooted in the meeja the likely route for SB & his agents / acolytes to go down now in order to get back in the Prem (possibly with us) is via a foreign club - royally shafting you guys for twenty big in the process.
So it will be interesting to see who the new take-away boys blame for that little deficit (if, indeed, SB was factored in as an asset in the first place as you suggest).
He's not going to change and with the lines drawn so publicly in the sand now, it will just be interesting to see just how this plays out and when he goes, not if.
Like you I think he'll be waiting for a big fat goodbye if the new owners are daft enough to pay him. I'm sure the Council Tax for Sandbanks must be crippling him these days after Parish took his trousers down last year.
I don't see the argument about Berahino's value in the accounts. If you have a player who you value at £20 million in the accounts then, if you sell him for £20 million you still have the £20 million cash in your accounts. If you spend the cash on a replacement player then you no longer have the cash but, instead you have another player valued at whatever you pay for him. Obviously agent's fees will cream a bit off the bottom line, but basically - cash or player - the value should be reflected in the accounts. *******Accountancy warning ******** My understanding is that the general principle for football clubs is that the acquisition cost of players (transfer fee / signing on fee etc) are capitalised as intangible assets and amortised over the length of the players contract so for example if you give player A a 5 year contract and he costs you £10m all in then each year you write down £2m (£10m / 5) as an expense. If the value of the player becomes a lot less than this you then have to write down to what the players are really worth (this happened at Stoke in his last year when we made those big losses). As Berahanio was not purchased by west brom he would effectively have no value in their accounts because they are strict accounting rules as to when and what can be recognised as an internally generated assets. So it is entirely possible the sale price of the club was as albion1 said £130m + £20m, when you value something for sale you would take into account things such as the TV contract, the customer base (season tickets sales etc) and the valuation of players these are all things that accounting rules prevent you from recognising in the ordinary yearly acounts except where the sales or costs of these relate to that years accounts.
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on Sept 2, 2016 13:16:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 2, 2016 13:17:36 GMT
I'm not a TP basher, and appreciate what he did for the club. However, when he gets to the stage that he did with us in 2012/2013 season, and the little comments and games start to become obvious, then it's time for the parting of the ways. This is the stage he's at with Albion now, you only have to listen to him. He may well keep you up,just, but my god it's going to be hard watching. The playing of the kiddies, or at least including them in the squad, is another way of saying to the board, " Look what I'm having to do! We need players in" I think it's inevitable that he'll be going soon, he appears to have lost the crowd already. It ought to be sooner rather than later tho, because I really thought we were going down in 2012/2013 when we went from 8th on Boxing Day, to almost dropping into the bottom 3 (Scraped a win at QPR to take the pressure off) we looked doomed those last few months. Funnily enough it was after the January transfer window 😉 i always remember Charlie Adam's quote in the press just before those last few games 'the players know what we need to do'. I thought then that TP was out on his own and playing games again.
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Sept 2, 2016 13:17:55 GMT
Albion, all you need to know is that the basic balance sheet for us for TP reads:
+ he took us up
- he's a massive twat
That said, you obviously have the broad measure of him already. He did bring in some decent players obviously but also made some absolute car crash purchases too - and, as others have already alluded to, he did like to get up to some real fun and games in the transfer market.
And clearly, he is still at it with the saga that is SB. As alster says, it has been widely mooted in the meeja the likely route for SB & his agents / acolytes to go down now in order to get back in the Prem (possibly with us) is via a foreign club - royally shafting you guys for twenty big in the process.
So it will be interesting to see who the new take-away boys blame for that little deficit (if, indeed, SB was factored in as an asset in the first place as you suggest).
He's not going to change and with the lines drawn so publicly in the sand now, it will just be interesting to see just how this plays out and when he goes, not if.
Like you I think he'll be waiting for a big fat goodbye if the new owners are daft enough to pay him. I'm sure the Council Tax for Sandbanks must be crippling him these days after Parish took his trousers down last year.
I don't see the argument about Berahino's value in the accounts. If you have a player who you value at £20 million in the accounts then, if you sell him for £20 million you still have the £20 million cash in your accounts. If you spend the cash on a replacement player then you no longer have the cash but, instead you have another player valued at whatever you pay for him. Obviously agent's fees will cream a bit off the bottom line, but basically - cash or player - the value should be reflected in the accounts. He started it Forny
And I agree with you but...
My point is that if he was factored in to the sale @£20m (or his cash value or ano incoming player) and now, because of 'somebody', the club face losing him for nowt via the European holding club route as widely touted Wed / yesterday, then the new take-away owners aren't going to be happy with a £20m 'hole'.
More than likely, they will see it as gross negligence and be after someone's bollox accordingly.
Hence the blame game started in the press yesterday with Williams firing the opening salvo & blaming TP.
Whether TP fires back, or just walks I've not got a Scooby. Maybe both - but I suspect he'll stay for a golden Foxtrot Oscar.
|
|
|
Post by LDE76 on Sept 2, 2016 13:19:36 GMT
What was the three year plan? Collectivisation, Industrialisation, Modernisation. No, wait, that was Stalin's five-year plan. Always getting those two mixed up. To be fair, they'd be identical were it not for Pulis liquidating the kulaks.
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Sept 2, 2016 13:30:11 GMT
I don't see the argument about Berahino's value in the accounts. If you have a player who you value at £20 million in the accounts then, if you sell him for £20 million you still have the £20 million cash in your accounts. If you spend the cash on a replacement player then you no longer have the cash but, instead you have another player valued at whatever you pay for him. Obviously agent's fees will cream a bit off the bottom line, but basically - cash or player - the value should be reflected in the accounts. *******Accountancy warning ******** My understanding is that the general principle for football clubs is that the acquisition cost of players (transfer fee / signing on fee etc) are capitalised as intangible assets and amortised over the length of the players contract so for example if you give player A a 5 year contract and he costs you £10m all in then each year you write down £2m (£10m / 5) as an expense. If the value of the player becomes a lot less than this you then have to write down to what the players are really worth (this happened at Stoke in his last year when we made those big losses). As Berahanio was not purchased by west brom he would effectively have no value in their accounts because they are strict accounting rules as to when and what can be recognised as an internally generated assets. So it is entirely possible the sale price of the club was as albion1 said £130m + £20m, when you value something for sale you would take into account things such as the TV contract, the customer base (season tickets sales etc) and the valuation of players these are all things that accounting rules prevent you from recognising in the ordinary yearly acounts except where the sales or costs of these relate to that years accounts. Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by oslostokie1 on Sept 2, 2016 13:46:57 GMT
What I would find astonishing is on some occasions (eg. Owen, Gudjonsson, Tonge), we would acquire players and literally never give them a kick. I can't remember Owen or Gudjonsson starting more than one game each when we had been the lowest goal scorers across all the football leagues for 3 consecutive years. They were both surely past their best but in the predicament we were in, you would have thought good for a few more games. I began to wonder whether it was Pulis who was really signing these players, although on balance I think it probably was but had subsequently worked out in training that they were not going to conform to the "Method" and shunned them thereafter.
Glenn Whelan, believe it or not, arrived at Stoke as a goalscoring midfielder from Sheffield and was shunned by Pulis for the best part of a season as he went "hunting for goals" in our first Prem game against Bolton. Pulis once remarked that Whelan had even proven him wrong by subsequently settling down into the crab-like, "Yacob" defensive midfield role he has been holding down for 6 years, without a single goal to his name. Probably he would have been fined for doing so...
I had a chat with Pulis once in our local pub as I lived near to him. Really nice guy to speak to, very down to earth, sipping a glass of red at the end of this quiet bar outside Betley. We had just won 3-1 against Cardiff in a midweek match and the first thing he said was pity about the "1" and how Hoefkens (a subsequent Baggies recruit and dreaded foreign fullback in TP's eyes) had failed to prevent a back-post header, and then how he had earlier converted our mercurial, injury-prone Dutch winger, Peter Hoekstra, into someone who would track back and support his fullback. I guess Calum McManaman has proven incapable of this and has been cast aside as a result.
It's not to criticise his ways but he is the very original Marmite manager.
|
|
|
Post by oslostokie1 on Sept 2, 2016 13:58:21 GMT
If we ever got into any relegation dogfight, he would be an ideal guy to bring back but it could never happen as I could only ever see him working with the players he had signed who were still hanging around + the likes of Bardsley, Pieters, etc. There would be an end of season fire sale with the likes of Shaqiri, Bojan, Arnautovic, Imbula, Muniesa, etc, available at rock bottom prices
|
|
|
Post by trentvale68 on Sept 2, 2016 14:05:09 GMT
I don't envy you Baggies. Your guaranteed 6 points off us is very little compensation for all the trauma you have to deal with during the rest of the year. Good luck! The good old days when it was the other way around!
|
|
|
Post by albion1 on Sept 2, 2016 14:17:03 GMT
Just out of interest really and probably risking inflaming the subject as it becomes more about Pulis rather than the transfer structure he worked under but anyway....
Lets say in January this year you were 17th, 1 point outside the bottom 3 involved in a 6 way relegation scrap and Hughes was sacked, how many would take him back?
|
|
|
Post by oslostokie1 on Sept 2, 2016 14:19:50 GMT
Just out of interest really and probably risking inflaming the subject as it becomes more about Pulis rather than the transfer structure he worked under but anyway.... Lets say in January this year you were 17th, 1 point outside the bottom 3 involved in a 6 way relegation scrap and Hughes was sacked, how many would take him back? For 5 months with a huge success bonus, absolutely. Beyond that, no.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 14:22:50 GMT
Just out of interest really and probably risking inflaming the subject as it becomes more about Pulis rather than the transfer structure he worked under but anyway.... Lets say in January this year you were 17th, 1 point outside the bottom 3 involved in a 6 way relegation scrap and Hughes was sacked, how many would take him back? No way. I couldn't watch that repetitive crap he passes off as football ever again.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 2, 2016 14:23:15 GMT
Just out of interest really and probably risking inflaming the subject as it becomes more about Pulis rather than the transfer structure he worked under but anyway.... Lets say in January this year you were 17th, 1 point outside the bottom 3 involved in a 6 way relegation scrap and Hughes was sacked, how many would take him back? I think there's a fair few who'd take him back now, he was like their dad. Loads would take him back in the circumstances you describe. I wouldn't because best case scenario is he does a wonderful job keeping you up and then you're stuck with him again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 14:23:36 GMT
Good to see a balanced opposition poster giving us insights into the world of west brom. With 'haway' and 'hammered' also, we've got a few good people visiting...... Also the regular Villa lad and that passing through Sheff Wednesday bod.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 14:26:56 GMT
Maurice fucking Edu.
Brek frigging Shea.
Christ all pissing mighty. Just to what extent had he lost the plot?
Apples. Crumbs. Steak. Chips. The stuff of nightmares.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 2, 2016 14:28:00 GMT
Just out of interest really and probably risking inflaming the subject as it becomes more about Pulis rather than the transfer structure he worked under but anyway.... Lets say in January this year you were 17th, 1 point outside the bottom 3 involved in a 6 way relegation scrap and Hughes was sacked, how many would take him back? Most of us have had our fill of him mate. Hand on heart, I wouldn't want him back here under any circumstances, even those you mention. To coin a well know Baggies phrase "I'd rather be relegated than watch that shit". The funny thing from our perspective is that if he stays, and I hope to god he does, you could well end up being relegated whilst having to watch that shit. To us who endured your clubs, fans and media's "holier than thou" approach to the game as we dicked you every time we met, that would quite simply be one of the funniest things in football for a number of years. (That is not to say you are one such Baggies fan) EDIT - in the interests of balance, he did produce a very good and at times very entertaining Stoke City team. The side that finished our first premier league season was actually a very good one, capable of giving anyone a game as was the side we had in the 2011 Cup Final season. The sad thing was that Pulis never released the shackles and when we finally did, he all too quickly reverted to type. In football terms, he really was scared of his own shadow. The team that we had under Pulis (promotion and early Premier League years) in my opinion was a very good and very exciting team to watch, when allowed to be so. It was streets ahead of the turgid, shite team he has playing for you boys now and we must never forget that we always had the delights of Ricardo Fuller to dull the senses. Once he was "outcast", it was turgid shit after even more turgid shit, the likes of which I would never want to see again. We can be crap now and have been crap for quite some time but at least it is positive crap. If we are 2-0 down, we try to get back into the game. We might get stuffed by even more but at least we have a go. We have a manager who sends the team out to win rather than not to lose and there is a huge difference as I'm sure you know only too well.
|
|
|
Post by oslostokie1 on Sept 2, 2016 14:35:10 GMT
Personally, I wouldn't mind 5 months of Pulis if it guaranteed us Premiership riches for a few years after that. If we find ourselves in the predicament you describe in January, there will be quite a few on here who will long after the "good old days", along with, I suspect, the only one who really counts, namely Peter Coates.
|
|
|
Post by albion1 on Sept 2, 2016 14:37:36 GMT
Just out of interest really and probably risking inflaming the subject as it becomes more about Pulis rather than the transfer structure he worked under but anyway.... Lets say in January this year you were 17th, 1 point outside the bottom 3 involved in a 6 way relegation scrap and Hughes was sacked, how many would take him back? Most of us have had our fill of him mate. Hand on heart, I wouldn't want him back here under any circumstances, even those you mention. To coin a well know Baggies phrase "I'd rather be relegated than watch that shit". The funny thing from our perspective is that if he stays, and I hope to god he does, you could well end up being relegated whilst having to watch that shit. To us who endured your clubs, fans and media's "holier than thou" approach to the game as we dicked you every time we met, that would quite simply be one of the funniest things in football for a number of years. (That is not to say you are one such Baggies fan) I am of a 'rather get relegated' view. If the two choices were Pulis for 5 years with guaranteed PL football every year or confirmed relegation without him I'd take the second option. However I'm not of the opinion that if he goes we are automatically down which a number of our lot seem to hold, and so they are not the only two options available to us. Theres a degree of hypocrisy among our fanbase which gets to me, probably more than it should but hypocrisy is on of my biggest bug bears in any form. 5/6 years ago the vast vast majority loved Mowbray and were of the 'rather get relegated' opinion. Ask now and Mowbray is viewed as almost incompetent by a pretty sizeable proportion of the fanbase whilst Pulis is viewed as a necessary appointment by others. I have to agree though that relegation at the end of a Pulis season of football would potentially be the the worst thing that could happen to a club apart from going out of business
|
|
|
Post by albion1 on Sept 2, 2016 14:39:35 GMT
Just out of interest really and probably risking inflaming the subject as it becomes more about Pulis rather than the transfer structure he worked under but anyway.... Lets say in January this year you were 17th, 1 point outside the bottom 3 involved in a 6 way relegation scrap and Hughes was sacked, how many would take him back? I think there's a fair few who'd take him back now, he was like their dad.Loads would take him back in the circumstances you describe. I wouldn't because best case scenario is he does a wonderful job keeping you up and then you're stuck with him again. Am I right in thinking 'Stokelad' is known on these boards? Surely he must either be a relation or close personal friend of Pulis, or alternatively has a genuine obsession with the man.
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on Sept 2, 2016 14:47:11 GMT
Personally, I wouldn't mind 5 months of Pulis if it guaranteed us Premiership riches for a few years after that. If we find ourselves in the predicament you describe in January, there will be quite a few on here who will long after the "good old days", along with, I suspect, the only one who really counts, namely Peter Coates. What would he do with those Prem riches? What would be the point of having them? Sounds like the whole purpose of our football would be survival at any cost? I may be getting too old for today' taste but I remember (honest, I do!!)Spurs legend, Danny Blanchflower, saying that 'without the prospect of glory, football is not worth the endeavour'. Am inclined to agree having watched a fair amount of 'risk-free. take no chances' games over the past few years.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Sept 2, 2016 14:48:04 GMT
I think there's a fair few who'd take him back now, he was like their dad.Loads would take him back in the circumstances you describe. I wouldn't because best case scenario is he does a wonderful job keeping you up and then you're stuck with him again. Am I right in thinking 'Stokelad' is known on these boards? Surely he must either be a relation or close personal friend of Pulis, or alternatively has a genuine obsession with the man. There's a theory it's little Ant Jr.
|
|
|
Post by oslostokie1 on Sept 2, 2016 15:05:42 GMT
Personally, I wouldn't mind 5 months of Pulis if it guaranteed us Premiership riches for a few years after that. If we find ourselves in the predicament you describe in January, there will be quite a few on here who will long after the "good old days", along with, I suspect, the only one who really counts, namely Peter Coates. What would he do with those Prem riches? What would be the point of having them? Sounds like the whole purpose of our football would be survival at any cost? I may be getting too old for today' taste but I remember (honest, I do!!)Spurs legend, Danny Blanchflower, saying that 'without the prospect of glory, football is not worth the endeavour'. Am inclined to agree having watched a fair amount of 'risk-free. take no chances' games over the past few years. A few posts before the one you responded to, I qualified the "5 months of Pulis" being that he left after he had kept us up, with a huge success bonus. Basically because I don't think there is anyone better to preserve your Prem status but hardly anyone worse to prosper from it. So I would only bring him back if he accepted it was only going to be an incredibly lucrative 5 months after which he would depart. Probably he would not do it.
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Sept 2, 2016 15:12:31 GMT
Just out of interest really and probably risking inflaming the subject as it becomes more about Pulis rather than the transfer structure he worked under but anyway.... Lets say in January this year you were 17th, 1 point outside the bottom 3 involved in a 6 way relegation scrap and Hughes was sacked, how many would take him back? Although they would have to take the fans' view(s) into account, I really don't believe that any of Sir Pete, John or Denise Coates would (plus it's a pretty safe bet TS - our CEO - wouldn't).
And that's all that counts really.
I know PC had him back before and did so despite the horrors of all that binary bollox but that was with a very specific brief: get us up.
Having done that, PC is honourable enough to have given him the time to succeed or fail in the Prem and while we weren't exactly failing as such (no 'real' relegation fears), he was wily enough to see where it was (or wasn't) going with Tone, so put Cartwright in as DoF and ultimately made the call to get shut.
Interesting to ask the same Q of the fans of any of the clubs he's been at. Suspect it would be a resounding negative.
That said, and aside from the no from me, I'm sure it would be a similar response from those that matter here.
|
|
|
Post by LDE76 on Sept 2, 2016 15:17:55 GMT
Am I right in thinking 'Stokelad' is known on these boards? Surely he must either be a relation or close personal friend of Pulis, or alternatively has a genuine obsession with the man. There's a theory it's little Ant Jr. As funny as that would be, it's just some obsessive. I've seen his Twitter page.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 2, 2016 15:24:06 GMT
I don't see the argument about Berahino's value in the accounts. If you have a player who you value at £20 million in the accounts then, if you sell him for £20 million you still have the £20 million cash in your accounts. If you spend the cash on a replacement player then you no longer have the cash but, instead you have another player valued at whatever you pay for him. Obviously agent's fees will cream a bit off the bottom line, but basically - cash or player - the value should be reflected in the accounts. *******Accountancy warning ******** My understanding is that the general principle for football clubs is that the acquisition cost of players (transfer fee / signing on fee etc) are capitalised as intangible assets and amortised over the length of the players contract so for example if you give player A a 5 year contract and he costs you £10m all in then each year you write down £2m (£10m / 5) as an expense. If the value of the player becomes a lot less than this you then have to write down to what the players are really worth (this happened at Stoke in his last year when we made those big losses). As Berahanio was not purchased by west brom he would effectively have no value in their accounts because they are strict accounting rules as to when and what can be recognised as an internally generated assets. So it is entirely possible the sale price of the club was as albion1 said £130m + £20m, when you value something for sale you would take into account things such as the TV contract, the customer base (season tickets sales etc) and the valuation of players these are all things that accounting rules prevent you from recognising in the ordinary yearly acounts except where the sales or costs of these relate to that years accounts. Yes, you've explained that well and I understand it. But, even if Berahino has no value in the accounts, he still has a value to an owner or a prospective purchaser of the club. If another club (Stoke) have offered £20 million for Berahino then it is reasonable to assume that, to the prospective owner, Berahino is at that moment, potentally worth £20 million on top of the rest of the club's value. If that propective owner were told that Berahino was refusing to sign a new contract and would be worth, say, £8 million at a tribunal hearing in 12 month's time or £0 if he signed a pre-contract with a foreign club, what is the sensible thing for the prospective owner to do? If I were the prospective owner, I would say to the club I was proposing to buy "If you can't persuade him to sign a new contract NOW, then, either sell this guy for the £20 million you have been offered, or my offer to buy the club will be reduced by the loss I expect to make on the reduction in Berahino's value. I'll pay you £20 million less up front and agree to pay you none, some or all of the £20 million when the situation resolved its self (with a tribunal fee or a foreign club signing him for free) at the end of the season."
|
|
|
Post by milky on Sept 2, 2016 15:27:29 GMT
Tone is essentially a firefighter,and a very good one at that.
The problem is once he has put the fire out his job is done and there isn't really much use for him.And if he hangs around long enough he seems intent on starting another fire in order to extinguish it again.
|
|