|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 27, 2017 8:49:06 GMT
Here's one for you then? Why couldn't Pulis manage it in the time he was here? It took Hughes one season. That's like asking why Pulis finished 11th in his first season in the Prem with a Championship squad, yet Hughes finished two places lower this season with what Coates described as "our best ever squad"? As for Coates, I think Hughes's performance last season has left him with a dilemma. It really isn't. Personally I'd have got rid of Hughes at the end of the season and I think we may well live to regret not doing so. Yet we have a few Pulis zealots on here trying to cheapen the 9th placed finishes or somehow give Pulis the credit for them because of the players involved, and they can never, ever explain why Pulis himself was never able to crack the 50 points barrier or finish top 10 with us?
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on May 27, 2017 9:07:47 GMT
That's like asking why Pulis finished 11th in his first season in the Prem with a Championship squad, yet Hughes finished two places lower this season with what Coates described as "our best ever squad"? As for Coates, I think Hughes's performance last season has left him with a dilemma. It really isn't. Personally I'd have got rid of Hughes at the end of the season and I think we may well live to regret not doing so. Yet we have a few Pulis zealots on here trying to cheapen the 9th placed finishes or somehow give Pulis the credit for them because of the players involved, and they can never, ever explain why Pulis himself was never able to crack the 50 points barrier or finish top 10 with us? It really is. Because neither the question you posed nor the question I posed don't take into account the context each manager was working in. Both managers did well in the context of their time. Pulis's achievement of finishing 11th with the squad he had when the club was new to this league, was excellent. Hughes taking over an established Premier League club, improving the squad and style of play and finishing 9th three times, was also excellent. Then both managers lost the plot. There are just as many zealots keen to cheapen Pulis's achievements as there are those of Hughes.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on May 27, 2017 9:12:55 GMT
We're 50 odd million in debt (all owed to the Coates' mind). And the club don't own the ground. This must be true because it's from Wikipedia: "Four seasons of third tier football followed with Gunnar Gíslason taking control of the club in November 1999.[9] In May 2006 he sold control of the club back to Peter Coates, and soon after the Club obtained full ownership of the stadium in a deal worth £6 million following the previous joint-partnership with the Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Stoke-on-Trent Regeneration Ltd.[12] The name of the ground was changed to the bet365 Stadium in June 2016.[13]" The last set of accounts show £59.479m owed by the football club to the parent, bet365. That was a year ago, May 2016. The club requires the continued backing of bet365. However, Coates' money is not Stoke City's money to do with as it wants. A bit like saying I'm going to buy a new Range Rover because my dad is loaded. The notes also say that bet365 is under the control of Denise Coates OBE and her family, not Peter on his own. That's the true value of of the Coates commitment unless or until they sell up, gets their money back and make a profit on the sale.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 27, 2017 9:13:00 GMT
It really isn't. Personally I'd have got rid of Hughes at the end of the season and I think we may well live to regret not doing so. Yet we have a few Pulis zealots on here trying to cheapen the 9th placed finishes or somehow give Pulis the credit for them because of the players involved, and they can never, ever explain why Pulis himself was never able to crack the 50 points barrier or finish top 10 with us? It really is. Because neither the question you posed nor the question I posed don't take into account the context each manager was working in. Both managers did well in the context of their time. Pulis's achievement of finishing 11th with the squad he had when the club was new to this league, was excellent. Hughes taking over an established Premier League club, improving the squad and style of play and finishing 9th three times, was also excellent. Then both managers lost the plot. There are just as many zealots keen to cheapen Pulis's achievements as there are those of Hughes. Nobody's saying Pulis didn't do a fine job. But he deserves not one iota of credit for Hughes' successes. The question remains that if finishing 9th is no big deal why couldn't Pulis do it?
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on May 27, 2017 9:20:29 GMT
Are people also forgetting that John Coates and Denise's husband Richard are also massive stoke fans who are also owners of bet365. Even after the demise of St. Peter we still have a bunch of stoke fans with access to shitloads of cash running the club.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 27, 2017 9:39:38 GMT
This must be true because it's from Wikipedia: "Four seasons of third tier football followed with Gunnar Gíslason taking control of the club in November 1999.[9] In May 2006 he sold control of the club back to Peter Coates, and soon after the Club obtained full ownership of the stadium in a deal worth £6 million following the previous joint-partnership with the Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Stoke-on-Trent Regeneration Ltd.[12] The name of the ground was changed to the bet365 Stadium in June 2016.[13]" The last set of accounts show £59.479m owed by the football club to the parent, bet365. That was a year ago, May 2016. The club requires the continued backing of bet365. However, Coates' money is not Stoke City's money to do with as it wants. A bit like saying I'm going to buy a new Range Rover because my dad is loaded. The notes also say that bet365 is under the control of Denise Coates OBE and her family, not Peter on his own. That's the true value of of the Coates commitment unless or until they sell up, gets their money back and make a profit on the sale. Yes, the person running bet365 and making the money is Denise. Surely, it is Denise who believes in 'self-sufficiency'? My guess is Peter and her brother have expressed concerns about the football reality of that. Football isn't like any other business. If Stoke went from The Prem to the National League in 5 seasons a lot of our overheads still exist e.g. ground maintenance, ticketing staff etc. but on an infinitesimally smaller income. Football isn't like most businesses where you put in £10 and make a £1, it's you put in £100 and make £100 or put in nothing and you lose £50. That's why the lack of incoming investment worries me. I don't think the self-sufficiency model works for one of the lowest earners in the League. Take out t.v. money and take attendances as a benchmark and if we were in the same league we're a smaller club than Derby Co.,Sheff Wed, Sheff Utd.,Leeds Utd., Aston Villa, possibly Wolves, possibly Birmingham City, possibly Portsmouth. It's O.K. saying we are not in the same league as the aforementioned but if Dad's Army perform up to ever lower expectations then we soon will be. I'm very worried, very worried the squad will end up paying 'the dementia tax'!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 9:42:35 GMT
It's only when the grandchildren tell me that I realise that I'm old fashioned.
Perter Coates could be the reincarnation of my Grandad. He has his way of doing things and I doubt he will take much notice of anyone.
Without his millions we would be Vale and for that I am eternally grateful.
With his money we will be eternally frustrated.
They say you should never mix business with pleasure and that is where I worry. Stoke are his business and our pleasure, he counts the cost we count the wins.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 27, 2017 9:47:27 GMT
We don't know if he has tightened the reigns do we? And it's not like Hughes has form for handing contracts to old players Willy nilly....... Something isn't right clearly at the club and it's felt like this for a couple of years. I think Hughes is a massive problem. I think Scholes is a potentially bigger one. I can't make out if Coates is yet. September will be the time to judge that. Just reading through this thread from the beginning and was about to post this when I got to the end of it. Essentially the OP is asking if due to all the contracts that are being dished out to older players, does that signal that Coates has restricted the money available for Hughes to spend? Well the answer to that, is that we simply don't know yet and this thread is way to premature. If there's a couple of big money signings during the summer then that will show that Hughes has given these players their extensions because he WANTED them here not because he was being forced to do so due to having a restricted budget. Let's see where we are when the window closes.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on May 27, 2017 9:54:35 GMT
The last set of accounts show £59.479m owed by the football club to the parent, bet365. That was a year ago, May 2016. The club requires the continued backing of bet365. However, Coates' money is not Stoke City's money to do with as it wants. A bit like saying I'm going to buy a new Range Rover because my dad is loaded. The notes also say that bet365 is under the control of Denise Coates OBE and her family, not Peter on his own. That's the true value of of the Coates commitment unless or until they sell up, gets their money back and make a profit on the sale. Yes, the person running bet365 and making the money is Denise. Surely, it is Denise who believes in 'self-sufficiency'? My guess is Peter and her brother have expressed concerns about the football reality of that. Football isn't like any other business. If Stoke went from The Prem to the National League in 5 seasons a lot of our overheads still exist e.g. ground maintenance, ticketing staff etc. but on an infinitesimally smaller income. Football isn't like most businesses where you put in £10 and make a £1, it's you put in £100 and make £100 or put in nothing and you lose £50. That's why the lack of incoming investment worries me. I don't think the self-sufficiency model works for one of the lowest earners in the League. Take out t.v. money and take attendances as a benchmark and if we were in the same league we're a smaller club than Derby Co.,Sheff Wed, Sheff Utd.,Leeds Utd., Aston Villa, possibly Wolves, possibly Birmingham City, possibly Portsmouth. It's O.K. saying we are not in the same league as the aforementioned but if Dad's Army perform up to ever lower expectations then we soon will be. I'm very worried, very worried the squad will end up paying 'the dementia tax'! True. Of the £104.2m turnover, £79.5m (76%) came from tv revenue. Only £8.4m came from gate receipts. Get relegated and lose a big chunk of the tv money and it won't matter how much Peter wants to put in. There's also a notional amount of how much bet365 generates from having it's brand splashed all around the world on shirts, the stadium etc. If the ambition (financially) is to stay on the gravy train then it's a very fine line doing it on the cheap and getting wrong. I suspect for PC a cup win is as much a driver for him as anything. Come the end of the window it'll become clearer. EDIT: What Paul Spencer said
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on May 27, 2017 9:57:40 GMT
We don't know if he has tightened the reigns do we? And it's not like Hughes has form for handing contracts to old players Willy nilly....... Something isn't right clearly at the club and it's felt like this for a couple of years. I think Hughes is a massive problem. I think Scholes is a potentially bigger one. I can't make out if Coates is yet. September will be the time to judge that. Just reading through this thread from the beginning and was about to post this when I got to the end of it. Essentially the OP is asking if due to all the contracts that are being dished out to older players, does that signal that Coates has restricted the money available for Hughes to spend? Well the answer to that, is that we simply don't know yet and this thread is way to premature. If there's a couple of big money signings during the summer then that will show that Hughes has given these players their extensions because he WANTED them here not because he was being forced to do so due to having a restricted budget. Let's see where we are when the window closes. Yeah, too early to make any judgements yet. And the wage bill's still very competitive - but only natural the (pretty surprising) stats about the relative spend over the last 3 or 4 years plus these flurry of odd contract renewals will make people a little bit jittery.
|
|
|
Post by capto on May 27, 2017 10:06:20 GMT
Is it just Hughes who's fucking everything up or is our lack of investment compared to other clubs the reason that we've gone backwards. We seem to have a small club mentality and all the board members seem old with a lack of fresh ideas. And the alternative is? You never made a mistake? You got an endless flow of millions to pour into a mid table team that has over achieved in the last ten years? Thank god we've got an owner who's a stokie - and not all these odious foreign owners.
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on May 27, 2017 10:11:06 GMT
The only thing I can think of with the whole 'self sufficiency' thing, is Coates can see the bubble bursting in the none too distant future.
If he can get us self sufficient and in the next 5 years the bubble does burst, ALOT of clubs are going to be in big trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 27, 2017 10:31:39 GMT
The only thing I can think of with the whole 'self sufficiency' thing, is Coates can see the bubble bursting in the none too distant future. If he can get us self sufficient and in the next 5 years the bubble does burst, ALOT of clubs are going to be in big trouble. Self sufficiency, where we are now, is an impossible dream. We'd need to produce 2 or 3 Jack Butlands every year (and sell them) to match the Sky money (which is what I assume is meant by being self sufficient). In the lower leagues it's not so hard but far more of a necessity. Burton Albion got where they are now partly on the back of sensible investment of the proceeds of two cup games against The Shit, and partly by being mostly self sufficient. We can't possibly do that with the players we want to attract and the wages they will demand.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 27, 2017 11:03:03 GMT
Attack the manager, attack the players, now it's time to attack the owner.
PC bought the club 11 years ago when it was going nowhere.
Paid off the debt, bought the ground, appointed managers who have got us promotion to the toughest league in the world and kept us there longer than all except the biggest richest clubs in the land, got us to an FA cup final for the first time in our history, got us 3 successive top ten places (and 2 points off repeating it a 4th time) for the first time in our history, a LC semi-final, continued investment in the ground, the training facilities and the academy.
We haven't won anything yet, and maybe we won't the way the top 6 clubs dominate the Prem., but this is arguably the greatest time in the clubs history and all some so called fans do is moan. People need to enjoy the success of the club while it lasts, instead of being like West Brom fans and moan about the quality of the football. We have the strongest squad of players in the club history and if we can get them to play to their potential we could push towards European football again.
Coates is not a problem, he is a godsend.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on May 27, 2017 11:14:41 GMT
Attack the manager, attack the players, now it's time to attack the owner. PC bought the club 11 years ago when it was going nowhere. Paid off the debt, bought the ground, appointed managers who have got us promotion to the toughest league in the world and kept us there longer than all except the biggest richest clubs in the land, got us to an FA cup final for the first time in our history, got us 3 successive top ten places (and 2 points off repeating it a 4th time) for the first time in our history, a LC semi-final, continued investment in the ground, the training facilities and the academy. We haven't won anything yet, and maybe we won't the way the top 6 clubs dominate the Prem., but this is arguably the greatest time in the clubs history and all some so called fans do is moan. People need to enjoy the success of the club while it lasts, instead of being like West Brom fans and moan about the quality of the football. We have the strongest squad of players in the club history and if we can get them to play to their potential we could push towards European football again. Coates is not a problem, he is a godsend. Nobody is attacking the owner ffs. They are legitimate questions that fans should be able to ask. And the club has £50million of debt.
|
|
|
Post by 3putts on May 27, 2017 11:19:29 GMT
fuck me what a load of shit. how old are you 12? shit bin please. for those of us that have been going over 10 years know how ridiculous this thread is.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on May 27, 2017 11:20:54 GMT
fuck me what a load of shit. how old are you 12? shit bin please. for those of us that have been going over 10 years know how ridiculous this thread is. Well that's bollocks for a start.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2017 11:31:47 GMT
The only thing I can think of with the whole 'self sufficiency' thing, is Coates can see the bubble bursting in the none too distant future. If he can get us self sufficient and in the next 5 years the bubble does burst, ALOT of clubs are going to be in big trouble. That doesn't make a scrap of sense. The bubble is the tv money and if it bursts we're in the shit big time along with all the other smaller Premier League clubs. The ones who are not in the shit are the big boys who derive a far smaller percentage of their turnover from tv revenues and have much lower wages as a percentage of turnover figures. That is a reality of Premier League football for all but the elite clubs and there is absolutely nothing Coates can do about it. If he refuses to compete on the same financial level as our peers we will be relegated, no ifs or buts about it.
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on May 27, 2017 11:37:02 GMT
The only thing I can think of with the whole 'self sufficiency' thing, is Coates can see the bubble bursting in the none too distant future. If he can get us self sufficient and in the next 5 years the bubble does burst, ALOT of clubs are going to be in big trouble. Self sufficiency, where we are now, is an impossible dream. We'd need to produce 2 or 3 Jack Butlands every year (and sell them) to match the Sky money (which is what I assume is meant by being self sufficient). In the lower leagues it's not so hard but far more of a necessity. Burton Albion got where they are now partly on the back of sensible investment of the proceeds of two cup games against The Shit, and partly by being mostly self sufficient. We can't possibly do that with the players we want to attract and the wages they will demand. The owners seem wedded to the commitment to achieve self sufficiency. In it's strictest sense is this really possible and at the same time make progress in the Prem? As previous poster has said we need to produce (or find) players every season whose value will rapidly increase. It's a tall order and as some stage self sufficiency might cause stagnation and force a downward spiral. Just out of interest which clubs in the Prem are genuinely self-sufficient?
|
|
|
Post by This is the year on May 27, 2017 11:38:19 GMT
fuck me what a load of shit. how old are you 12? shit bin please. for those of us that have been going over 10 years know how ridiculous this thread is. Ahhh the old I've been watching longer than you so I know better response. The op is asking a genuine question and we as supporters have a right to ask them.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on May 27, 2017 11:38:36 GMT
We won't know until the transfer window closes or Hughes is sacked, whichever is the sooner.
I have every faith that father and son Coates being great Stoke fans will have our best interests in mind.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 27, 2017 11:40:46 GMT
Attack the manager, attack the players, now it's time to attack the owner. PC bought the club 11 years ago when it was going nowhere. Paid off the debt, bought the ground, appointed managers who have got us promotion to the toughest league in the world and kept us there longer than all except the biggest richest clubs in the land, got us to an FA cup final for the first time in our history, got us 3 successive top ten places (and 2 points off repeating it a 4th time) for the first time in our history, a LC semi-final, continued investment in the ground, the training facilities and the academy. We haven't won anything yet, and maybe we won't the way the top 6 clubs dominate the Prem., but this is arguably the greatest time in the clubs history and all some so called fans do is moan. People need to enjoy the success of the club while it lasts, instead of being like West Brom fans and moan about the quality of the football. We have the strongest squad of players in the club history and if we can get them to play to their potential we could push towards European football again. Coates is not a problem, he is a godsend. Nobody is attacking the owner ffs. They are legitimate questions that fans should be able to ask. And the club has £50million of debt. The OP seemed like attacking the owner and board to me. The club has no external debt. All money is owed to to the club owners SC Holdings which are interest free loans with no fixed term repayments. I'm sure bet365 can afford to wipe that off; small change to them. That is no reason to presume, like some fans appear to, that the Coates family should squander their fortune by trying to match the spending of the big 6 clubs. The club are holding ticket prices steady, providing free travel, and keeping the city on the world map by sustaining a Prem place. They are not obliged to spend all their wealth like Jack Walker did, which is the implication of a lot of the posts on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on May 27, 2017 11:42:33 GMT
Yes, the person running bet365 and making the money is Denise. Surely, it is Denise who believes in 'self-sufficiency'? My guess is Peter and her brother have expressed concerns about the football reality of that. Football isn't like any other business. If Stoke went from The Prem to the National League in 5 seasons a lot of our overheads still exist e.g. ground maintenance, ticketing staff etc. but on an infinitesimally smaller income. Football isn't like most businesses where you put in £10 and make a £1, it's you put in £100 and make £100 or put in nothing and you lose £50. That's why the lack of incoming investment worries me. I don't think the self-sufficiency model works for one of the lowest earners in the League. Take out t.v. money and take attendances as a benchmark and if we were in the same league we're a smaller club than Derby Co.,Sheff Wed, Sheff Utd.,Leeds Utd., Aston Villa, possibly Wolves, possibly Birmingham City, possibly Portsmouth. It's O.K. saying we are not in the same league as the aforementioned but if Dad's Army perform up to ever lower expectations then we soon will be. I'm very worried, very worried the squad will end up paying 'the dementia tax'! True. Of the £104.2m turnover, £79.5m (76%) came from tv revenue. Only £8.4m came from gate receipts. Get relegated and lose a big chunk of the tv money and it won't matter how much Peter wants to put in. There's also a notional amount of how much bet365 generates from having it's brand splashed all around the world on shirts, the stadium etc. If the ambition (financially) is to stay on the gravy train then it's a very fine line doing it on the cheap and getting wrong. I suspect for PC a cup win is as much a driver for him as anything. Come the end of the window it'll become clearer. EDIT: What Paul Spencer said Spot on. Ultimately the family have been great for the area of that there's no doubt however if they choose to pull the plug on finances and they lose a bucketload because we get relegated it'll be down to bad decisions namely 1- keeping a manager they don't trust who over the last season has taken us backwards after 2.5 great years. 2 - taking the cheap option of resigning to many players on the down in their careers. 3 - not spending enough to sort out major issues in the squad. Of course there are 2-3 months to hopefully be proved very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Bojan Mackey on May 27, 2017 11:51:16 GMT
Scholes to the left of me, Carto to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with Hughes.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 27, 2017 11:58:27 GMT
Self sufficiency, where we are now, is an impossible dream. We'd need to produce 2 or 3 Jack Butlands every year (and sell them) to match the Sky money (which is what I assume is meant by being self sufficient). In the lower leagues it's not so hard but far more of a necessity. Burton Albion got where they are now partly on the back of sensible investment of the proceeds of two cup games against The Shit, and partly by being mostly self sufficient. We can't possibly do that with the players we want to attract and the wages they will demand. The owners seem wedded to the commitment to achieve self sufficiency. In it's strictest sense is this really possible and at the same time make progress in the Prem? As previous poster has said we need to produce (or find) players every season whose value will rapidly increase. It's a tall order and as some stage self sufficiency might cause stagnation and force a downward spiral. Just out of interest which clubs in the Prem are genuinely self-sufficient? That's the point I was making. I can't think of a single one. Southampton probably come closest but I'll bet they still rely on TV money and owner investment to get by.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on May 27, 2017 12:10:56 GMT
Is it just Hughes who's fucking everything up or is our lack of investment compared to other clubs the reason that we've gone backwards. We seem to have a small club mentality and all the board members seem old with a lack of fresh ideas. Fucking everything up. Holy mother fucking shit. Seriously??!!!???
|
|
|
Post by Royal Donut on May 27, 2017 12:12:41 GMT
The title if the tread should maybe be different. I'm sure no one can complain about Coates to this point. Maybe it should be called, could Coates do more?. I think it's hard to see his family's wealth going up massively and this means fans expect the money in club go up massively.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2017 12:19:51 GMT
The owners seem wedded to the commitment to achieve self sufficiency. In it's strictest sense is this really possible and at the same time make progress in the Prem? As previous poster has said we need to produce (or find) players every season whose value will rapidly increase. It's a tall order and as some stage self sufficiency might cause stagnation and force a downward spiral. Just out of interest which clubs in the Prem are genuinely self-sufficient? That's the point I was making. I can't think of a single one. Southampton probably come closest but I'll bet they still rely on TV money and owner investment to get by. Man utd, Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal are all self financing and far less heavily reliant on tv revenues Man City and Chelsea to a lesser extent are still playing catch up and are being funded to cement their elite status.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on May 27, 2017 12:22:43 GMT
Arsenal yes I'll give you but aren't The Shit and Liverpool massively hocked out by their American owners?
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2017 12:29:05 GMT
Arsenal yes I'll give you but aren't The Shit and Liverpool massively hocked out by their American owners? Yes but they're still self financing the clubs income pays the interest on the debt and the running costs without the Glazers or Fenway putting money in. Indeed I know for a fact that the Glazers take very tidy sums out of Man utd but the club is still majorly profitable and the debt is much reduced from the original purchase price, in other words for the Glazers it was a cracking investment. Less sure about Fenway whether they take money out or not.
|
|