|
|
Post by stokechalky on Jan 7, 2018 11:42:36 GMT
Considering all the speculation on who his responsible for transfers, does anyone really know. I find it hard to believe the Manager would not have some decision on who he wants, and if he has little input then sacking Mark Hughes will not solve the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jan 7, 2018 11:45:10 GMT
Considering all the speculation on who his responsible for transfers, does anyone really know. I find it hard to believe the Manager would not have some decision on who he wants, and if he has little input then sacking Mark Hughes will not solve the problem. No but it may solve the insanity that has been, team selection, formation, tactics and fitness. Keeping him would do none of that. |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jan 7, 2018 12:16:41 GMT
I simply don't believe that Hughes had no say in pretty much all the transfers whilst he was here....... where is the evidence for this spurious idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by mistergumby on Jan 7, 2018 12:27:15 GMT
I simply don't believe that Hughes had no say in pretty much all the transfers whilst he was here....... where is the evidence for this spurious idea? And where's the hard evidence to the contrary? It's been heavily reported that Hughes didn't want Imbula - amongst others. And when he actually did want a particular player i.e. Lemina he was eventually saddled with Darren Fletcher. Doesn't take much to work out who was behind that, does it? |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 7, 2018 12:28:16 GMT
At every turn Hughes has said the transfers are his players.
Fook me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dingdangdoo on Jan 7, 2018 12:32:49 GMT
I simply don't believe that Hughes had no say in pretty much all the transfers whilst he was here....... where is the evidence for this spurious idea? Agree. There is no way he has had no say in transfers. Doesn’t make an ounce of sense. Why would anyone else have more experience/say in who comes in. He prepares a list and we try and achieve as high up the list as possible. Not all will come, some prefer elsewhere and others we can’t afford/agree terms. I do agree that ‘maybe’ we need to spend a bit more to progress, but I believe it’s been creep and go, with the latest biggish money signings not working out. Biggest mistakes for me are persisting with 3511 formation and no settled side. It’s broken us. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 7, 2018 12:32:59 GMT
I simply don't believe that Hughes had no say in pretty much all the transfers whilst he was here....... where is the evidence for this spurious idea? And where's the hard evidence to the contrary? It's been heavily reported that Hughes didn't want Imbula - amongst others. And when he actually did want a particular player i.e. Lemina he was eventually saddled with Darren Fletcher. Doesn't take much to work out who was behind that, does it? Re Imbula- has it? The impression I got there was that the management team watched him in that friendly vs us and were sold. Re Lemina- he was the top target, we missed out on him. It happens, far too often granted. But we tried to sign him for crying out loud. He was at the training ground. We clearly have issues like we couldn't compete with Southampton for his or Soares' signatures. But the manager wanted them and we went for them. We have a rigid wage structure. The questions should be: Why were we going after these players if we knew we couldn't give them the wages they want? Why isn't the scouting finding better players who are cheaper? They are out there. Hughes signed players within the framework the club set. That's how it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by stokief on Jan 7, 2018 12:37:47 GMT
I've said it before, I'll say it again. He wasted money time and time again. Why would you want him to waste more? As for certain players NOT signing we just have to accept that Stoke is not as attractive as say London or the South coast for example. We all know we're not forcing a player to live in Stoke city centre and that they have all of leafy Cheshire to choose from BUT many of them and their partners fall for the bright lights or fecking Sandbanks for example. We're just not very glamourous are we either as a place or location or name. Can't do anything about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 7, 2018 12:43:51 GMT
I simply don't believe that Hughes had no say in pretty much all the transfers whilst he was here....... where is the evidence for this spurious idea? And where's the hard evidence to the contrary? It's been heavily reported that Hughes didn't want Imbula - amongst others. And when he actually did want a particular player i.e. Lemina he was eventually saddled with Darren Fletcher. Doesn't take much to work out who was behind that, does it? It hasn’t been remotely reported anywhere credible that Hughes didn’t want Imbula. We’d signed Fletcher before Lemina had gone anywhere. Reckon we wanted both. |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jan 7, 2018 12:46:04 GMT
I simply don't believe that Hughes had no say in pretty much all the transfers whilst he was here....... where is the evidence for this spurious idea? And where's the hard evidence to the contrary? It's been heavily reported that Hughes didn't want Imbula - amongst others. And when he actually did want a particular player i.e. Lemina he was eventually saddled with Darren Fletcher. Doesn't take much to work out who was behind that, does it? I also read regularly on here that the Berahino transfer wasn't one he wanted and yet Pulis said Hughes had been after him ages. Hughes would've made more noise in the media if he had little or no choice on the players brought in. Hughes may have wanted Lemina but did Lemina want Stoke? I haven't had said that Hughes is entirely responsible but he is bound to be very culpable. Plus I haven't said that other positions at the club shouldn't under hard scrutiny, have I? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 12:49:07 GMT
"Phil" on praise and grumble claimed that over the last two seasons, Hughes had given a list of 20 players. The only two signed were Allen & Berahino.
Quite how true that is I couldn't say* but the powers that be are at least equally to blame for the mess we are in.
*Ok I'll say it's horseshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistergumby on Jan 7, 2018 12:56:12 GMT
At every turn Hughes has said the transfers are his players. Fook me. No thank you. For someone who calls out Hughes at every opportunity just lately, you somehow think that particular statement is a gem of pure truth in amongst all the other bullshit he's been peddling for the last year? We'll find out in time where the truth lies regarding all this. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 7, 2018 12:59:04 GMT
At every turn Hughes has said the transfers are his players. Fook me. No thank you. For someone who calls out Hughes at every opportunity just lately, you somehow think that particular statement is a gem of pure truth in amongst all the other bullshit he's been peddling for the last year? We'll find out in time where the truth lies regarding all this. I don't think he'd have stayed if it wasn't. Scholes and Carrwright are clearly doing a shite job but Hughes had the final say. He wanted the players he signed. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 13:08:10 GMT
Would Hughes have said anything different though. If he wanted to keep his job, why would he bite the hand that fed him
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 7, 2018 13:10:36 GMT
We have a structure that seemingly isn't much different to most.
There's no conspiracy. All 3 of them have just been shit at their respective part.
|
|
|
|
Post by drfootball on Jan 7, 2018 13:15:11 GMT
I've said it before, I'll say it again. He wasted money time and time again. Why would you want him to waste more? As for certain players NOT signing we just have to accept that Stoke is not as attractive as say London or the South coast for example. We all know we're not forcing a player to live in Stoke city centre and that they have all of leafy Cheshire to choose from BUT many of them and their partners fall for the bright lights or fecking Sandbanks for example. We're just not very glamourous are we either as a place or location or name. Can't do anything about that.[/quote The players of Stoke City live in pretty much the same places as the players of Manchester City,Man Utd,Liverpool etc so I'm not sure that's entirely the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Jan 7, 2018 13:15:54 GMT
There's no way that an owner as old-school as Peter Coates is would preside over any transfer system where the manager doesn't have the final say over transfers. That Hughes does have the casting vote over who we buy and sell has been documented many times.
My understanding of our set-up is that Cartwright and co identify targets, sometimes at the manager's behest, and other times they'll become aware of a player's availability and recommend him to the manager. I'm only guessing now but I'd imagine there'd need to be a meeting to discuss any transfer activity, and while Hughes has the final say, there's bound to be disagreements about who we bring in or show the door.
To me, on paper, it's a good set-up. We don't want to go down the road of having an autocratic system where one man can go and blow £8m on any old Wilson Palacios just because he feels like it. If you've got the right people involved (which is questionable in our case) then I'd much rather see a group of people sit down and really think about what they're spending the club's money on than one man alone make multi-million pound decisions. What we don't know is who has been the driving force behind our growing number of bad transfer dealings. Has Hughes had the likes of Imbula, Berahino and Wimmer thrust under his nose by an enthusiastic scouting team who've brow beaten him into signing them based on whatever spurious info or data they've collected on them, or were Cartwright and co pleading 'No Sparky! Don't sign these wankers, they're useless!' only for the manager to veto their concerns with his trump card of being the manager? Maybe it's a bit of both?
I don't know the details, none of us do, but if I was Peter Coates I'd want a full and frank investigation into how the hell we spent the best part of £50m on 3 blokes who are, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely fucking useless. Heads need to roll for these three deals, and maybe we've already got rid of the main man responsible for them. On the other hand, maybe Hughes was just the fall guy for a whole host of incompetence when it comes to recruitment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Jan 7, 2018 13:23:33 GMT
To me the only player that’s remotely looked like a players the manager didn’t want was Ramadan and that was because on his arrival the pics showed him and Scholes not him and Hughes.
|
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Jan 7, 2018 13:59:32 GMT
Not one of the supposed in the knowers has been proven to be right so we won't know unless MH comes out and says something, and even then it is just his version of events. Doesn't really matter what is true, just that we improve whatever system we were using.
|
|
moz
Academy Starlet
Posts: 169 
|
Post by moz on Jan 7, 2018 15:16:37 GMT
Be it his choices or not, He was the manager and like every good manager he should had said no and refused and if the board insist on this players he could threatened to resign or actually resign and not just said okay that if they were really not his choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Jan 7, 2018 15:20:35 GMT
We will soon find out.Hughes is not the only problem at the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Jan 7, 2018 15:20:56 GMT
Or was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Jan 7, 2018 15:34:39 GMT
There's no way that an owner as old-school as Peter Coates is would preside over any transfer system where the manager doesn't have the final say over transfers. That Hughes does have the casting vote over who we buy and sell has been documented many times. My understanding of our set-up is that Cartwright and co identify targets, sometimes at the manager's behest, and other times they'll become aware of a player's availability and recommend him to the manager. I'm only guessing now but I'd imagine there'd need to be a meeting to discuss any transfer activity, and while Hughes has the final say, there's bound to be disagreements about who we bring in or show the door. To me, on paper, it's a good set-up. We don't want to go down the road of having an autocratic system where one man can go and blow £8m on any old Wilson Palacios just because he feels like it. If you've got the right people involved (which is questionable in our case) then I'd much rather see a group of people sit down and really think about what they're spending the club's money on than one man alone make multi-million pound decisions. What we don't know is who has been the driving force behind our growing number of bad transfer dealings. Has Hughes had the likes of Imbula, Berahino and Wimmer thrust under his nose by an enthusiastic scouting team who've brow beaten him into signing them based on whatever spurious info or data they've collected on them, or were Cartwright and co pleading 'No Sparky! Don't sign these wankers, they're useless!' only for the manager to veto their concerns with his trump card of being the manager? Maybe it's a bit of both? I don't know the details, none of us do, but if I was Peter Coates I'd want a full and frank investigation into how the hell we spent the best part of £50m on 3 blokes who are, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely fucking useless. Heads need to roll for these three deals, and maybe we've already got rid of the main man responsible for them. On the other hand, maybe Hughes was just the fall guy for a whole host of incompetence when it comes to recruitment. Agree with most of what you state. But every fan of every club can tell you of how many millions their board has wasted in the transfer market. Stoke are not alone in that, and fifty million is not even that massive a sum compared to others. Not excusing it, but wsted money on inflated fees for overrated players is a sadly typical feature of this league. My view is just that we should never deal with Daniel Levy - he's screwed us over so many times we should just resist the temptation of any Spurs squad player, no matter how good he looks. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 7, 2018 16:06:40 GMT
Some transfers work some don’t thats always been the case. When your shopping In our market there is even more risk. For every arnie there is a saido etc etc.
The praise and grumble over our good and bad buys cancel each other out.
It looks worse than it is because our bigger fees have not been as good as our lower ones. Shit happens
Our net spend on transfers since promotion have overall produced a squad that has done the business for us so really it’s not that much to moan about
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 7, 2018 17:21:19 GMT
Surely the way it works is the football manager says what type of players he want, probably mentioning specific players, and the recruitment team from the Chief Executive down to the humblest scout are charged with identifying suitable players throughout the world leagues. I now a guy who lives and works in Wales, who trawls around the area and the west country looking for players for Sunderland. I expect the club has a long list of agents/agency names to contact and hundreds of files on players who have been watched.
For any particular type of player the manager wants, a short list is drawn up with pros and cons and prices etc. and the manager puts his priority ranking on the names suggested.
Where I suspect it goes wrong for Stoke is the recruitment team spend so long trying to get the #1 choice, that by the time he chooses to go to another club (or stay at the one he's at), the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choices have been snapped up by other clubs, so Hughes gets he's last choice or no one. It would explain to me why we are often associated with names in the media, and then we go and sign someone we have not heard of, and why it seems to take an eternity to get a player to agree to come to Stoke.
(Just a theory.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jukeboxjury on Jan 7, 2018 21:08:19 GMT
We will have to wait for Sparkys Memoirs (The Stoke Years)
Could be a best seller
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 7, 2018 21:14:02 GMT
We will have to wait for Sparkys Memoirs (The Stoke Years) Could be a best seller I'm sure it will be better than Pulis's dossier! H |
|
|
|
Post by spoton on Jan 7, 2018 21:15:11 GMT
Simple way to find out who decided players coming here is to wait and see if any of the players mentioned that Stoke are after come before a new manager is appointed,if so that tells me that a manager as not got much say in it
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyonesirstan on Jan 7, 2018 21:15:25 GMT
I've said it before, I'll say it again. He wasted money time and time again. Why would you want him to waste more? As for certain players NOT signing we just have to accept that Stoke is not as attractive as say London or the South coast for example. We all know we're not forcing a player to live in Stoke city centre and that they have all of leafy Cheshire to choose from BUT many of them and their partners fall for the bright lights or fecking Sandbanks for example. We're just not very glamourous are we either as a place or location or name. Can't do anything about that.[/quote The players of Stoke City live in pretty much the same places as the players of Manchester City,Man Utd,Liverpool etc so I'm not sure that's entirely the case. Sandbanks for example, are you kidding me? There is nothing special about the place, in fact the only bright lights are the traffic lights. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 7, 2018 21:35:49 GMT
At every turn Hughes has said the transfers are his players. Fook me. yep, last nights interview he described himself as 'head of football' |
|
