|
Post by alster on Feb 16, 2018 16:44:39 GMT
Yeah I'm sure most people allow history to limit them but pesky people come along every so often and prove their boundaries to be non existent. And when they have you can come back and tell me all about it. In fact why don't you have a go. Amanda Staveley is looking for a Premier League club to invest in. I'm sure with your imagination, passion and "no limits" attitude you could put together a convincing case to drop her interest in Newcastle and buy Coates out instead. You talk the talk - time to walk the walk. No excuses now. Boundaries are non-existent remember. I'll give you my own boundary I am not rich or looking for employment. Me not being wealthy enough does not make something impossible.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Feb 16, 2018 18:02:21 GMT
Manchester City were hardly "the most obscure club". They have a rich history and despite problems of the past twenty years or so were already well established in the top half or the Premier League before Mansour decided to plunder his nations wealth to amuse himself. They also were a uniquely placed as a counterpoint to Manchester United - arguably the biggest club on the planet. If you want a cautionary tale of chucking money at an obscure club take Brookes Mileson at Gretna. Financed their rise to the SPL and a Scottish Cup Final only to get sick and die. His family wanted no more to do with the club and so they went bust. No parallels to be drawn there then. As for breaking into the elite - who are they? Madrid - metropolitan pop 6.5 million Barcelona 5.5m Munich pop 2.6m Paris 11m London 8.7m Turin 2.2m Manchester 2.5m Merseyside 1.38m Stoke on Trent - er 26Ok It's ok saying there's "nothing stopping" someone taking a regional club and breaking into the elite - but it would be a lot more believable if someone had actually done it. And even if you were going to attempt it - then it might be more affordable or achievable in another league than the Premier - but even Leipzig was chosen for a reason - a population of 1.1m but with the potential to represent pretty much of the whole of the old east vs the rest of the old western dominate Bundesliga The fact that your bloke did it at Gretna and Jack Walker did it at Blackburn simply show that you are wrong just like Man City and Chelsea. If you keep the investment big enough for long enough you can break into the elite. Those people didn't do a great job of any sort of succession planning obviously but your whole catchment area argument is pretty much bollocks people buy into success anyway, provide the success your supporter base would dwarf the population of Stoke-on-Trent not that its a massively limiting factor anyway. Hi Alster! I agree with your basic assumption regarding fanbase with one small caveat. Teams like ManUre, Arse, Etc, have large fanbases because they are successful but also because they have a certain romantic allure to Non-Local-Fans (NLF's). Due to Stoke's lack of previous success (I believe a small team like Accrington Stanley or Forest Green would have more allure to NLF's due to the underdog factor), our reputation as a team of "spoilers" (whereas a team that has a reputation of open attacking football may be more attractive to NLF's), the depressed nature of S-O-T (Teams like Exeter- "Devon's such a lovely place"- would have a greater chance of attracting NLF's) and finally the name Stoke City - means a lot to us but is probably a detterent to most ("The Hinckley Triumphs" would probably have a greater attraction to NLF's than Hinckley Town). If I were a rich man .... deedle deedle dum ... <sorry, us oldies tend to get distracted> and decided to throw a wedge of money at a club I would pick one of Dover Athletic (Underdog status, Romantic image - white cliffs etc, Nice place, The name helps build the attraction so I'd just get a related nickname - perhaps "The Cliffhangers" and make them play in all white) Cambridge United (Underdog status, Images of Harry Potter, Nice place, Again name helps attract NLF's perhaps nickname "The Wizards" ) Blackpool (former glories - That final, decent place, again name builds identity) Coventry (previously successful - but fallen on hard times, romantic name association - white horses and naked ladies, I'd drop the city) But, because I'm a Stoke fan ........ I'd never pump my money into Stoke. It almost never ends well (e'g' Peter Coates is not universally liked for 10 years in the prem but rather lambasted for the last 2 years) and I'd hate to be at odds with the club I have loved for more than fifty years!
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Feb 16, 2018 18:06:46 GMT
She's offered 250 million for Newcastle (according to report)
Ashley wants 350.
Reckon Denise would want 250 minimum
Two hard nosed businesswomen slugging it out.
Then according to alster we are on our way to the Champions League. !
Why do you make shit up I've not commented on the woman, if she does buy a football club we'll be able to judge whether she has the ambition and financial muscle to bankroll it to success. If you want to use someone as an example why not use Roman Abramovich he's actually done it and he's not much ahead of the Coates' in the rich league. Ooh touchy. Calm down mate. It's only half jokey comment. You don't half talk some hogwash though.
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Feb 16, 2018 18:14:47 GMT
She's offered 250 million for Newcastle (according to report)
Ashley wants 350.
Reckon Denise would want 250 minimum
Two hard nosed businesswomen slugging it out.
Then according to alster we are on our way to the Champions League. !
Why do you make shit up I've not commented on the woman, if she does buy a football club we'll be able to judge whether she has the ambition and financial muscle to bankroll it to success. If you want to use someone as an example why not use Roman Abramovich he's actually done it and he's not much ahead of the Coates' in the rich league. Seymour has got a point though. Her and her people are looking to buy a Premier League team. If Stoke is that attractive why haven't we heard about a bid. The way people like you are moaning at Coates i wouldn't blame him one bit if they sold up .
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 16, 2018 18:26:04 GMT
So according to your theory West Brom should be challenging for the title next year eh? Zillionaire Chinese owner. 250 million purchase from Peace.
And on the geography note (even though it wasn't me mentioned it) ... out of 118 League titles , 72 have been from London, Manchester and Liverpool.
Obviously not their owner/s aren't investing the sort of money that has you challenging for the title. According to my theory if they did they could. On your second point money is a far greater indicator in modern football than history just as Man City have proved if you are determined enough and able to just keep investing in getting better and better you can break into the elite group of clubs. Pure wealth rather than fanbase, catchment area, commercial potential or history can get you there your success builds up most of the rest, actual bums on seats is pretty irrelevant. That's completely the wrong way round. Sustainable big time investment only happens where there is a combination of a large catchment area and a massive potential for swelling the large local fanbase with a massive global fanbase as that raises the bar in terms of commercial income and greater exposure for the investor. It results in a virtuous circle. A club of the size of Stoke City in a relatively small city like Stoke-on-Trent can buy short term success by ploughing money in but when the bubble bursts the fundamentals aren't in place for sustained income - just because we get lucky with one investor it doesn't mean there is a long queue of investors waiting to takeover. Massive short term over investment in Stoke City FC is far more likely to mean we will end up like Blackburn Rovers rather than Manchester City. What you are proposing is a few seasons in the sun followed by a very long, possibly terminal winter. It's selfish and short term. Fortunately we have owners with a sense of human geography and the long term interests of the club (and the area) at heart.
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Feb 16, 2018 18:30:19 GMT
Obviously not their owner/s aren't investing the sort of money that has you challenging for the title. According to my theory if they did they could. On your second point money is a far greater indicator in modern football than history just as Man City have proved if you are determined enough and able to just keep investing in getting better and better you can break into the elite group of clubs. Pure wealth rather than fanbase, catchment area, commercial potential or history can get you there your success builds up most of the rest, actual bums on seats is pretty irrelevant. That's completely the wrong way round. Sustainable big time investment only happens where there is a combination of a large catchment area and a massive potential for swelling the large local fanbase with a massive global fanbase as that raises the bar in terms of commercial income and greater exposure for the investor. It results in a virtuous circle. A club of the size of Stoke City in a relatively small city like Stoke-on-Trent can buy short term success by ploughing money in but when the bubble bursts the fundamentals aren't in place for sustained income - just because we get lucky with one investor it doesn't mean there is a long queue of investors waiting to takeover. Massive short term over investment in Stoke City FC is far more likely to mean we will end up like Blackburn Rovers rather than Manchester City. What you are proposing is a few seasons in the sun followed by a very long, possibly terminal winter. It's selfish and short term. Fortunately we have owners with a sense of human geography and the long term interests of the club (and the area) at heart. Round of applause for pepe ... Glad you've got the nous and patience to post what I'm thinking.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 16, 2018 18:31:33 GMT
The fact that your bloke did it at Gretna and Jack Walker did it at Blackburn simply show that you are wrong just like Man City and Chelsea. If you keep the investment big enough for long enough you can break into the elite. Those people didn't do a great job of any sort of succession planning obviously but your whole catchment area argument is pretty much bollocks people buy into success anyway, provide the success your supporter base would dwarf the population of Stoke-on-Trent not that its a massively limiting factor anyway. Hi Alster! I agree with your basic assumption regarding fanbase with one small caveat. Teams like ManUre, Arse, Etc, have large fanbases because they are successful but also because they have a certain romantic allure to Non-Local-Fans (NLF's). Due to Stoke's lack of previous success (I believe a small team like Accrington Stanley or Forest Green would have more allure to NLF's due to the underdog factor), our reputation as a team of "spoilers" (whereas a team that has a reputation of open attacking football may be more attractive to NLF's), the depressed nature of S-O-T (Teams like Exeter- "Devon's such a lovely place"- would have a greater chance of attracting NLF's) and finally the name Stoke City - means a lot to us but is probably a detterent to most ("The Hinckley Triumphs" would probably have a greater attraction to NLF's than Hinckley Town). If I were a rich man .... deedle deedle dum ... <sorry, us oldies tend to get distracted> and decided to throw a wedge of money at a club I would pick one of Dover Athletic (Underdog status, Romantic image - white cliffs etc, Nice place, The name helps build the attraction so I'd just get a related nickname - perhaps "The Cliffhangers" and make them play in all white) Cambridge United (Underdog status, Images of Harry Potter, Nice place, Again name helps attract NLF's perhaps nickname "The Wizards" ) Blackpool (former glories - That final, decent place, again name builds identity) Coventry (previously successful - but fallen on hard times, romantic name association - white horses and naked ladies, I'd drop the city) But, because I'm a Stoke fan ........ I'd never pump my money into Stoke. It almost never ends well (e'g' Peter Coates is not universally liked for 10 years in the prem but rather lambasted for the last 2 years) and I'd hate to be at odds with the club I have loved for more than fifty years! Moving away from the point a bit but have you actually been to some of these places you think of as nice. Believe me neither Blackpool or Dover are nice. Don't get me wrong I think I've said to you before that even if I were astronomically rich I wouldn't go within a country mile of football as an investment vehicle, never the less these very rich people do. When they look at it from a purely business perspective they soon become disillusioned as did Alan Sugar. Yes you're right we don't have the most alluring of reputations to start with but sustained success would sort even that out. Coates is not just Lambasted for the last couple of years, over both his tenures as owner there have been far more years like the last few years than there have where he has put money in and moved the club forward. It doesn't seem to matter how rich he gets he always reverts to type. What was the point in putting the money in in the first place to do what he's done now?
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Feb 16, 2018 18:37:59 GMT
Hi Alster! I agree with your basic assumption regarding fanbase with one small caveat. Teams like ManUre, Arse, Etc, have large fanbases because they are successful but also because they have a certain romantic allure to Non-Local-Fans (NLF's). Due to Stoke's lack of previous success (I believe a small team like Accrington Stanley or Forest Green would have more allure to NLF's due to the underdog factor), our reputation as a team of "spoilers" (whereas a team that has a reputation of open attacking football may be more attractive to NLF's), the depressed nature of S-O-T (Teams like Exeter- "Devon's such a lovely place"- would have a greater chance of attracting NLF's) and finally the name Stoke City - means a lot to us but is probably a detterent to most ("The Hinckley Triumphs" would probably have a greater attraction to NLF's than Hinckley Town). If I were a rich man .... deedle deedle dum ... <sorry, us oldies tend to get distracted> and decided to throw a wedge of money at a club I would pick one of Dover Athletic (Underdog status, Romantic image - white cliffs etc, Nice place, The name helps build the attraction so I'd just get a related nickname - perhaps "The Cliffhangers" and make them play in all white) Cambridge United (Underdog status, Images of Harry Potter, Nice place, Again name helps attract NLF's perhaps nickname "The Wizards" ) Blackpool (former glories - That final, decent place, again name builds identity) Coventry (previously successful - but fallen on hard times, romantic name association - white horses and naked ladies, I'd drop the city) But, because I'm a Stoke fan ........ I'd never pump my money into Stoke. It almost never ends well (e'g' Peter Coates is not universally liked for 10 years in the prem but rather lambasted for the last 2 years) and I'd hate to be at odds with the club I have loved for more than fifty years! Moving away from the point a bit but have you actually been to some of these places you think of as nice. Believe me neither Blackpool or Dover are nice. Don't get me wrong I think I've said to you before that even if I were astronomically rich I wouldn't go within a country mile of football as an investment vehicle, never the less these very rich people do. When they look at it from a purely business perspective they soon become disillusioned as did Alan Sugar. Yes you're right we don't have the most alluring of reputations to start with but sustained success would sort even that out. Coates is not just Lambasted for the last couple of years, over both his tenures as owner there have been far more years like the last few years than there have where he has put money in and moved the club forward. It doesn't seem to matter how rich he gets he always reverts to type. What was the point in putting the money in in the first place to do what he's done now? I would give up mate. That hole you are digging is getting deeper. 😊
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 16, 2018 18:43:15 GMT
Why do you make shit up I've not commented on the woman, if she does buy a football club we'll be able to judge whether she has the ambition and financial muscle to bankroll it to success. If you want to use someone as an example why not use Roman Abramovich he's actually done it and he's not much ahead of the Coates' in the rich league. Seymour has got a point though. Her and her people are looking to buy a Premier League team. If Stoke is that attractive why haven't we heard about a bid. The way people like you are moaning at Coates i wouldn't blame him one bit if they sold up . Well according to that study I posted on club values the Stavely bid for Newcastle is massively undervalued on that basis would you have any faith in them coming in and bankrolling any sort of push for success? I wouldn't blame him if he sold up either he needs to decide what he wants looking at the football club in a purely business sense it's never going fit into what he wants it to be.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 16, 2018 18:46:28 GMT
Moving away from the point a bit but have you actually been to some of these places you think of as nice. Believe me neither Blackpool or Dover are nice. Don't get me wrong I think I've said to you before that even if I were astronomically rich I wouldn't go within a country mile of football as an investment vehicle, never the less these very rich people do. When they look at it from a purely business perspective they soon become disillusioned as did Alan Sugar. Yes you're right we don't have the most alluring of reputations to start with but sustained success would sort even that out. Coates is not just Lambasted for the last couple of years, over both his tenures as owner there have been far more years like the last few years than there have where he has put money in and moved the club forward. It doesn't seem to matter how rich he gets he always reverts to type. What was the point in putting the money in in the first place to do what he's done now? I would give up mate. That hole you are digging is getting deeper. 😊 There is no hole. If you disagree with my points you should be able to disprove them you can't its you who has given up.
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Feb 16, 2018 18:58:05 GMT
I would give up mate. That hole you are digging is getting deeper. 😊 There is no hole. If you disagree with my points you should be able to disprove them you can't its you who has given up. We've been in the Premier League for ten years. Largely due to the financial input of Peter Coates and his choice of Managers. He didn't need to do this. He wanted to...partly I suspect to try and put some things right. He loves the Club..he loves the City. Him and his kin have put some much needed lifeblood into this decripit city... both from football and business. I admit he needs to retire from his position now. Time waits for no man. But his family hopefully take up the reigns. It makes me very angry when people like you stick the boot in at the first sign of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 16, 2018 20:17:37 GMT
How’s the Chinese investment going at West Brom
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 20:34:15 GMT
Let's get this right... You're having a moan at the Coates Family because they are not investing enough into the Football Club .... correct?
And that the Family should pump more squillions into the Club.... correct?
And you also cannot see why the Family should not sell to a billionaire? .... correct?
And you think that either of the above options will propel SCFC into the big six bracket ...correct?
Having billionaire owners gets you nothing we already have them they're as tight as a nun's chuff. I'm simply saying its doable and all the limiting factors you people keep throwing up are irrelevant in modern football. The big six are not a closed shop Chelsea Tottenham and Man City have gatecrashed the elite group recently Blackburn did it previously. The Coates could afford to do it if they had the will, Peter could do it on his own. He's 80 years old worth close to £1billion personally and his kids are considerably more wealthy than him. What's he going to do with it leave it to the church? I was hoping that he would leave it to his favourite Oatie poster which of course is me =) Just think of the mayhem I could cause on here with a secretary or two^
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 20:44:23 GMT
The fact that your bloke did it at Gretna and Jack Walker did it at Blackburn simply show that you are wrong just like Man City and Chelsea. If you keep the investment big enough for long enough you can break into the elite. Those people didn't do a great job of any sort of succession planning obviously but your whole catchment area argument is pretty much bollocks people buy into success anyway, provide the success your supporter base would dwarf the population of Stoke-on-Trent not that its a massively limiting factor anyway. Hi Alster! I agree with your basic assumption regarding fanbase with one small caveat. Teams like ManUre, Arse, Etc, have large fanbases because they are successful but also because they have a certain romantic allure to Non-Local-Fans (NLF's). Due to Stoke's lack of previous success (I believe a small team like Accrington Stanley or Forest Green would have more allure to NLF's due to the underdog factor), our reputation as a team of "spoilers" (whereas a team that has a reputation of open attacking football may be more attractive to NLF's), the depressed nature of S-O-T (Teams like Exeter- "Devon's such a lovely place"- would have a greater chance of attracting NLF's) and finally the name Stoke City - means a lot to us but is probably a detterent to most ("The Hinckley Triumphs" would probably have a greater attraction to NLF's than Hinckley Town). If I were a rich man .... deedle deedle dum ... <sorry, us oldies tend to get distracted> and decided to throw a wedge of money at a club I would pick one of Dover Athletic (Underdog status, Romantic image - white cliffs etc, Nice place, The name helps build the attraction so I'd just get a related nickname - perhaps "The Cliffhangers" and make them play in all white) Cambridge United (Underdog status, Images of Harry Potter, Nice place, Again name helps attract NLF's perhaps nickname "The Wizards" ) Blackpool (former glories - That final, decent place, again name builds identity) Coventry (previously successful - but fallen on hard times, romantic name association - white horses and naked ladies, I'd drop the city) But, because I'm a Stoke fan ........ I'd never pump my money into Stoke. It almost never ends well (e'g' Peter Coates is not universally liked for 10 years in the prem but rather lambasted for the last 2 years) and I'd hate to be at odds with the club I have loved for more than fifty years! So you wouldn't buy Stoke and call it the Spitfires then as they were invented here or change the name to the Titanics when we got sunk to the lower divisions as the Captain was from Hanley. bah no history or nostalgia at all have we.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 17, 2018 10:11:12 GMT
Obviously not their owner/s aren't investing the sort of money that has you challenging for the title. According to my theory if they did they could. On your second point money is a far greater indicator in modern football than history just as Man City have proved if you are determined enough and able to just keep investing in getting better and better you can break into the elite group of clubs. Pure wealth rather than fanbase, catchment area, commercial potential or history can get you there your success builds up most of the rest, actual bums on seats is pretty irrelevant. That's completely the wrong way round. Sustainable big time investment only happens where there is a combination of a large catchment area and a massive potential for swelling the large local fanbase with a massive global fanbase as that raises the bar in terms of commercial income and greater exposure for the investor. It results in a virtuous circle. A club of the size of Stoke City in a relatively small city like Stoke-on-Trent can buy short term success by ploughing money in but when the bubble bursts the fundamentals aren't in place for sustained income - just because we get lucky with one investor it doesn't mean there is a long queue of investors waiting to takeover. Massive short term over investment in Stoke City FC is far more likely to mean we will end up like Blackburn Rovers rather than Manchester City. What you are proposing is a few seasons in the sun followed by a very long, possibly terminal winter. It's selfish and short term. Fortunately we have owners with a sense of human geography and the long term interests of the club (and the area) at heart. You do realise that it’s quite likely us and Blackburn will be at the same level next season so what’s the terminal Winter shit. And when exactly is this bubble going to burst, this is the sort of puddled thinking that has led to the penny pinching that’s landed Stoke in their current plight. Yet low and behold another multi billion package has been agreed well before the current one runs out. Coates is completely out of touch will reality the world has moved on beyond his comprehension. They really need to sell up or at least realign the ownership of the club it’s never going to do well owned by a woman who has no interest in it and if truth be told even holds some pretty strong negative feeling towards it. Our only hope is that either John takes over and forgets self sustainability at least in the terms that Peter seems to have defined it or a complete change of ownership.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Feb 17, 2018 21:23:12 GMT
Hi Alster! I agree with your basic assumption regarding fanbase with one small caveat. Teams like ManUre, Arse, Etc, have large fanbases because they are successful but also because they have a certain romantic allure to Non-Local-Fans (NLF's). Due to Stoke's lack of previous success (I believe a small team like Accrington Stanley or Forest Green would have more allure to NLF's due to the underdog factor), our reputation as a team of "spoilers" (whereas a team that has a reputation of open attacking football may be more attractive to NLF's), the depressed nature of S-O-T (Teams like Exeter- "Devon's such a lovely place"- would have a greater chance of attracting NLF's) and finally the name Stoke City - means a lot to us but is probably a detterent to most ("The Hinckley Triumphs" would probably have a greater attraction to NLF's than Hinckley Town). If I were a rich man .... deedle deedle dum ... <sorry, us oldies tend to get distracted> and decided to throw a wedge of money at a club I would pick one of Dover Athletic (Underdog status, Romantic image - white cliffs etc, Nice place, The name helps build the attraction so I'd just get a related nickname - perhaps "The Cliffhangers" and make them play in all white) Cambridge United (Underdog status, Images of Harry Potter, Nice place, Again name helps attract NLF's perhaps nickname "The Wizards" ) Blackpool (former glories - That final, decent place, again name builds identity) Coventry (previously successful - but fallen on hard times, romantic name association - white horses and naked ladies, I'd drop the city) But, because I'm a Stoke fan ........ I'd never pump my money into Stoke. It almost never ends well (e'g' Peter Coates is not universally liked for 10 years in the prem but rather lambasted for the last 2 years) and I'd hate to be at odds with the club I have loved for more than fifty years! Moving away from the point a bit but have you actually been to some of these places you think of as nice. Believe me neither Blackpool or Dover are nice. Don't get me wrong I think I've said to you before that even if I were astronomically rich I wouldn't go within a country mile of football as an investment vehicle, never the less these very rich people do. When they look at it from a purely business perspective they soon become disillusioned as did Alan Sugar. Yes you're right we don't have the most alluring of reputations to start with but sustained success would sort even that out. Coates is not just Lambasted for the last couple of years, over both his tenures as owner there have been far more years like the last few years than there have where he has put money in and moved the club forward. It doesn't seem to matter how rich he gets he always reverts to type. What was the point in putting the money in in the first place to do what he's done now? No only been in England once and went to London and Stoke. But that’s the point. NLF ‘s work on hearsay. Black pool is a holiday place isn’t it? And everyone’s heard of the white cliffs of Dover. I don’t think that even a 5-10 year record of success would attract that many NLF’s for Stoke. As for Coates, we wouldn’t have had the last ten years without him AND.... I firmly believe it’s not over yet. We are staying up!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Feb 17, 2018 21:26:29 GMT
Hi Alster! I agree with your basic assumption regarding fanbase with one small caveat. Teams like ManUre, Arse, Etc, have large fanbases because they are successful but also because they have a certain romantic allure to Non-Local-Fans (NLF's). Due to Stoke's lack of previous success (I believe a small team like Accrington Stanley or Forest Green would have more allure to NLF's due to the underdog factor), our reputation as a team of "spoilers" (whereas a team that has a reputation of open attacking football may be more attractive to NLF's), the depressed nature of S-O-T (Teams like Exeter- "Devon's such a lovely place"- would have a greater chance of attracting NLF's) and finally the name Stoke City - means a lot to us but is probably a detterent to most ("The Hinckley Triumphs" would probably have a greater attraction to NLF's than Hinckley Town). If I were a rich man .... deedle deedle dum ... <sorry, us oldies tend to get distracted> and decided to throw a wedge of money at a club I would pick one of Dover Athletic (Underdog status, Romantic image - white cliffs etc, Nice place, The name helps build the attraction so I'd just get a related nickname - perhaps "The Cliffhangers" and make them play in all white) Cambridge United (Underdog status, Images of Harry Potter, Nice place, Again name helps attract NLF's perhaps nickname "The Wizards" ) Blackpool (former glories - That final, decent place, again name builds identity) Coventry (previously successful - but fallen on hard times, romantic name association - white horses and naked ladies, I'd drop the city) But, because I'm a Stoke fan ........ I'd never pump my money into Stoke. It almost never ends well (e'g' Peter Coates is not universally liked for 10 years in the prem but rather lambasted for the last 2 years) and I'd hate to be at odds with the club I have loved for more than fifty years! So you wouldn't buy Stoke and call it the Spitfires then as they were invented here or change the name to the Titanics when we got sunk to the lower divisions as the Captain was from Hanley. bah no history or nostalgia at all have we. Hahaha. You try calling Stoke the Spitfires ( yes, not being from Stoke I suggested it once about 10 years ago) and see what reaction you get.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 21:33:00 GMT
So you wouldn't buy Stoke and call it the Spitfires then as they were invented here or change the name to the Titanics when we got sunk to the lower divisions as the Captain was from Hanley. bah no history or nostalgia at all have we. Hahaha. You try calling Stoke the Spitfires ( yes, not being from Stoke I suggested it once about 10 years ago) and see what reaction you get. Sounds better than the other Focke^
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Feb 17, 2018 21:49:55 GMT
He's made mistakes but... I don't want Coates to go. Better the devil you know.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 18, 2018 10:03:21 GMT
He's made mistakes but... I don't want Coates to go. Better the devil you know. Anyone can make mistakes these are by design and also he is in denial firstly about the situation and now about the cause. He needs to remove himself again.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 18, 2018 14:54:37 GMT
That's completely the wrong way round. Sustainable big time investment only happens where there is a combination of a large catchment area and a massive potential for swelling the large local fanbase with a massive global fanbase as that raises the bar in terms of commercial income and greater exposure for the investor. It results in a virtuous circle. A club of the size of Stoke City in a relatively small city like Stoke-on-Trent can buy short term success by ploughing money in but when the bubble bursts the fundamentals aren't in place for sustained income - just because we get lucky with one investor it doesn't mean there is a long queue of investors waiting to takeover. Massive short term over investment in Stoke City FC is far more likely to mean we will end up like Blackburn Rovers rather than Manchester City. What you are proposing is a few seasons in the sun followed by a very long, possibly terminal winter. It's selfish and short term. Fortunately we have owners with a sense of human geography and the long term interests of the club (and the area) at heart. You do realise that it’s quite likely us and Blackburn will be at the same level next season so what’s the terminal Winter shit. And when exactly is this bubble going to burst, this is the sort of puddled thinking that has led to the penny pinching that’s landed Stoke in their current plight. Yet low and behold another multi billion package has been agreed well before the current one runs out. Coates is completely out of touch will reality the world has moved on beyond his comprehension. They really need to sell up or at least realign the ownership of the club it’s never going to do well owned by a woman who has no interest in it and if truth be told even holds some pretty strong negative feeling towards it. Our only hope is that either John takes over and forgets self sustainability at least in the terms that Peter seems to have defined it or a complete change of ownership. You are confusing two things: 1 TV income (which has continually increased - but could dry up at some point) which effetively counts as external income 2 Investment by the owner - which is effectively internal income and is entirely dependant on the goodwill and bottomless pockets of the owner To some extent (providing it isn't mortgaging the future on things like player contracts with no relegation clauses) a club is free to spend the TV money - it's only a sustainability issue if the club plans entirely on that income stream increasing. My point about sustainability relates to the second income stream. Relying on the owner to bank roll the club with their own money is not sustainable - the money can easily run out and the owner might simply walk away when the realise they are being milked and abused for not bankrupting themselves to satisfy the pipe dreams of a deluded and ungrateful fan base. Coates - or any other owner for that matter owe us nothing - not a penny. Anything they personally invest in the club is entirely down to their discretion. A club which relies on this type of income stream is not sustainable. That is where the analogy with Blackburn comes from - not the tv money. If anyone's thinking is "puddled" I'm afraid its yours. To base the clubs future on having a dynasty of idiot sugar daddies is plain bonkers.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 18, 2018 17:03:47 GMT
You do realise that it’s quite likely us and Blackburn will be at the same level next season so what’s the terminal Winter shit. And when exactly is this bubble going to burst, this is the sort of puddled thinking that has led to the penny pinching that’s landed Stoke in their current plight. Yet low and behold another multi billion package has been agreed well before the current one runs out. Coates is completely out of touch will reality the world has moved on beyond his comprehension. They really need to sell up or at least realign the ownership of the club it’s never going to do well owned by a woman who has no interest in it and if truth be told even holds some pretty strong negative feeling towards it. Our only hope is that either John takes over and forgets self sustainability at least in the terms that Peter seems to have defined it or a complete change of ownership. You are confusing two things: 1 TV income (which has continually increased - but could dry up at some point) which effetively counts as external income 2 Investment by the owner - which is effectively internal income and is entirely dependant on the goodwill and bottomless pockets of the owner To some extent (providing it isn't mortgaging the future on things like player contracts with no relegation clauses) a club is free to spend the TV money - it's only a sustainability issue if the club plans entirely on that income stream increasing. My point about sustainability relates to the second income stream. Relying on the owner to bank roll the club with their own money is not sustainable - the money can easily run out and the owner might simply walk away when the realise they are being milked and abused for not bankrupting themselves to satisfy the pipe dreams of a deluded and ungrateful fan base. Coates - or any other owner for that matter owe us nothing - not a penny. Anything they personally invest in the club is entirely down to their discretion. A club which relies on this type of income stream is not sustainable. That is where the analogy with Blackburn comes from - not the tv money. If anyone's thinking is "puddled" I'm afraid its yours. To base the clubs future on having a dynasty of idiot sugar daddies is plain bonkers. They don't need to be idiot sugar daddies. How has the investment in our club been idiotic when if they'd invested sufficiently to maintain our league status it would have resulted in asset value that was far higher than the amount invested. The Coates' for whatever reason were not willing to fund that level of ongoing investment to ride the wave of football hyperinflation. There was never any indication of that bubble bursting imminently there were years not months left on the current tv deal and every indication that the next one would at least match if not exceed it as has come to pass. By not investing sufficiently to maintain our status they have in effect voluntarily stepped off the wave on some daft notion of revenues imploding. Now even if it happens in the distant future the clubs who stay on the wave will continue to move away from those who can't get on it, those who fall off it but most inexplicably of all the club that chose to step off it. Quite simply the asset value was there if they weren't willing to make sufficient ongoing investment to maintain it they should have cashed in their chips and walked away all that their owning a football club at no ongoing cost will result in is the club not being able to compete with its peers at any level.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 18, 2018 17:40:14 GMT
You are confusing two things: 1 TV income (which has continually increased - but could dry up at some point) which effetively counts as external income 2 Investment by the owner - which is effectively internal income and is entirely dependant on the goodwill and bottomless pockets of the owner To some extent (providing it isn't mortgaging the future on things like player contracts with no relegation clauses) a club is free to spend the TV money - it's only a sustainability issue if the club plans entirely on that income stream increasing. My point about sustainability relates to the second income stream. Relying on the owner to bank roll the club with their own money is not sustainable - the money can easily run out and the owner might simply walk away when the realise they are being milked and abused for not bankrupting themselves to satisfy the pipe dreams of a deluded and ungrateful fan base. Coates - or any other owner for that matter owe us nothing - not a penny. Anything they personally invest in the club is entirely down to their discretion. A club which relies on this type of income stream is not sustainable. That is where the analogy with Blackburn comes from - not the tv money. If anyone's thinking is "puddled" I'm afraid its yours. To base the clubs future on having a dynasty of idiot sugar daddies is plain bonkers. They don't need to be idiot sugar daddies. How has the investment in our club been idiotic when if they'd invested sufficiently to maintain our league status it would have resulted in asset value that was far higher than the amount invested. The Coates' for whatever reason were not willing to fund that level of ongoing investment to ride the wave of football hyperinflation. There was never any indication of that bubble bursting imminently there were years not months left on the current tv deal and every indication that the next one would at least match if not exceed it as has come to pass. By not investing sufficiently to maintain our status they have in effect voluntarily stepped off the wave on some daft notion of revenues imploding. Now even if it happens in the distant future the clubs who stay on the wave will continue to move away from those who can't get on it, those who fall off it but most inexplicably of all the club that chose to step off it. Quite simply the asset value was there if they weren't willing to make sufficient ongoing investment to maintain it they should have cashed in their chips and walked away all that their owning a football club at no ongoing cost will result in is the club not being able to compete with its peers at any level. If the owner is constantly pumping in their own money in order to maintain their position in the Premier league all they are doing is artificially inflating the value of the club while they remain in the Premier League - as soon as they drop out of the league the value of the club will be readjusted and all the investment will have vanished into thin air, I've no idea of the real figures but if the clubs inflated Premier League value is 100 million but in order to stay their the owner has to pump in their own money at the rate of 10 million a year then effectively they will be losing money on their asset after 10 years - and who in the right mind is going to buy such an on-going concern should the owner bail out (or go broke)? There is also the issue of the underlying value of the asset. Like it or not the size and profile of the city where the club lies has an enormous impact in this respect. Stoke City and Man City are not equivalent because Stoke-on-Trent is no where near the size of Manchester - in the same way that Malaga are never going to seriously compete with Barcelona. Even if the owner of Stoke City were to pump in the same amount of money as Shiek Mansoor it will not change the underlying value of the club. The only way to do that would happen is if the government of big business were to turn Stoke-on-Trent into the Manchester of the midlands - which as far as I'm aware isn't going to happen. You want Stoke City to be managed the same way as the likes of Manchester City - which just flies in the face of the underlying realities. I'm afraid you're living a fantasy - and if that fantasy were to be realised we would be more likely to cease to exist as an on-going concern rather than win the Premier League.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 18, 2018 18:07:13 GMT
They don't need to be idiot sugar daddies. How has the investment in our club been idiotic when if they'd invested sufficiently to maintain our league status it would have resulted in asset value that was far higher than the amount invested. The Coates' for whatever reason were not willing to fund that level of ongoing investment to ride the wave of football hyperinflation. There was never any indication of that bubble bursting imminently there were years not months left on the current tv deal and every indication that the next one would at least match if not exceed it as has come to pass. By not investing sufficiently to maintain our status they have in effect voluntarily stepped off the wave on some daft notion of revenues imploding. Now even if it happens in the distant future the clubs who stay on the wave will continue to move away from those who can't get on it, those who fall off it but most inexplicably of all the club that chose to step off it. Quite simply the asset value was there if they weren't willing to make sufficient ongoing investment to maintain it they should have cashed in their chips and walked away all that their owning a football club at no ongoing cost will result in is the club not being able to compete with its peers at any level. If the owner is constantly pumping in their own money in order to maintain their position in the Premier league all they are doing is artificially inflating the value of the club while they remain in the Premier League - as soon as they drop out of the league the value of the club will be readjusted and all the investment will have vanished into thin air, I've no idea of the real figures but if the clubs inflated Premier League value is 100 million but in order to stay their the owner has to pump in their own money at the rate of 10 million a year then effectively they will be losing money on their asset after 10 years - and who in the right mind is going to buy such an on-going concern should the owner bail out (or go broke)? There is also the issue of the underlying value of the asset. Like it or not the size and profile of the city where the club lies has an enormous impact in this respect. Stoke City and Man City are not equivalent because Stoke-on-Trent is no where near the size of Manchester - in the same way that Malaga are never going to seriously compete with Barcelona. Even if the owner of Stoke City were to pump in the same amount of money as Shiek Mansoor it will not change the underlying value of the club. The only way to do that would happen is if the government of big business were to turn Stoke-on-Trent into the Manchester of the midlands - which as far as I'm aware isn't going to happen. You want Stoke City to be managed the same way as the likes of Manchester City - which just flies in the face of the underlying realities. I'm afraid you're living a fantasy - and if that fantasy were to be realised we would be more likely to cease to exist as an on-going concern rather than win the Premier League. No its you who is failing to understand the basic economics if you have to invest £10M a year to maintain your position. Hyper inflation which is the modern norm in football would increase your asset value at a greater rate it wouldn't remain the same as your twisted logic seems to assume. Therefore it would have been sensible to wait for some tangible evidence the bubble was about to burst instead of a feeling in an old man's urine, before reducing your investment to compensate. Your comment if the owner invested at the same level as Sheikh Mansoor and it not changing the underlying value of the club are even more astoundingly stupid. Catchment area, supporter base and commercial incomes are indeed restricted but are not defining in current football economics.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Feb 18, 2018 18:49:08 GMT
I still maintain that the average match going fan puts a greater percentage of his or her income into the club than the Coates family do.
Fans don't do self sufficiency
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 18, 2018 18:56:09 GMT
If the owner is constantly pumping in their own money in order to maintain their position in the Premier league all they are doing is artificially inflating the value of the club while they remain in the Premier League - as soon as they drop out of the league the value of the club will be readjusted and all the investment will have vanished into thin air, I've no idea of the real figures but if the clubs inflated Premier League value is 100 million but in order to stay their the owner has to pump in their own money at the rate of 10 million a year then effectively they will be losing money on their asset after 10 years - and who in the right mind is going to buy such an on-going concern should the owner bail out (or go broke)? There is also the issue of the underlying value of the asset. Like it or not the size and profile of the city where the club lies has an enormous impact in this respect. Stoke City and Man City are not equivalent because Stoke-on-Trent is no where near the size of Manchester - in the same way that Malaga are never going to seriously compete with Barcelona. Even if the owner of Stoke City were to pump in the same amount of money as Shiek Mansoor it will not change the underlying value of the club. The only way to do that would happen is if the government of big business were to turn Stoke-on-Trent into the Manchester of the midlands - which as far as I'm aware isn't going to happen. You want Stoke City to be managed the same way as the likes of Manchester City - which just flies in the face of the underlying realities. I'm afraid you're living a fantasy - and if that fantasy were to be realised we would be more likely to cease to exist as an on-going concern rather than win the Premier League. No its you who is failing to understand the basic economics if you have to invest £10M a year to maintain your position. Hyper inflation which is the modern norm in football would increase your asset value at a greater rate it wouldn't remain the same as your twisted logic seems to assume. Therefore it would have been sensible to wait for some tangible evidence the bubble was about to burst instead of a feeling in an old man's urine, before reducing your investment to compensate. Your comment if the owner invested at the same level as Sheikh Mansoor and it not changing the underlying value of the club are even more astoundingly stupid. Catchment area, supporter base and commercial incomes are indeed restricted but are not defining in current football economics. I'm sorry - but you seem to exist in some alternative financial universe. It's perfectly possible to plough loads of money into an asset and not appreciably increase its underlying value. I could blow my life savings on the most expensive interior designer in the country to do up my shed - but I might as well just set fire to my life savings. What has the following list of incredibly successful football clubs got in common: Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Roma, Inter, PSG, Bayern Munich? No? If you need a clue buy an Atlas. Catchment area is the defining factor when it comes to underlying value, investment potential and success. Any smallish city club that ignores those underlying realities is doomed to failure. Its called hubris.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 18, 2018 19:44:43 GMT
No its you who is failing to understand the basic economics if you have to invest £10M a year to maintain your position. Hyper inflation which is the modern norm in football would increase your asset value at a greater rate it wouldn't remain the same as your twisted logic seems to assume. Therefore it would have been sensible to wait for some tangible evidence the bubble was about to burst instead of a feeling in an old man's urine, before reducing your investment to compensate. Your comment if the owner invested at the same level as Sheikh Mansoor and it not changing the underlying value of the club are even more astoundingly stupid. Catchment area, supporter base and commercial incomes are indeed restricted but are not defining in current football economics. I'm sorry - but you seem to exist in some alternative financial universe. It's perfectly possible to plough loads of money into an asset and not appreciably increase its underlying value. I could blow my life savings on the most expensive interior designer in the country to do up my shed - but I might as well just set fire to my life savings. What has the following list of incredibly successful football clubs got in common: Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Roma, Inter, PSG, Bayern Munich? No? If you need a clue buy an Atlas. Catchment area is the defining factor when it comes to underlying value, investment potential and success. Any smallish city club that ignores those underlying realities is doomed to failure. Its called hubris. No I exist in the normal everyday financial universe but football doesn't and you are trying to apply home economics arguments to it. Coates investment in Stoke was doing nicely all that was required was enough investment to continue riding the wave of football hyperinflation and his asset would have appreciated at a greater pace than he had to invest at without doing anything spectacular or clever. Challenging the big boys would take far more serious investment but I maintain that if they had the will the Coates' have the financial muscle to do it. There is simply no point in withdrawing investment if you no longer want to invest it makes far more sense to sell.
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Feb 18, 2018 20:51:23 GMT
I'm sorry - but you seem to exist in some alternative financial universe. It's perfectly possible to plough loads of money into an asset and not appreciably increase its underlying value. I could blow my life savings on the most expensive interior designer in the country to do up my shed - but I might as well just set fire to my life savings. What has the following list of incredibly successful football clubs got in common: Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Roma, Inter, PSG, Bayern Munich? No? If you need a clue buy an Atlas. Catchment area is the defining factor when it comes to underlying value, investment potential and success. Any smallish city club that ignores those underlying realities is doomed to failure. Its called hubris. No I exist in the normal everyday financial universe but football doesn't and you are trying to apply home economics arguments to it. Coates investment in Stoke was doing nicely all that was required was enough investment to continue riding the wave of football hyperinflation and his asset would have appreciated at a greater pace than he had to invest at without doing anything spectacular or clever. Challenging the big boys would take far more serious investment but I maintain that if they had the will the Coates' have the financial muscle to do it. There is simply no point in withdrawing investment if you no longer want to invest it makes far more sense to sell. I’m not in any way a business/financial expert. I truly believe the original build of the Brit should have been a fully enclosed 28,000 seater, even that would suffice in our current prosperity of being in the well financed Premier League in which the cudous of a full stadia is of paramount importance (rather than finance necessity). This City and more importantly our custodians (including the clubs heirarchy) have continually failed to promote and exploit our logistical location for Road, Rail and Air links (four international airports within an hour). This half penny/farthing mentality has, and remains our biggest mental blocker for investment
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Feb 18, 2018 21:04:03 GMT
So you wouldn't buy Stoke and call it the Spitfires then as they were invented here or change the name to the Titanics when we got sunk to the lower divisions as the Captain was from Hanley. bah no history or nostalgia at all have we. Hahaha. You try calling Stoke the Spitfires ( yes, not being from Stoke I suggested it once about 10 years ago) and see what reaction you get. Mitchell's Marauders would be the name if we went all American and fell into the malady of Stupidnameitis. As much as I love the association with the Spitfire, the fact of the matter is that it was entirely designed and built in Southampton and Brum.
|
|