|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 10:17:21 GMT
You've missed someone.... Big Wilf? I'd hate to know how much he has cost us in total without even signing him Oh no! I was thinking the £13m midfielder we didn't need. Christ, they're stacking up.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 30, 2017 10:17:33 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.... I try to forget we own that useless bastard.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 30, 2017 10:34:12 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. Soccerbase. Other clubs are spending more money on new footballers than we are. It's an undeniable fact. Another secret I'll let you into as well is that they pay their players wages as well.
|
|
|
Post by professorplump on Apr 30, 2017 11:01:15 GMT
We have a lower transfer budget than most of our rivals and Peter Coates has said many times before that he wants the club to be self sufficient. He wants the academy players to graduate to the first team and player sales to finance new signings. This might be achievable for a lower league club but is not possible in the Premier League when investors are pouring money into other clubs. We are hardly ever able to outbid another club for a player, so we have a strategy of buying players with problems in the hope of turning their careers around because other clubs are not interested in these players. Bony, Berahino, Arnie, Afellay, Bojan, Shaqiri, Imbula all struggled at their previous clubs so it is not just Mark Hughes who has struggled to get the best out of them. We hardly ever sign a player who is in peak form and on the up as we get outbid for them. Perhaps the one exception being the signing of Joe Allen,who arguably wasn't needed, but even he was a misfit at his previous club. I'm not defending Mark Hughes, I think he has made mistakes, and maybe his time is up, but I feel that there is more wrong at this club at the moment than just the manager.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 11:18:35 GMT
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. Soccerbase. Other clubs are spending more money on new footballers than we are. It's an undeniable fact. Another secret I'll let you into as well is that they pay their players wages as well. Transfermarkt is a better site for transfer stats mate.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 11:28:18 GMT
There's profligacy - and there's a well run football club
We have been a very well run pretty much for the last decade apart from, some of the more recent transfer fees
Which, are now looking rather embarassing - and Stoke City with an aging squad, can ill afford such embarrassments
Right now
that's why I'm very annoyed with the team manager presently
we really cant afford him to get any more - wrong
and there's the rub - does Peter Coates trust him enough for this to continue ?
|
|
|
Post by herkbloke on Apr 30, 2017 11:31:06 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. I know you've mentioned this before Pugs and the fact is, it's a truth that none dare talk about for fear of an Oatcake lynching. There's a noticeable malaise grounded within the club from the top down and including everything from infrastructure to recruitment. It's the same malaise that effects the local area and a sad sizeable minority of the local populace- be grateful for what we have etc. We play in the richest league in the world. We are awash with money and add into the mix the might of Bet365, Mark and his Team should be on their knees enjoying the best of pound note bukake parties, tongues out in gratitude. He wasn't supported properly in his first few seasons and that's partly why we are where we are. He can go or stay as far as I'm concerned but it doesn't change the mindset of the club. And as you say, if you think that Pearson/ Coleman/ Dyche/ Monk (only options the board would contemplate IMO) would be backed to any greater degree, then prepared to be severely disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by jewsbury on Apr 30, 2017 12:33:40 GMT
The wage bill is extremely competitive amongst the midtable teams though. And it's always said that's the key differentiator. The wage bill is more significant than transfer costs. But the wage bill is probably because our squad is fucking massive.
|
|
|
Post by jewsbury on Apr 30, 2017 12:35:33 GMT
Okay lets just remember we are one of the best run clubs in the country. We're in good hands under the Coates family.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 15:04:45 GMT
And the last four signings have been the most expensive players in the history of the club. But they haven't really worked out in the bigger scale of things (plus Bony fee/wages). Which is very worrying if Sir Peter wraps up the transfer dong because he doesn't think MH can use it effectively.
|
|
|
Post by chamberlain on Apr 30, 2017 15:26:23 GMT
And the last four signings have been the most expensive players in the history of the club. But they haven't really worked out in the bigger scale of things (plus Bony fee/wages). Which is very worrying if Sir Peter wraps up the transfer dong because he doesn't think MH can use it effectively. Well the chairman needs to get rid then because without signings were screwed
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Apr 30, 2017 15:35:50 GMT
The lack of transfer funds didn't mean he had to leave a talented potentially game changing young winger on the bench yesterday while we were struggling. A lack transfer funds hasn't forced him to leave our record buy completely out of the 18.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on Apr 30, 2017 19:53:59 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. The only myth is that Hughes hasn't been backed. He didn't need to build a team that could compete in the Premier League as he inherited one. Despite spending tens of millions (much of it wasted) on signing 27 players (permanent and loan) yesterday he fielded 6 of the players he inherited. And if Walters had been fit, it would most likely have been 7.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Apr 30, 2017 21:31:07 GMT
I get the point but we don't have the money , prices frozen for 10 years pretty poor commercial revenue .
Stoke have to find players and improve them just how it is .
I don't know how things run down there which is why I don't call for his head but some bad decisions have been made .
I'd like us to invest in better scouting more than anything .
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 30, 2017 21:38:47 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. The only myth is that Hughes hasn't been backed. He didn't need to build a team that could compete in the Premier League as he inherited one. Despite spending tens of millions (much of it wasted) on signing 27 players (permanent and loan) yesterday he fielded 6 of the players he inherited. And if Walters had been fit, it would most likely have been 7. We've stood still while the PL have moved on. No denying it.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on May 8, 2017 12:07:03 GMT
The non top-6 wage bills generally seem to be coalescing now in the £80-85m range. So it's mainly about getting the maximum bang for your buck from it. You can't say we're doing that at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 8, 2017 12:14:13 GMT
The non top-6 wage bills generally seem to be coalescing now in the £80-85m range. So it's mainly about getting the maximum bang for your buck from it. You can't say we're doing that at the moment. Incredible that Spurs' is so low. What a job Pochettino is doing there.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 8, 2017 12:17:00 GMT
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 Agree totally about swissramble put a lot of perspective into the running of the club off field. Its nowhere near as good as many fans seem to think it is.
|
|