|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 30, 2017 8:12:43 GMT
Stoke 4th from bottom in current PL in fees spent on new footballers in Hughes's reign. 10 million behind 5th from bottom Swansea and only above the three newly promoted teams by 10million.
Teams around us spent more than double.
He probably should go but you're all going to be disappointed if you think a new manager will be backed to the hilt.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Apr 30, 2017 8:17:34 GMT
Stoke 4th from bottom in current PL in fees spent on new footballers in Hughes's reign. 10 million behind 5th from bottom Swansea and only above the three newly promoted teams by 10million. Teams around us spent more than double. He probably should go but you're all going to be disappointed if you think a new manager will be backed to the hilt. Fair point. We've both bemoaned the lack of funds Hughes had, especially early on. As much as he's pissed me off lately, I think it goes deeper than Hughes.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Apr 30, 2017 8:17:55 GMT
Stoke 4th from bottom in current PL in fees spent on new footballers in Hughes's reign. 10 million behind 5th from bottom Swansea and only above the three newly promoted teams by 10million. Teams around us spent more than double. He probably should go but you're all going to be disappointed if you think a new manager will be backed to the hilt. Thank fuck for that on players signed by Hughes😄
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 8:19:18 GMT
Been trying to say this Pugs for weeks. Our like for like spending has gone down from the last managerial regime despite an increase in TV money.
The club have been clever with well timed big money signings interspersed with crafty loans and cheap money signings.
The worry long term is the "12 month extension" mentality amongst our over 30s players is creating an absolute monster that some poor fecker has got to put right.
As of last year, two of our front line players cost a combined 3M in fees. Great on one hand, but not sustainable on the other.
Don't get me wrong, Hughes has been backed to a certain level but a lot of clubs have overtaken us quite quickly.
We need to up our game.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Apr 30, 2017 8:24:26 GMT
The wage bill is extremely competitive amongst the midtable teams though. And it's always said that's the key differentiator.
|
|
|
Post by generationex on Apr 30, 2017 8:28:35 GMT
And the last four signings have been the most expensive players in the history of the club, so it's all relative.
One of the reasons for the new manager was to get better value from recruitment - making us self sufficient.
It's got worse.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 30, 2017 8:33:07 GMT
The wage bill is extremely competitive amongst the midtable teams though. And it's always said that's the key differentiator. That's true but the only caveat to that is clubs like us, Sunderland & WBA will have to pay more wages to get decent players to sign.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 8:34:38 GMT
The wage bill is extremely competitive amongst the midtable teams though. And it's always said that's the key differentiator. Is there are 2015/16 comparison for ALL clubs to make it more balanced though?
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Apr 30, 2017 8:36:45 GMT
I thought this was going to be a post about how bad our support was yesterday
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Apr 30, 2017 8:44:06 GMT
The wage bill is extremely competitive amongst the midtable teams though. And it's always said that's the key differentiator. Is there are 2015/16 comparison for ALL clubs to make it more balanced though? Not sure. The figures tend to come out in dribs and drabs, don't they? When all the latest figures are in, I don't think we'll be ahead of our competitors by that much, but I don't think we'll be behind any similar-sized club in the wage bill department. This is still a good read
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Apr 30, 2017 8:54:39 GMT
I thought this was going to be a post about how bad our support was yesterday Our support has been wank for a good while, even when we were 8th, on march 20th last season, but i forgot, some numbnuts say were have been wank for 18 months to 2 years. Baffles me how some can be so far off the mark.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 9:00:07 GMT
Stoke 4th from bottom in current PL in fees spent on new footballers in Hughes's reign. 10 million behind 5th from bottom Swansea and only above the three newly promoted teams by 10million. Teams around us spent more than double. He probably should go but you're all going to be disappointed if you think a new manager will be backed to the hilt. Great stats. Add into the mix that a proportion of what we HAVE spent, has been completely and utterly spunked up the wall, and it all starts to make sense...
|
|
|
Post by mozzer on Apr 30, 2017 9:02:07 GMT
I think he has been backed when he has asked for it.
If you were to read this board and take in what the delusional fuckers were banging on about at the end of last season we only needed a midfielder and full back and we were winning the champions league, the problem has not been the backing from uncle Pete it has been the management team knowing pre season what we required to improve the team, unfortunately they are blind to problems with the squad and never really seemed to find out until the problem hit them full bore square on the nose....a goalkeeper anyone, a centre half anyone, a left back anyone, a right back anyone, a ball winning midfield general anyone, a goalscorer anyone( or a player that may even score at least one in 10 games never mind one in 10 chances, diouf would have given a better return goals per game played in attack).
Not buying in to the fact that he has not been backed, the management team are either scared to sign players after the embarrassing mess at QPR where they signed 170 new members of playing staff in the last half hour of the transfer window .............or they do not actually know what we require like half of this message board when they go in to delusional mode when we win a game.
Of course Uncle Pete may well have looked at the Imbula situation and thought..... you can take a step back son and leave your fucking hands off my kids inheritance as you clearly can not spot a player if your life depended on it when spunking 18mill of my hard earned graft......but we will have to wait until the summer to know which of these are true.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Apr 30, 2017 9:02:08 GMT
I thought this was going to be a post about how bad our support was yesterday Our support has been wank for a good while, even when we were 8th, on march 20th last season, but i forgot, some numbnuts say were have been wank for 18 months to 2 years. Baffles me how some can be so far off the mark. Think it's fair to say we've been disappointing since January 2016. Just 54 goals in the last 52 games, and 83 conceded 52 15 14 23 54 83 59
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Apr 30, 2017 9:06:53 GMT
Fees spent, or net spend?
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Apr 30, 2017 9:12:46 GMT
The big issues in terms of the club's viability are net spend and wages. Until we start producing our own or get better at spotting emerging talent the former will always be a problem and as the above graph shows we have bitten the bullet regarding salaries. We really cant complain or use transfer fees paid as any sort of excuse.
|
|
|
Post by mouseykanga2 on Apr 30, 2017 9:19:51 GMT
Mentioned this before looker. We are fed signings at planned timings. To make us happy. Even transfers are held back in feel until transfer windows, to keep fans happy that we have signed someone.
|
|
|
Post by songthrush01 on Apr 30, 2017 9:42:36 GMT
as a lot of stoke fans think peter coates is a saint thats mythical.do people really think that the coates family are putting there own money in.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 30, 2017 9:45:27 GMT
The big issues in terms of the club's viability are net spend and wages. Until we start producing our own or get better at spotting emerging talent the former will always be a problem and as the above graph shows we have bitten the bullet regarding salaries. We really cant complain or use transfer fees paid as any sort of excuse. I posted 7 years ago that we had no saleable assets and it would come back to haunt us. I blamed the previous manager but in hindsight it's a club thing, from top to bottom. We are so short sighted it's unreal. For all the adulation of Coates and fair enough, I think the club has been run poorly.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 30, 2017 9:45:42 GMT
If Hughes had spent money effectively this would be a valid point.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 30, 2017 9:46:18 GMT
Stoke 4th from bottom in current PL in fees spent on new footballers in Hughes's reign. 10 million behind 5th from bottom Swansea and only above the three newly promoted teams by 10million. Teams around us spent more than double. He probably should go but you're all going to be disappointed if you think a new manager will be backed to the hilt. Thank fuck for that on players signed by Hughes😄 What does that even mean?
|
|
|
Post by stokeoptimist on Apr 30, 2017 9:47:20 GMT
as a lot of stoke fans think peter coates is a saint thats mythical.do people really think that the coates family are putting there own money in. If it wasn't for Peter we would still be playing in the lower leagues
|
|
|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Apr 30, 2017 9:48:16 GMT
The big issues in terms of the club's viability are net spend and wages. Until we start producing our own or get better at spotting emerging talent the former will always be a problem and as the above graph shows we have bitten the bullet regarding salaries. We really cant complain or use transfer fees paid as any sort of excuse. The board are anxious about spending on transfer fees because the value of the player tends to depreciate massively once hughes has given them 3 games in the wrong position then drops them
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Apr 30, 2017 9:49:46 GMT
Thank fuck for that on players signed by Hughes😄 What does that even mean? I refer you to the posts of Corned beef legs and March😄
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Apr 30, 2017 9:50:44 GMT
We've bitten the bullet and provided the manager the ammo with 5 or 6 £70,000-a-week 'difference-makers' at the sharp end of the pitch
Shaq, Arnie, Bojan, Imbula, Allen, Berahino (and Bony)
The question is: are they making enough of a difference?
It's obvious that some of that big money has been punted in the wrong direction. The Bojan and Imbula contracts in particular look downright weird, and people at all levels have got to work out what went wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 30, 2017 9:55:18 GMT
He's been backed.
He was backed to give Bojan a new 4 (was it?) year deal and then shipped him out 12 months later.
He was backed with 6m for a striker we didn't need. Gone.
And 18m midfielder who 12 months down the line we were looking to flog.
|
|
|
Post by songthrush01 on Apr 30, 2017 10:06:34 GMT
as a lot of stoke fans think peter coates is a saint thats mythical.do people really think that the coates family are putting there own money in. If it wasn't for Peter we would still be playing in the lower leagues how do you work that out.the coates saw a business chance,lets say a gamble to get to the premier,the odds were good.i think the club is being used as a front for 365,and this coates are stoke fans and that and love for the club is crap.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 10:09:54 GMT
He's been backed. He was backed to give Bojan a new 4 (was it?) year deal and then shipped him out 12 months later. He was backed with 6m for a striker we didn't need. Gone. And 18m midfielder who 12 months down the line we were looking to flog. You've missed someone....
|
|
|
Post by liamo on Apr 30, 2017 10:14:51 GMT
He's been backed. He was backed to give Bojan a new 4 (was it?) year deal and then shipped him out 12 months later. He was backed with 6m for a striker we didn't need. Gone. And 18m midfielder who 12 months down the line we were looking to flog. You've missed someone.... Big Wilf? I'd hate to know how much he has cost us in total without even signing him
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Apr 30, 2017 10:16:15 GMT
Stoke 4th from bottom in current PL in fees spent on new footballers in Hughes's reign. 10 million behind 5th from bottom Swansea and only above the three newly promoted teams by 10million. Teams around us spent more than double. He probably should go but you're all going to be disappointed if you think a new manager will be backed to the hilt. What is your source, can you share the list? Imbula, Shaq, Allen, Berahino Joselu, there's over £60 million right there in the last 2 seasons alone.
|
|