|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Apr 16, 2017 19:07:50 GMT
Come off it Pugs I know where you're coming from😄Don't agree with that at all because for me he's signed whoever he's wanted How do you know he has? He clearly hasn't, that's a stone wall fact. We're spending less money but people want better results and football. Listen, if Hughes goes he goes, I won't lose any sleep over it. What I will lose sleep over is the likes of Nigel Pearson coming in because, make no bones about it, that's the type of manager that will be coming in. Is that what you want? When you are looking at a list of names including the likes of Imbula, Shaqiri, Arnie, Bony, Berahino, Sobhi, Allen, then clearly he has failed miserably to get the best out of the squad. In fact, has a single one of those players lived up to expectations this season? The board probably feel he should not need to go and blow a load of money on players, why can't we ever seem to improve players by working hard in coaching etc. Look at lallana under klopp
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 19:20:43 GMT
Can you explain why the club are spending, on average, less per season than when the previous manager was here, despite the prize money significantly increasing? Maybe we had to establish ourselves in the 1st few seasons under the previous regime? So going by your logic, you'll be perfectly happy in reducing the spending further, now that we've established ourselves into 9th place by spending less than the previous regime?
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Apr 16, 2017 19:23:27 GMT
Maybe we had to establish ourselves in the 1st few seasons under the previous regime? So going by your logic, you'll be perfectly happy in reducing the spending further, now that we've established ourselves into 9th place by spending less than the previous regime? My logic is that Mark Hughes has spent a lot of money on duds of late so in the summer I would say thanks for all you've done and replace him
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 19:25:56 GMT
So going by your logic, you'll be perfectly happy in reducing the spending further, now that we've established ourselves into 9th place by spending less than the previous regime? My logic is that Mark Hughes has spent a lot of money on duds of late so in the summer I would say thanks for all you've done and replace him That's not answered the question. Answer that, then answer the following: Is it the managers choice to extend all of the contracts of players over the age of 30 and if so, why? Why if he's got good money to spend, is he choosing not to tap into the big wide world of football talent, and choosing to put more money in the way of over the hill footballers that are visibly on their last legs?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 16, 2017 19:27:55 GMT
My logic is that Mark Hughes has spent a lot of money on duds of late so in the summer I would say thanks for all you've done and replace him That's not answered the question. Answer that, then answer the following: Is it the managers choice to extend all of the contracts of players over the age of 30 and if so, why? Why if he's got good money to spend, is he choosing not to tap into the big wide world of football talent, and choosing to put more money in the way of over the hill footballers that are visibly on their last legs? Because he's a blithering idiot?
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Apr 16, 2017 19:29:36 GMT
My logic is that Mark Hughes has spent a lot of money on duds of late so in the summer I would say thanks for all you've done and replace him That's not answered the question. Answer that, then answer the following: Is it the managers choice to extend all of the contracts of players over the age of 30 and if so, why? Why if he's got good money to spend, is he choosing not to tap into the big wide world of football talent, and choosing to put more money in the way of over the hill footballers that are visibly on their last legs? Why wouldn't it be the manager's choice?Are you saying players are being scouted and bought for him then? Or maybe going on his duds he's been given or bought of late he doesn't trust Cartwright and co
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 19:31:57 GMT
That's not answered the question. Answer that, then answer the following: Is it the managers choice to extend all of the contracts of players over the age of 30 and if so, why? Why if he's got good money to spend, is he choosing not to tap into the big wide world of football talent, and choosing to put more money in the way of over the hill footballers that are visibly on their last legs? Why wouldn't it be the manager's choice?Are you saying players are being scouted and bought for him then? Or maybe going on his duds he's been given or bought of late he doesn't trust Cartwright and co I'm asking you a question as to why Hughes is extending contracts of players over the age of 30 when he has money to spend. The actions are telling me that the club can't find players better than what we have within the budget that we have.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Apr 16, 2017 19:33:20 GMT
Why wouldn't it be the manager's choice?Are you saying players are being scouted and bought for him then? Or maybe going on his duds he's been given or bought of late he doesn't trust Cartwright and co I'm asking you a question as to why Hughes is extending contracts of players over the age of 30 when he has money to spend. The actions are telling me that the club can't find players better than what we have. Maybe he trusts the older guard more or maybe he knows he's a goner come the end of the season
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Apr 16, 2017 20:00:29 GMT
Why wouldn't it be the manager's choice?Are you saying players are being scouted and bought for him then? Or maybe going on his duds he's been given or bought of late he doesn't trust Cartwright and co I'm asking you a question as to why Hughes is extending contracts of players over the age of 30 when he has money to spend. The actions are telling me that the club can't find players better than what we have within the budget that we have. Maybe the money we would have had has been wasted on players like Imbula, Diouf, Joselu, Bojan, Wolfy, Given, Haguaard, Ireland etc. these players are been paid a very good wage for doing little or nothing to help the cause, maybe he has been told to get shut of his deadwood before wasting another substantial amount of the club's funds on players he does not trust himself.
|
|
|
Post by mark71 on Apr 16, 2017 20:06:26 GMT
Perhaps we want to extend Johnson's contract, and a couple of other players to enable some of the youth players to develop more before they are blooded into the first team. If we go out and sign 5 or 6 players (as is being suggested by some) then we are severely limiting the opportunities of the young players.
I'm all for sticking with Johnson and Bardsley if that enables a route into the first team for some of the youngsters.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 20:11:19 GMT
I'm asking you a question as to why Hughes is extending contracts of players over the age of 30 when he has money to spend. The actions are telling me that the club can't find players better than what we have within the budget that we have. Maybe the money we would have had has been wasted on players like Imbula, Diouf, Joselu, Bojan, Wolfy, Given, Haguaard, Ireland etc. these players are been paid a very good wage for doing little or nothing to help the cause, maybe he has been told to get shut of his deadwood before wasting another substantial amount of the club's funds on players he does not trust himself. Those players cost a total of around 28M - an average of roughly 3.5M per head. Average Championship players are going for more than that. Take out Imbula and the average spend on the rest is 1.5M per head. Where are we with that? Non-league? The argument doesn't stack up though, if you are saying the club have told him to get rid of the deadwood then why is he actively extending the contracts of players over the age of 30 and thus filling the squad up with more dead wood? I'm just asking the questions here, i'm after answers and what is apparent is that there aren't so much in the way of any answers or even rock solid theories around here.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 16, 2017 20:14:52 GMT
Perhaps we want to extend Johnson's contract, and a couple of other players to enable some of the youth players to develop more before they are blooded into the first team. If we go out and sign 5 or 6 players (as is being suggested by some) then we are severely limiting the opportunities of the young players. I'm all for sticking with Johnson and Bardsley if that enables a route into the first team for some of the youngsters. They're being limited now! And these players are a right back, wingers and strikers (where we're stockpiled already). And all of that is based on trusting Hughes to actually give them a chance. Something he had struggled throughout his career to do. And then we're stuck with 2 (what should be) back up right backs and a young player who has his pathway blocked. Modern football has evolved and this keeps us fully down the line.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 16, 2017 20:15:50 GMT
Maybe the money we would have had has been wasted on players like Imbula, Diouf, Joselu, Bojan, Wolfy, Given, Haguaard, Ireland etc. these players are been paid a very good wage for doing little or nothing to help the cause, maybe he has been told to get shut of his deadwood before wasting another substantial amount of the club's funds on players he does not trust himself. Those players cost a total of around 28M - an average of roughly 3.5M per head. Average Championship players are going for more than that. Take out Imbula and the average spend on the rest is 1.5M per head. Where are we with that? Non-league? The argument doesn't stack up though, if you are saying the club have told him to get rid of the deadwood then why is he actively extending the contracts of players over the age of 30 and thus filling the squad up with more dead wood? I'm just asking the questions here, i'm after answers and what is apparent is that there aren't so much in the way of any answers or even rock solid theories around here. He's lost it! Clearly.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Apr 16, 2017 20:17:19 GMT
Some strange opinions on this thread.
Pulis spent a hell of a lot of money in his years here 'cos we needed to build a Premiership squad. Hughes initially only needed to tweak that squad as it had a pretty decent base to it. Since then Hughes has broke our transfer record multiple times, and signed players on wages way above anything we had before... Unyet he somehow hasn't been backed?
We've also got this bizarre notion that we must spend more & more money every transfer window otherwise it means we're being tight arses & not backing the manager.
Another bizarre notion that we're on somekind of tight budget, despite us signing players on record wages & breaking transfer record after transfer record.... And then not playing them.
Hughes has been backed to sign whoever he wants (Just like Pulis was) and Hughes has also fucked up on some major signings (Just like Pulis did) Hughes is also extending contracts of players the Oatcake deem as worthless (Just like Pulis did)
Who are these other clubs who're ditching all their players over 30 & are spending hundreds of millions each transfer window?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 16, 2017 20:20:11 GMT
Some strange opinions on this thread. Pulis spent a hell of a lot of money in his years here 'cos we needed to build a Premiership squad. Hughes initially only needed to tweak that squad as it had a pretty decent base to it. Since then Hughes has broke our transfer record multiple times, and signed players on wages way above anything we had before... Unyet he somehow hasn't been backed? We've also got this bizarre notion that we must spend more & more money every transfer window otherwise it means we're being tight arses & not backing the manager. Another bizarre notion that we're on somekind of tight budget, despite us signing players on record wages & breaking transfer record after transfer record.... And then not playing them. Hughes has been backed to sign whoever he wants (Just like Pulis was) and Hughes has also fucked up on some major signings (Just like Pulis did) Hughes is also extending contracts of players the Oatcake deem as worthless (Just like Pulis did) Who are these other clubs who're ditching all their players over 30 & are spending hundreds of millions each transfer window? The real issue with the 30 odd year olds is that we needed to replace them and get rid of them over time. We now simply can't do that. This lack of foresight could kill us. And as you say, it's exactly what TP did so I don't get the leniency.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Apr 16, 2017 20:21:44 GMT
Maybe the money we would have had has been wasted on players like Imbula, Diouf, Joselu, Bojan, Wolfy, Given, Haguaard, Ireland etc. these players are been paid a very good wage for doing little or nothing to help the cause, maybe he has been told to get shut of his deadwood before wasting another substantial amount of the club's funds on players he does not trust himself. Those players cost a total of around 28M - an average of roughly 3.5M per head. Average Championship players are going for more than that. Take out Imbula and the average spend on the rest is 1.5M per head. Where are we with that? Non-league? The argument doesn't stack up though, if you are saying the club have told him to get rid of the deadwood then why is he actively extending the contracts of players over the age of 30 and thus filling the squad up with more dead wood? I'm just asking the questions here, i'm after answers and what is apparent is that there aren't so much in the way of any answers or even rock solid theories around here. It's a fair question, too. I alluded to it on another thread. Has he been told he has a certain limit that he can't exceed? I understand that older players have to be phased out gradually, but these regular contract extensions are getting ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 16, 2017 20:22:27 GMT
It really worries me that we're even considering keeping Johnson. Bardsley has been the better player all season and he's not really good enough either. It's a worrying situation here.... the old guard remain and we atrophy as a team.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Apr 16, 2017 20:32:47 GMT
Maybe the money we would have had has been wasted on players like Imbula, Diouf, Joselu, Bojan, Wolfy, Given, Haguaard, Ireland etc. these players are been paid a very good wage for doing little or nothing to help the cause, maybe he has been told to get shut of his deadwood before wasting another substantial amount of the club's funds on players he does not trust himself. Those players cost a total of around 28M - an average of roughly 3.5M per head. Average Championship players are going for more than that. Take out Imbula and the average spend on the rest is 1.5M per head. Where are we with that? Non-league? The argument doesn't stack up though, if you are saying the club have told him to get rid of the deadwood then why is he actively extending the contracts of players over the age of 30 and thus filling the squad up with more dead wood? I'm just asking the questions here, i'm after answers and what is apparent is that there aren't so much in the way of any answers or even rock solid theories around here. So these players have received no signing on fee's, no wages and why would you take our record signing out of the equation to suit your agenda ?, the only thing I can think is that he has completely lost the plot, he has taken a solid enough squad added some very expensive players and taken us backwards now that is some underachievement , let's not forget he extended Walters and Crouchies contracts recently not to mention the Affelay debacle.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Apr 16, 2017 21:18:51 GMT
Those players cost a total of around 28M - an average of roughly 3.5M per head. Average Championship players are going for more than that. Take out Imbula and the average spend on the rest is 1.5M per head. Where are we with that? Non-league? The argument doesn't stack up though, if you are saying the club have told him to get rid of the deadwood then why is he actively extending the contracts of players over the age of 30 and thus filling the squad up with more dead wood? I'm just asking the questions here, i'm after answers and what is apparent is that there aren't so much in the way of any answers or even rock solid theories around here. It's a fair question, too. I alluded to it on another thread. Has he been told he has a certain limit that he can't exceed? I understand that older players have to be phased out gradually, but these regular contract extensions are getting ridiculous. Does it mean that they will stay though? They can still be sold
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Apr 16, 2017 22:07:33 GMT
It's a fair question, too. I alluded to it on another thread. Has he been told he has a certain limit that he can't exceed? I understand that older players have to be phased out gradually, but these regular contract extensions are getting ridiculous. Does it mean that they will stay though? They can still be sold True. Maybe there will be a rush for them.
|
|
|
Post by tomcmod on Apr 16, 2017 23:47:44 GMT
Couls Bardsleys agent be playing hard ball, thinking they only wanted him to stay, so Stoke have called his bluff and gone back to Johnson? I can't see us giving them both contracts, just trying to get the best deal out of one of them. Preferably Bardsley with Edwards, who seems to be a young Bardsley who is local too, Stafford?
|
|
|
Post by thisfootballclub on Apr 16, 2017 23:53:14 GMT
Best days so obviously behind him, injury prone and often looks disinterested, surely a prime candidate to be released?
|
|
|
Post by stokesaint1 on Apr 17, 2017 0:52:11 GMT
It would be an absolute nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo from me. Way past his best now, extremely injury prone, very inconsistent, in fact awful for last few months (when he was fit enough to play) and does nothing for lowering our age profile. We could end up with the oldest, slowest squad in the prem, if Hughes continues to offer contract extensions to Johnson et al. I will be extremely disappointed if this is a sign of things to come over the next few months. Wake up Hughes, we do not want another season like this one, whatever the league position we end up in.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Apr 17, 2017 8:18:46 GMT
Why do fans have so little faith in the Stoke management and owners? A new contract with Johnson increases his value if he is sold. Until we have a replacement we are quite right to secure what we have. Meanwhile Stoke fans talk down his value.The club always bring in new players every summer without fail. In 2015 the club brought in nearly a whole team of players and posters on Oatcake were complaining we were signing too many needlessly. There were only a few last summer, but having spent £19m on Ramadan and Allen and expecting to spend £20m on Berahino they probably held back on other signings. I am confident the management know what they are doing and have a wise guiding leader in PC, who will take the club forward to better days. Glen Johnson knows he is in a good place. He and his agent could sort out a Bosman free to wherever he wants this summer
As a soon-to-be 33-year-old free agent, his value is absolutely minimal, isn't it?He may be comfortable here, but we must be offering something pretty attractive to be more appealing to him than an offer that didn't require 4 or 5 hours travelling up from the south-east every day. I really would find a triple-whammy of Bardsley, Johnson and Adam mystifying. The obvious move is to re-contract Bardsley and look for a new No.1 That's exactly my point; by tying him into a contract, he has a saleable value. As to what he is offered being attractive, has he signed yet? www.squawka.com/news/glen-johnson-in-advanced-talks-over-new-stoke-city-deal-despite-west-ham-interest/934894#XcZu1pUs28Ud5FbI.97I think there is still a good chance West Ham could be relegated; look at their remaining fixtures: www.soccerstats.com/team.asp?league=england&teamid=31
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Apr 17, 2017 8:59:37 GMT
He and his agent could sort out a Bosman free to wherever he wants this summer
As a soon-to-be 33-year-old free agent, his value is absolutely minimal, isn't it?He may be comfortable here, but we must be offering something pretty attractive to be more appealing to him than an offer that didn't require 4 or 5 hours travelling up from the south-east every day. I really would find a triple-whammy of Bardsley, Johnson and Adam mystifying. The obvious move is to re-contract Bardsley and look for a new No.1 That's exactly my point; by tying him into a contract, he has a saleable value. As to what he is offered being attractive, has he signed yet? www.squawka.com/news/glen-johnson-in-advanced-talks-over-new-stoke-city-deal-despite-west-ham-interest/934894#XcZu1pUs28Ud5FbI.97I think there is still a good chance West Ham could be relegated; look at their remaining fixtures: www.soccerstats.com/team.asp?league=england&teamid=31Think West Ham will stumble over the line. You can get 150/1 on them going down Can't see giving Johnson 12 months increasing his saleable value, as any club who's remotely interested could get in touch with him right now and get him for nothing. He is, at the moment, up for grabs for anyone who offers him the most attractive overall package, not just us. With that being the case, I can't see someone deciding to pay £2m for him in 6 months time. Just think it's as simple as re-contracting him because Hughes really wants him to stay and be our right-back next season, rather than covering ourselves and ensuring we can get cash for him. We'll see how it pans out though. If the next step is giving Bardsley another 12 months as well, it will send out a pretty depressing signal.
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Apr 17, 2017 9:04:16 GMT
Weren't we linked to the Barca B full back, Palencia I think?. Would he come if we re signed Johnson & Bardsley and where would that leave Tom Edwards?. We really do harbour too many 30+ players.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 9:25:56 GMT
Young, quick defenders. Not rocket science!
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Apr 17, 2017 10:25:12 GMT
Weren't we linked to the Barca B full back, Palencia I think?. Would he come if we re signed Johnson & Bardsley and where would that leave Tom Edwards?. We really do harbour too many 30+ players. It would leave Tom Edwards still learning his trade as an under 18 before making the step up Fuck me nobody more than myself would like to see him given a chance but don't talk about him like he's a 24 year old big money signing that's out of the squad
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 17, 2017 10:30:33 GMT
Weren't we linked to the Barca B full back, Palencia I think?. Would he come if we re signed Johnson & Bardsley and where would that leave Tom Edwards?. We really do harbour too many 30+ players. It would leave Tom Edwards still learning his trade as an under 18 before making the step up Fuck me nobody more than myself would like to see him given a chance but don't talk about him like he's a 24 year old big money signing that's out of the squad Get your point Werrers but he deserves some minutes before the end of the season is up.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Apr 17, 2017 10:32:04 GMT
It would leave Tom Edwards still learning his trade as an under 18 before making the step up Fuck me nobody more than myself would like to see him given a chance but don't talk about him like he's a 24 year old big money signing that's out of the squad Get your point Werrers but he deserves some minutes before the end of the season is up. I'd be delighted if that was the case Bayern and fingers crossed he will ...but to ask where it leaves him is really fuckwitted in the extreme
|
|