|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 23:13:45 GMT
Coates won't get rid of him, he's cheap. Any decent manager would cost far more.
Cheap manager, minimal budget. The blame lies mainly in Coates' hands.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Dec 16, 2017 23:15:37 GMT
Hughes signed his latest contract when he was doing very, very well.
He would have known his own worth, having done the rounds.
I'm sure his wages are comparable with any similar-sized club in the division.
When Pulis got sacked, his wage here was reportedly £1.5m - and Pulis' wage at West Brom this season was reportedly similar.
Our player wages are very competitive, so can't imagine we aren't paying the most important bloke at the club competitively too
|
|
|
Post by trulystoked on Dec 16, 2017 23:16:31 GMT
His overal premier league record still surpasses that. That doesn’t explain the deficiencies i mention above in our club does it? If you think just replacing the manager is going to solve our problems, you’re wrong. I agree that should have taken place in the summer he was and still is a busted flush, sacked by QPR, sacked by Man City, walked out on Fulham, not sure what happened at Blackburn ? This may surprise you, but every manager that joins a new club, either leaves his old club or is sacked. An alternative view is Wales wanted him, Blackburn wanted him, Man City wanted him, Fulham wanted him, Stoke wanted him. But this still doesn’t explain how changing him will solve all our problems that I mention above (with the current set-up)
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Dec 16, 2017 23:17:33 GMT
Hughes signed his latest contract when he was doing very, very well. He would have known his own worth, having done the rounds. I'm sure his wages are comparable with any similar-sized club in the division. When Pulis got sacked, his wage here was reportedly £1.5m - and Pulis' wage at West Brom this season was reportedly similar. What about bonuses? Ranieri got a million quid for winning the league.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Dec 16, 2017 23:21:32 GMT
I don't care who's in charge next game and beyond. If Hughes is given more time so be it, but for God's sake....let's fucking smash someone, starting with West brom.
Im fucking fed up of everyone taking the piss, the media loving it. I hope we take it out on some fucker. Show time now.
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Dec 16, 2017 23:23:01 GMT
I have always defended him on the basis that some on here have an agenda and stability is the way forward. I turned after Bournemouth at home. From that point onwards I was indifferent about Hughes' fate but wasn't sure about the alternatives. I think I made up my mind last week that we should act now and get Koeman in so he has the January window. Today has just confirmed the urgency with which we need to act. He's a deluded arrogant selfish twat with no morals, if he has any decency he would resign but he hasn't so we are stuck with the twat. tbf Crapper, you could be reading that from just about every Everton fan there is about Koeman earlier this season.
I too briefly thought RK might be the answer on the basis of the new manager bounce phenomena.
That said, I don't think for one minute he'd come anyway (yes, I know he has a reputation to rebuild etc) and we can be absolutely sure his required recruitment budget wouldn't even be in the same stratosphere as PC's.
So no.
As to MLH, it's perspectives; PC and MLH himself, I am sure, are thinking about nothing but turning it around and will front that out.
Hughes has the confidence / arrogance to believe it can be done and so far, PC believes it too.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Dec 16, 2017 23:23:29 GMT
Allardyce would not have come to Stoke and to have sacked Hughes 18 months ago would have more than stupid. I would like the club to identify some managers who might be suitable whilst keeping Hughes as manager, if results pick up keep Hughes, if they don't move on one of the identified candidates. So no credible answer then, 18 months ago we started this decline please explain why it would have been more than stupid ? it makes perfect sense to any one who knows anything about football ! Coates was right to keep Hughes as manager for the start of this season as he had cleared out some of the old guard and made new signings. The changes early on seem to have worked with victory over Arsenal and a draw with United. Then came the collapse in results which had also occurred at the end of the previous season, at this point NOW I think it's correct to consider other options, but not to take any final decision untill those other options have been checked out.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Dec 16, 2017 23:23:43 GMT
I agree that should have taken place in the summer he was and still is a busted flush, sacked by QPR, sacked by Man City, walked out on Fulham, not sure what happened at Blackburn ? This may surprise you, but every manager that joins a new club, either leaves his old club or is sacked. An alternative view is Wales wanted him, Blackburn wanted him, Man City wanted him, Fulham wanted him, Stoke wanted him. But this still doesn’t explain how changing him will solve all our problems that I mention above (with the current set-up) Because new managers generally freshen things up. Smart team that are in a slump almost always replace the manager because they often get the famous “new manager bounce”. It doesn’t always last but it usually does the trick (erm...if they don’t wait until it’s too late). However, we are in a such a mess right now, I am not sure it will work - and all the usual suspects, except one, have been snapped up.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Dec 16, 2017 23:25:36 GMT
I don't care who's in charge next game and beyond. If Hughes is given more time so be it, but for God's sake....let's fucking smash someone, starting with West brom. Im fucking fed up of everyone taking the piss, the media loving it. I hope we take it out on some fucker. Show time now. Can't remember the last time we "smashed" anyone by 2 goals!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 16, 2017 23:26:03 GMT
This board means feck all it's the Stoke board who will decide this, his new signings are not performing ! no shit Sherlock one has been fcuked off on loan to France, one spends his time sitting on his arse or knocking on the chairman's door the other is a total feckin joke, by the way he signed all of them does that point to him been a good manager ???? You think Hughes is the problem and you want him sacked tonight, but you have not the slightest idea who might replace him, are you seriously saying that sounds a sensible thing to do ? What are you suggesting then Geoff ... so long as the Stoke City board can't be bothered to sound out at an appropriate replacement, then Hughes should keep his job, regardless of how poorly he's doing it?
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Dec 16, 2017 23:29:11 GMT
I don't care who's in charge next game and beyond. If Hughes is given more time so be it, but for God's sake....let's fucking smash someone, starting with West brom. Im fucking fed up of everyone taking the piss, the media loving it. I hope we take it out on some fucker. Show time now. Can't remember the last time we "smashed" anyone by 2 goals! I know, but I'm so wanting take it out on someone. Just hope the players think the same.
|
|
|
Post by trulystoked on Dec 16, 2017 23:31:20 GMT
This may surprise you, but every manager that joins a new club, either leaves his old club or is sacked. An alternative view is Wales wanted him, Blackburn wanted him, Man City wanted him, Fulham wanted him, Stoke wanted him. But this still doesn’t explain how changing him will solve all our problems that I mention above (with the current set-up) Because new managers generally freshen things up. Smart team that are in a slump almost always replace the manager because they often get the famous “new manager bounce”. It doesn’t always last but it usually does the trick (erm...if they don’t wait until it’s too late). However, we are in a such a mess right now, I am not sure it will work - and all the usual suspects, except one, have been snapped up. That is a good point. And you are right. But we are in such a mess that stretches way beyond Hughes, that replacing him alone will probably not work. We haven’t spent enough or spent well. The players need to step up now and repay the manager that they supposedly still back.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Dec 16, 2017 23:32:03 GMT
Can't remember the last time we "smashed" anyone by 2 goals! I know, but I'm so wanting take it out on someone. Just hope the players think the same. I'd take a couple of poxy og 1 nil wins to relieve the pressure...
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Dec 16, 2017 23:32:17 GMT
You think Hughes is the problem and you want him sacked tonight, but you have not the slightest idea who might replace him, are you seriously saying that sounds a sensible thing to do ? What are you suggesting then Geoff ... so long as the Stoke City board can't be bothered to sound out at an appropriate replacement, then Hughes should keep his job, regardless of how poorly he's doing it? If they have no suitable candidate lined up then yes for me they have to retain Hughes, to have a PL club without a manager or with someone with little experience in charge would almost certainly relegate us.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 16, 2017 23:38:51 GMT
That doesn’t answer my question Geoff. What is going to change under Hughes? What is he going to put right? Rob, he is largely in the hands of his players if they continue to play for him and eliminate these defensive errors and the luck turns he could still turn this round. Unlike some on here I don't believe he has had this poor run of form because he is a bad manager, or his coaching staff are poor tactically, but clearly the new signings have not performed for him and that has been the major problem. It may well be the club would benefit from a change, but as you can see from this board, there is no agreement on who would be a suitable replacement. It’s up to the owners to properly source them. Again Geoff, you can’t give the manager all the credit for the good times and then ascribe all the negative stuff to the players.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Dec 16, 2017 23:46:49 GMT
Because new managers generally freshen things up. Smart team that are in a slump almost always replace the manager because they often get the famous “new manager bounce”. It doesn’t always last but it usually does the trick (erm...if they don’t wait until it’s too late). However, we are in a such a mess right now, I am not sure it will work - and all the usual suspects, except one, have been snapped up. That is a good point. And you are right. But we are in such a mess that stretches way beyond Hughes, that replacing him alone will probably not work. We haven’t spent enough or spent well. The players need to step up now and repay the manager that they supposedly still back. We have spent enough given the size of the budget. However, we have not spent wisely. I can’t imagine the board wanting to send any more good money after bad! Our three most expensive signings are: - Whimper, who is only playing because of injuries to BMI and Zouma - Imbula, who is on loan because he couldn’t cut it - Berahino, who is relegated to the bench because Hughes has realized that he bought another pig in a poke.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Dec 16, 2017 23:49:31 GMT
I know, but I'm so wanting take it out on someone. Just hope the players think the same. I'd take a couple of poxy og 1 nil wins to relieve the pressure... Me too.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Dec 16, 2017 23:53:07 GMT
What are you suggesting then Geoff ... so long as the Stoke City board can't be bothered to sound out at an appropriate replacement, then Hughes should keep his job, regardless of how poorly he's doing it? If they have no suitable candidate lined up then yes for me they have to retain Hughes, to have a PL club without a manager or with someone with little experience in charge would almost certainly relegate us. The trouble is we are running out of options. All the usual suspects, with PL experience in keeping a team up are gone (except one). They are not going to gamble on a younger, less experienced manager. The time to do that was at the end last season.
|
|
|
Post by trulystoked on Dec 17, 2017 0:01:09 GMT
That is a good point. And you are right. But we are in such a mess that stretches way beyond Hughes, that replacing him alone will probably not work. We haven’t spent enough or spent well. The players need to step up now and repay the manager that they supposedly still back. We have spent enough given the size of the budget. However, we have not spent wisely. I can’t imagine the board wanting to send any more good money after bad! Our three most expensive signings are: - Whimper, who is only playing because of injuries to BMI and Zouma - Imbula, who is on loan because he couldn’t cut it - Berahino, who is relegated to the bench because Hughes has realized that he bought another pig in a poke. The budget isn’t enough. And I don’t think Hughes picks the transfer price or the wages. That’s somebody else’s job. So something is wrong way above Hughes as well. Unless we assume Cartwright and Scholes are cleaners or groundsmen. But we are agreed that the ‘big’ money has been spent poorly. I just don’t buy that that is merely Hughes’ fault and sacking him will solve our problems.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 17, 2017 0:34:23 GMT
What are you suggesting then Geoff ... so long as the Stoke City board can't be bothered to sound out at an appropriate replacement, then Hughes should keep his job, regardless of how poorly he's doing it? If they have no suitable candidate lined up then yes for me they have to retain Hughes, to have a PL club without a manager or with someone with little experience in charge would almost certainly relegate us. So surely if the current fella isn't upto the job, then the onus is on the board to have a suitable replacement lined up isn't it Geoff?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Dec 17, 2017 8:49:19 GMT
If they have no suitable candidate lined up then yes for me they have to retain Hughes, to have a PL club without a manager or with someone with little experience in charge would almost certainly relegate us. So surely if the current fella isn't upto the job, then the onus is on the board to have a suitable replacement lined up isn't it Geoff? The board are probably dealing with this mini crisis in the correct way. Firstly they have given Hughes time to see if he can turn the results round, if they now believe he can't then other options are going to be looked at. They can't broadcast what they are doing, they have to be seen to be backing their manager in public and for certain the most dangerous thing to do is to sack Hughes without a first class replacement having been identified.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 17, 2017 10:09:59 GMT
So surely if the current fella isn't upto the job, then the onus is on the board to have a suitable replacement lined up isn't it Geoff? The board are probably dealing with this mini crisis in the correct way. Firstly they have given Hughes time to see if he can turn the results round, if they now believe he can't then other options are going to be looked at. They can't broadcast what they are doing, they have to be seen to be backing their manager in public and for certain the most dangerous thing to do is to sack Hughes without a first class replacement having been identified.
Nobody is asking them to broadcast what they're doing Geoff.
But rather I'm saying that you can't excuse them for not having an actual replacement because they haven't gone out and found one.
The onus is and always has been on the board.
Are they actually giving Hughes time to sort it out or is Hughes getting time because they don't know what else the fuck to do? The two are very different things.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Dec 17, 2017 10:12:58 GMT
So surely if the current fella isn't upto the job, then the onus is on the board to have a suitable replacement lined up isn't it Geoff? The board are probably dealing with this mini crisis in the correct way. Firstly they have given Hughes time to see if he can turn the results round, if they now believe he can't then other options are going to be looked at. They can't broadcast what they are doing, they have to be seen to be backing their manager in public and for certain the most dangerous thing to do is to sack Hughes without a first class replacement having been identified. Mini crises?! Wow.. your head is buried sooooooo deep in the sand Geoff.
|
|
|
Post by fentonian on Dec 17, 2017 10:19:58 GMT
I think he should stay. Managers these days don't get enough of a chance, they are so disposable. I can't see that bringing someone new in will change much, it's another risk, Coates obviously doesn't like splashing the cash so whoever it is we do get in isn't going to be on a multi million pound wage, and even if they were it would certainly eat into whatever budget he sets aside. I think it's naive to think that bringing someone in will make a massive impact.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyjarvis on Dec 17, 2017 10:20:01 GMT
Thought I’d make an appearance after weeks of abject mindless none sense on here.
Those calling for Pulis are either reckless or stupid. What about a term we Stoke fans often struggle with and that is “vision” I’ve listened to some moronic supporters saying he is the best option at the moment. What about thinking about the future and not the next few games. So what if the club goes down. A proper skilled manager can rebuild instead of this fear and panic.
I said some months ago we should look at the board at the club as they are not major investors. Suffice to say I got hammere. Some weeks on my comments are coming true.
Come on Stoke have some real vision.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Dec 17, 2017 10:21:26 GMT
The board are probably dealing with this mini crisis in the correct way. Firstly they have given Hughes time to see if he can turn the results round, if they now believe he can't then other options are going to be looked at. They can't broadcast what they are doing, they have to be seen to be backing their manager in public and for certain the most dangerous thing to do is to sack Hughes without a first class replacement having been identified.
Nobody is asking them to broadcast what they're doing Geoff.
But rather I'm saying that you can't excuse them for not having an actual replacement because they haven't gone out and found one.
The onus is and always has been on the board.
Are they actually giving Hughes time to sort it out or is Hughes getting time because they don't know what else the fuck to do? The two are very different things.
The board appears to have decided to stick with Hughes, untill that decision is reversed I cannot see how you could hold any meaningful talks with possible replacements.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Dec 17, 2017 10:23:28 GMT
That is a good point. And you are right. But we are in such a mess that stretches way beyond Hughes, that replacing him alone will probably not work. We haven’t spent enough or spent well. The players need to step up now and repay the manager that they supposedly still back. We have spent enough given the size of the budget. However, we have not spent wisely. I can’t imagine the board wanting to send any more good money after bad! Our three most expensive signings are: - Whimper, who is only playing because of injuries to BMI and Zouma - Imbula, who is on loan because he couldn’t cut it - Berahino, who is relegated to the bench because Hughes has realized that he bought another pig in a poke. Of course we have spent enough, problem is as you say it has been spent on three very poor players, the rest of the squad is bulked up with loans or free signings which have not come cheap, sick of the Hughes apologists blaming a lack of investment for his dog shit management.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 17, 2017 10:23:50 GMT
The board are probably dealing with this mini crisis in the correct way. Firstly they have given Hughes time to see if he can turn the results round, if they now believe he can't then other options are going to be looked at. They can't broadcast what they are doing, they have to be seen to be backing their manager in public and for certain the most dangerous thing to do is to sack Hughes without a first class replacement having been identified.
Nobody is asking them to broadcast what they're doing Geoff.
But rather I'm saying that you can't excuse them for not having an actual replacement because they haven't gone out and found one.
The onus is and always has been on the board.
Are they actually giving Hughes time to sort it out or is Hughes getting time because they don't know what else the fuck to do? The two are very different things.
I know what you're saying and I don't often agree with Geoff but the first thing I want to hear leaked in the media is who they have approached because I dread hearing they've finally sacked him and will now begin a search for his successor.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 17, 2017 10:24:04 GMT
Nobody is asking them to broadcast what they're doing Geoff.
But rather I'm saying that you can't excuse them for not having an actual replacement because they haven't gone out and found one.
The onus is and always has been on the board.
Are they actually giving Hughes time to sort it out or is Hughes getting time because they don't know what else the fuck to do? The two are very different things.
The board appears to have decided to stick with Hughes, untill that decision is reversed I cannot see how you could hold any meaningful talks with possible replacements.
You're completely contradicting yourself Geoff.
You've just said that it would be folly to sack Hughes until we have a definite replacement lined up and now your saying that we can't get a replacement lined up until we sack Hughes.
|
|
|
Post by bhp on Dec 17, 2017 10:24:11 GMT
Not defending him by no means but there are managers in the league who haven't won in more games than Hughes and subsequently have worse form but are still in a job. Given Coates is not one for consistent change, 2 managers in 10 seasons, I doubt Hughes will be getting sacked soon, even though he should be. I'm pretty sure he will be in charge come January 1st. Unfortunately.
|
|