|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 27, 2018 10:09:43 GMT
And there are some on here who think "sustainability" is a dirty word and want to see our financially prudent board replaced by a dumb ass sugar daddy prepared to mortgage the clubs future for a bit of short term success, We may well go down with West Brom but if those reports are true I know whose shoes I'd rather be in. And be careful what you wish for... We're going to be the best run club in The Championship. I can barely conceal my joy!
|
|
|
Post by mrred on Mar 27, 2018 10:52:38 GMT
Probably yeah, but you’ve chosen not to mention Pulis and his side of the shambles that is WBA If this was Stoke though you’d be all over Hughes like a rash Pulis isn't in charge of how the club run's (Finance wise) and how the finances come in and out. if he wants players that the club cant afford, they should have said so. You simply can't blame Pulis for that. However, wasting £50M on players is certainly down to Hughes. How does it work for one but not the other? He spent 53 million at West Brom.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 27, 2018 11:44:27 GMT
Factually incorrect I afraid 1 Ake was £20m on his own . 2 Plus £8M for Bego 3 Plus Defoe on 130k per week 4 we have been one of the two the lowest spenders in th league for three of the last five years and 15th and 16th for the other toe despite finishing 9th in three of those under punching by miles 5 You are right on what we have spent has been done appallingly within the transfer structure created and managed by Mr Scholes So what do you make of West Brom's financial problems then? It depends if you but that doesn't it? As Momo says it seems all a bit of bluster.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Mar 27, 2018 11:58:02 GMT
So what do you make of West Brom's financial problems then? It depends if you but that doesn't it? Looks like Biscuit's hacked your account.
|
|
|
Post by vahl on Mar 27, 2018 11:59:15 GMT
There was information banded about earlier on in the year regarding WBA having 50% wage reduction clauses in every one of their players contracts should they be relegated, so at least they have that.
I have not seen any information coming from Stoke sources on whether we have or not.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Mar 27, 2018 12:04:38 GMT
And there are some on here who think "sustainability" is a dirty word and want to see our financially prudent board replaced by a dumb ass sugar daddy prepared to mortgage the clubs future for a bit of short term success, We may well go down with West Brom but if those reports are true I know whose shoes I'd rather be in. And be careful what you wish for... Sustainability isn't a dirty word Pepe. Crevice is a dirty word but sustainability isn't.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 27, 2018 12:16:17 GMT
It depends if you but that doesn't it? Looks like Biscuit's hacked your account. It was meant to say buy.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 27, 2018 12:21:33 GMT
And there are some on here who think "sustainability" is a dirty word and want to see our financially prudent board replaced by a dumb ass sugar daddy prepared to mortgage the clubs future for a bit of short term success, We may well go down with West Brom but if those reports are true I know whose shoes I'd rather be in. And be careful what you wish for... We're going to be the best run club in The Championship. I can barely conceal my joy! Come on, show some concern for a billionaires wallet.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 16:48:29 GMT
Bournemouth Russian owner , 12,000 gates , 137m turnover , 20% increase in salary costs , £14m profit go outband buy Bego and Ake , and Defoe , financially prudent doesn’t mean cut investment until your relegated . Ake Defoe and begovic all together less than we spent on the pissed up dwarf from West Brom So I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here There has been no lack of investment at Stoke its who we invested in is the problem and how the money was spent The stats show we have been one of the lowest spenders in the league over the last 5 years and those below us got promoted within those last 5 years. We have also taken the cheap option of giving out contract extensions to journeymen as its cheaper than replacing them with fresh younger legs. We haven't spent anywhere near enough and what we have spent we have wasted. So yes lack of investment plays its part.
|
|
|
Post by generationex on Mar 27, 2018 17:20:15 GMT
It makes turning down a 30 million bid for Evans (a player Pulis bought for 6 million) just 2 months ago seem a bit mental.
Something smells fishy at Albion me thinks.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Mar 27, 2018 18:54:13 GMT
Factually incorrect I afraid 1 Ake was £20m on his own . 2 Plus £8M for Bego 3 Plus Defoe on 130k per week 4 we have been one of the two the lowest spenders in th league for three of the last five years and 15th and 16th for the other toe despite finishing 9th in three of those under punching by miles 5 You are right on what we have spent has been done appallingly within the transfer structure created and managed by Mr Scholes So what do you make of West Brom's financial problems then? They have yet to declare any hard numbers , just some posturing by a ceo in a new job , I’d suggest when scholes go his successor will be saying I’ve inherited the titanic just after she hit the iceberg
|
|
|
Post by thegrassyknoll on Mar 28, 2018 10:49:17 GMT
Probably yeah, but you’ve chosen not to mention Pulis and his side of the shambles that is WBA If this was Stoke though you’d be all over Hughes like a rash Pulis isn't in charge of how the club run's (Finance wise) and how the finances come in and out. if he wants players that the club cant afford, they should have said so. You simply can't blame Pulis for that. However, wasting £50M on players is certainly down to Hughes. A few facts to add to the discussion. Toxic was given complete control of the WBA recruitment policy. He would have been directly involved in the £40M 2017 purchases - including £15M on an untried player, Oliver Burke. The CEO (Mark Jenkins) making these statements was previously Peace's right hand man on the Albion board for over 10 years. He has returned to the club at the behest of the Chinese owners. Previously hated by many at the club for his tight fisted approach to ANY spending. One story relates that he disqualified an employee's expense claim because the employee claimed for an expensive 'specialist' cup of coffee instead of the standard item. His nickname of 'Dr No ', was well earned.
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Mar 28, 2018 11:09:32 GMT
Pulis isn't in charge of how the club run's (Finance wise) and how the finances come in and out. if he wants players that the club cant afford, they should have said so. You simply can't blame Pulis for that. However, wasting £50M on players is certainly down to Hughes. A few facts to add to the discussion. Toxic was given complete control of the WBA recruitment policy. He would have been directly involved in the £40M 2017 purchases - including £15M on an untried player, Oliver Burke. The CEO (Mark Jenkins) making these statements was previously Peace's right hand man on the Albion board for over 10 years. He has returned to the club at the behest of the Chinese owners. Previously hated by many at the club for his tight fisted approach to ANY spending. One story relates that he disqualified an employee's expense claim because the employee claimed for an expensive 'specialist' cup of coffee instead of the standard item. His nickname of 'Dr No ', was well earned. They could of said no, to tony though, that's what i'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Mar 28, 2018 11:17:05 GMT
And there are some on here who think "sustainability" is a dirty word and want to see our financially prudent board replaced by a dumb ass sugar daddy prepared to mortgage the clubs future for a bit of short term success, We may well go down with West Brom but if those reports are true I know whose shoes I'd rather be in. And be careful what you wish for... Bournemouth Russian owner , 12,000 gates , 137m turnover , 20% increase in salary costs , £14m profit go outband buy Bego and Ake , and Defoe , financially prudent doesn’t mean cut investment until your relegated . Ahhh but Defoe isn't in the team, what a waste of massive wages, 1 goal more than Berahino ?????
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Mar 28, 2018 11:18:45 GMT
A few facts to add to the discussion. Toxic was given complete control of the WBA recruitment policy. He would have been directly involved in the £40M 2017 purchases - including £15M on an untried player, Oliver Burke. The CEO (Mark Jenkins) making these statements was previously Peace's right hand man on the Albion board for over 10 years. He has returned to the club at the behest of the Chinese owners. Previously hated by many at the club for his tight fisted approach to ANY spending. One story relates that he disqualified an employee's expense claim because the employee claimed for an expensive 'specialist' cup of coffee instead of the standard item. His nickname of 'Dr No ', was well earned. They could of said no, to tony though, that's what i'm saying. So just to be clear as I'm struggling to follow this a little bit. Are you saying our board couldn't say no to Hughes so therefor the money wasted is Hughes fault, where as the WBA board could have said no meaning it's the boards fault they wasted money and not Pulis?
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Mar 28, 2018 11:28:17 GMT
They could of said no, to tony though, that's what i'm saying. So just to be clear as I'm struggling to follow this a little bit. Are you saying our board couldn't say no to Hughes so therefor the money wasted is Hughes fault, where as the WBA board could have said no meaning it's the boards fault they wasted money and not Pulis? West Brom are in that position because the owners allowed silly money to be spent, and there were not looking after their finances. That wasn't Pulis' fault they couldn't look after finances, he wanted the players but he doesn't decide the revenue the company makes. If they had paid £40M on a great striker, or a poor striker, if they cant afford it, they shouldn't be spent it regardless of the outcome of the players ability. Its as clear as day to see that its a board level problem, yet the morons like Pugsley blaming Pulis. Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Mar 28, 2018 11:44:47 GMT
They could of said no, to tony though, that's what i'm saying. So just to be clear as I'm struggling to follow this a little bit. Are you saying our board couldn't say no to Hughes so therefor the money wasted is Hughes fault, where as the WBA board could have said no meaning it's the boards fault they wasted money and not Pulis? Unbelievable isn’t it it Gift is up there with the best for contradictions and criteria in regards Hughes and Pulis
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Mar 28, 2018 11:46:58 GMT
So just to be clear as I'm struggling to follow this a little bit. Are you saying our board couldn't say no to Hughes so therefor the money wasted is Hughes fault, where as the WBA board could have said no meaning it's the boards fault they wasted money and not Pulis? Unbelievable isn’t it it Gift is up there with the best for contradictions and criteria in regards Hughes and Pulis That's not what i'm saying though, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 28, 2018 12:06:40 GMT
Unbelievable isn’t it it Gift is up there with the best for contradictions and criteria in regards Hughes and Pulis That's not what i'm saying though, is it? You're a fool.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 28, 2018 12:16:46 GMT
And there are some on here who think "sustainability" is a dirty word and want to see our financially prudent board replaced by a dumb ass sugar daddy prepared to mortgage the clubs future for a bit of short term success, We may well go down with West Brom but if those reports are true I know whose shoes I'd rather be in. And be careful what you wish for... Bournemouth Russian owner , 12,000 gates , 137m turnover , 20% increase in salary costs , £14m profit go outband buy Bego and Ake , and Defoe , financially prudent doesn’t mean cut investment until your relegated . It's come off this year but where will that Russian owner be if the do get relegated - which can happen to pretty much any team any season outside the big six. A club like Bournemouth who live beyond their means will eventually go belly up - big time. If the reports from West Brom are true they are a perfect example of running a club on an unsustainable basis (which is what you and few others on here want and expect). They used to be the yo yo club - based on a pretty frugal financial strategy. Looks like they've adopted your financial policy and it looks to me like the string has broke and their yo yo days may be well and truly over. Next season could demonstrate quite clearly why you and a few others should be no where near a monopoly board let alone anything involving real money.
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Mar 28, 2018 13:04:36 GMT
That's not what i'm saying though, is it? You're a fool. So let me get this right. I'm a fool because someone has asked me a question relating to something i never said? Christ almighty you need help
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Mar 28, 2018 18:17:06 GMT
Probably yeah, but you’ve chosen not to mention Pulis and his side of the shambles that is WBA If this was Stoke though you’d be all over Hughes like a rash Pulis isn't in charge of how the club run's (Finance wise) and how the finances come in and out. if he wants players that the club cant afford, they should have said so. You simply can't blame Pulis for that. However, wasting £50M on players is certainly down to Hughes. We all know what happens when Pulis doesn't get the players he wants www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/StokeCityFC/comments/3au4nb/the_old_binary_season/
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Mar 28, 2018 18:20:47 GMT
So just to be clear as I'm struggling to follow this a little bit. Are you saying our board couldn't say no to Hughes so therefor the money wasted is Hughes fault, where as the WBA board could have said no meaning it's the boards fault they wasted money and not Pulis? West Brom are in that position because the owners allowed silly money to be spent, and there were not looking after their finances. That wasn't Pulis' fault they couldn't look after finances, he wanted the players but he doesn't decide the revenue the company makes. If they had paid £40M on a great striker, or a poor striker, if they cant afford it, they shouldn't be spent it regardless of the outcome of the players ability. Its as clear as day to see that its a board level problem, yet the morons like Pugsley blaming Pulis. Pathetic. So how come he was given the money to spend on the players he wanted and assembled a side that won twice in 30-odd games?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 28, 2018 18:59:16 GMT
And there are some on here who think "sustainability" is a dirty word and want to see our financially prudent board replaced by a dumb ass sugar daddy prepared to mortgage the clubs future for a bit of short term success, We may well go down with West Brom but if those reports are true I know whose shoes I'd rather be in. And be careful what you wish for... You do realise we owe Coates about 70m and the club and the ground aren't linked other than the bet365 link? Everything is rosey though! Sorry - you've lost me there... A debt of 70m to an owner with no desire to call it in is hardly an issue. Same with the ground - at no point has Coates given any indication that he's about to evict the club. Unless a new owner were to pay off the debt, buy the ground and gift it to the club we'd be no better off. Unless of course you expect the club to do that off their own bat which would simply leave it with less ready cash to do things like buy players and pay their wages. Hardly a brilliant idea if we are planning on a quick return should we go down, It's far more likely any sugar daddy with no ties with the area would want to secure their investment in the club - which would mean keeping the club in debt (rather than transfer the debt to themselves) and keep the ground as an asset to be sold off if things go wrong. Your blind optimism in changing things for the hell of it is touching but flies in the face of experience. Maybe when the Chinese owners have ditched the sinking ship down the road they can give us a try. What can possibly go wrong?
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Mar 28, 2018 19:34:09 GMT
Pulis isn't in charge of how the club run's (Finance wise) and how the finances come in and out. if he wants players that the club cant afford, they should have said so. You simply can't blame Pulis for that. However, wasting £50M on players is certainly down to Hughes. A few facts to add to the discussion. Toxic was given complete control of the WBA recruitment policy. He would have been directly involved in the £40M 2017 purchases - including £15M on an untried player, Oliver Burke. The CEO (Mark Jenkins) making these statements was previously Peace's right hand man on the Albion board for over 10 years. He has returned to the club at the behest of the Chinese owners. Previously hated by many at the club for his tight fisted approach to ANY spending. One story relates that he disqualified an employee's expense claim because the employee claimed for an expensive 'specialist' cup of coffee instead of the standard item. His nickname of 'Dr No ', was well earned. So you wouldn’t be interested in, or think any of Pulis’s signings wouldn’t ad to our squad
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Mar 28, 2018 20:06:38 GMT
Bournemouth Russian owner , 12,000 gates , 137m turnover , 20% increase in salary costs , £14m profit go outband buy Bego and Ake , and Defoe , financially prudent doesn’t mean cut investment until your relegated . Ahhh but Defoe isn't in the team, what a waste of massive wages, 1 goal more than Berahino ????? They will hsve £100m revenue next year we won’t , i think they argue that’s worth the £10m risk and there is the core of the issue .
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Mar 28, 2018 20:14:08 GMT
Bournemouth Russian owner , 12,000 gates , 137m turnover , 20% increase in salary costs , £14m profit go outband buy Bego and Ake , and Defoe , financially prudent doesn’t mean cut investment until your relegated . It's come off this year but where will that Russian owner be if the do get relegated - which can happen to pretty much any team any season outside the big six. A club like Bournemouth who live beyond their means will eventually go belly up - big time. If the reports from West Brom are true they are a perfect example of running a club on an unsustainable basis (which is what you and few others on here want and expect). They used to be the yo yo club - based on a pretty frugal financial strategy. Looks like they've adopted your financial policy and it looks to me like the string has broke and their yo yo days may be well and truly over. Next season could demonstrate quite clearly why you and a few others should be no where near a monopoly board let alone anything involving real money. And what happens if they stay up again and make £20m profit , while e make a £20m loss in the championship and then lose another £30m in parachute payments . As fir going belly up our owners just paid a £200m dividend to a single shareholder in a single year , any financial hardship is a matter of choice not circumstance .l As for fiscal qualifications I’ll stand by my own if that’s ok but won’t have the ignorance to question yours .
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Mar 28, 2018 20:14:23 GMT
Ahhh but Defoe isn't in the team, what a waste of massive wages, 1 goal more than Berahino ????? They will hsve £100m revenue next year we won’t , i think they argue that’s worth the £10m risk and there is the core of the issue . It went tits up for us on the pitch and the training ground. And that's that.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Mar 28, 2018 20:17:21 GMT
They will hsve £100m revenue next year we won’t , i think they argue that’s worth the £10m risk and there is the core of the issue . It went tits up for us on the pitch and the training ground. And that's that. Why do you think that Is ? The players on the pitch aren’t good enough , because they represent chronic under investment at this level
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 28, 2018 20:45:09 GMT
You do realise we owe Coates about 70m and the club and the ground aren't linked other than the bet365 link? Everything is rosey though! Sorry - you've lost me there... A debt of 70m to an owner with no desire to call it in is hardly an issue. Same with the ground - at no point has Coates given any indication that he's about to evict the club. Unless a new owner were to pay off the debt, buy the ground and gift it to the club we'd be no better off. Unless of course you expect the club to do that off their own bat which would simply leave it with less ready cash to do things like buy players and pay their wages. Hardly a brilliant idea if we are planning on a quick return should we go down, It's far more likely any sugar daddy with no ties with the area would want to secure their investment in the club - which would mean keeping the club in debt (rather than transfer the debt to themselves) and keep the ground as an asset to be sold off if things go wrong. Your blind optimism in changing things for the hell of it is touching but flies in the face of experience. Maybe when the Chinese owners have ditched the sinking ship down the road they can give us a try. What can possibly go wrong? Ah that's ok then. No, I want the club and ground to remain linked and have the covenant (might be the wrong word) that you can have that means the two have to stay together. Alarm bells rang when we refused to do that and Scholes poured scorn on those that tried to get it done. I don't want new owners yet ta. Just for PC to step aside from running it as he's made a hash of it for the last 3 years.
|
|