|
Post by Absolution on Jun 13, 2018 9:22:08 GMT
With this sort of thing, you’re best just making a statement like “It’s all got a bit too rich for them.” then running off. Trying to justify it with too many words just leaves you in the ‘needing a JCB’ position. Quit while you’re behind would be my advice to stokie23. 😎 Haha fair enough....I agree...got to love the oatcake...only here can you begin a thread with 'Lets get one thing right, I'm not suggesting that the owners wanted us to get relegated' and then be bombarded with comments stating how stupid I am suggesting the owners wanted us to get relegated - Ill get me coat, I'm fuckin off up the vale. Sorry stokie. Just joshin’ around really.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jun 13, 2018 9:25:34 GMT
Stoke made about £100m in prize money payments last season that will drop to about £7m in the championship now putting us to -£33m.... Stoke parachute payments are about £62m.....meaning we are at a net gain of 29m ! We didn't make about £100M in prize money, the majority of that is TV rights just for being in the league. Which is dished out during the season so that money has already been spent on last seasons wages etc. When we got promoted to the Prem how do you think we afforded our spending spree and the increase in wages if we had to wait until the end of the following season to get paid ? The only thing that will get settled at the end of the season is the Merit payment, which for coming 2nd bottom won't have been much.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 9:40:11 GMT
So, does the following statement make any sense:
'Stoke are better off financially by NOT being one of the 30 richest clubs in the world by turnover'.
No, of course not. I can see what you're trying to rationalise but it just doesn't hold any water. Even at the most basic level, most clubs in the Championship operate at a 100% plus wage-to-turnover ratio, as opposed to the approx. 80% we were in the top flight. It's a nonsense to say we are financially better off being relegated.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 13, 2018 9:58:02 GMT
They didn't plan to fail they failed to plan........and that's why we're in The Championship.
|
|
|
Post by superheroantonius on Jun 13, 2018 18:16:02 GMT
It is fact ...that it's a possible a club like stoke , wba , reading etc , might be better off riding high in the championship , than propping up the prem .
It's just an economic fact of life .
I don't know anyone connected to stoke or wba
I did know a friend of John madjeski , and he told her , reading were better off riding high in the championship ,than propping up the prem
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jun 13, 2018 18:36:55 GMT
I'm so envious of our moneybags neighbours the Vale
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on Jun 13, 2018 18:40:40 GMT
I can see a lot of the points he was making to be fair. A bit far fetched but alot of what he says makes sense, I'm sure they discussed the inevitable at one point and how to fix it the best way Know when to hold em. know when to fold em kinda thing
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 18:56:55 GMT
It will undoubtedly be an accidental plus to be able to move some of the huge wages of non-performers on.
But that's the only aspect of being 'better off' really.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 13, 2018 19:02:17 GMT
It will undoubtedly be an accidental plus to be able to move some of the huge wages of non-performers on. But that's the only aspect of being 'better off' really. In what way is that?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 21:23:21 GMT
It will undoubtedly be an accidental plus to be able to move some of the huge wages of non-performers on. But that's the only aspect of being 'better off' really. In what way is that? Pretty self-evident, I'm not sure what you don't follow. Players such as Wimmer (to a lessyr extent Sohbi) off the wage bill = better off because they cost a tonne in wages and now they do not cost a tonne in wages & also were not being utilised etc etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 13, 2018 21:30:20 GMT
Pretty self-evident, I'm not sure what you don't follow. Players such as Wimmer (to a lessyr extent Sohbi) off the wage bill = better off because they cost a tonne in wages and now they do not cost a tonne in wages & also were not being utilised etc etc etc. That's got nothing to do with being relegated though has it? If we were still in the Prem, we would have still sent Wimmer out on loan, in the same way that we did with Imbula and Bojan before we got relegated.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 21:36:29 GMT
Pretty self-evident, I'm not sure what you don't follow. Players such as Wimmer (to a lessyr extent Sohbi) off the wage bill = better off because they cost a tonne in wages and now they do not cost a tonne in wages & also were not being utilised etc etc etc. That's got nothing to do with being relegated though has it?If we were still in the Prem, we would have still sent Wimmer out on loan, in the same way that we did with Imbula and Bojan before we got relegated. Can you say that as fact? As for what might've happened in the prem - conjecture. All that I've read has pointed towards Wimmer's paycut, and subsequent move being inextricably linked to relegation, contractually making it much easier for both parties to get him off to Germany.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jun 13, 2018 21:43:56 GMT
Well apparently we are better off, as being relegated has allowed us to get in a centre-forward despite still having the likes of Berahino on the books and not selling any of the other duffers. I'm told that this was not possible in the Premier League. There is even crazy talk about getting another in.
Every cloud and all that...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 13, 2018 21:45:05 GMT
That's got nothing to do with being relegated though has it?If we were still in the Prem, we would have still sent Wimmer out on loan, in the same way that we did with Imbula and Bojan before we got relegated. Can you say that as fact? As for what might've happened in the prem - conjecture. All that I've read has pointed towards Wimmer's paycut, and subsequent move being inextricably linked to relegation, contractually making it much easier for both parties to get him off to Germany. It's not conjecture though is it? The players who we didn't want whilst we were in the Prem were sent out on loan and even though we've been relegated they're STILL here. If we could have got rid of them whilst we were in the Prem we would have done, exactly the same as we will try now that we've been relegated, relegation itself hasn't changed anything. If we hadn't have been relegated, we'd still have been trying to sell or loan out the players who we thought were surplus to requirements.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 13, 2018 21:46:11 GMT
Well apparently we are better off, as being relegated has allowed us to get in a centre-forward despite still having the likes of Berahino on the books and not selling any of the other duffers. I'm told that this was not possible in the Premier League. There is even crazy talk about getting another in. Every cloud and all that... Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 22:08:40 GMT
It is conjecture, - take the case of our illustrious Kev: Augustus Gloop. We legally would've been bound to pay him his eye watering matching-top-earner contract had we remained in the Prem. Had we tried to loan him off to Germany, we would shirley have been forking out for him to be there.
We did not remain in said league, therefore it followed that he must be on reduced wages at the club. The wages make it easier to shift the fat fuck.
This is at least one instance of being financially better off due to relegation as supported by prior points.
This is what we know.
What we don't and can never know is what might have been the case had we stayed up - That's why it's conjecture.
For what it's worth, I never wanted relegation, even as a chance to oust the deadwood like others did on here. The Shaqiri contract is the other side of the contract issue i.e We will no longer have to pay his weekly wage, But we will also no longer have his services and at reduced fee.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 13, 2018 22:11:19 GMT
It is conjecture, - take the case of our illustrious Kev: Augustus Gloop. We legally would've been bound to pay him his eye watering matching-top-earner contract had we remained in the Prem. Had we tried to loan him off to Germany, we would shirley have been forking out for him to be there. We did not remain in said league, therefore it followed that he must be on reduced wages at the club. The wages make it easier to shift the fat fuck. This is at least one instance of being financially better off due to relegation as supported by prior points. This is what we know. What we don't and can never know is what might have been the case had we stayed up - That's why it's conjecture. For what it's worth, I never wanted relegation, even as a chance to oust the deadwood like others did on here. The Shaqiri contract is the other side of the contract issue i.e We will no longer have to pay his weekly wage, But we will also no longer have his services and at reduced fee. We'll just have to agree to disagree mate.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jun 13, 2018 22:31:28 GMT
The Truth is Out There...
|
|
|
Post by mallorcanstokie on Jun 14, 2018 7:23:32 GMT
The fact is we are where we are, whether the fat fuck would stayed or not is now irrelevant. Nobody wanted relegation but we're here, so let's make the best of it...
|
|
|
Post by Old School Stokie on Jun 14, 2018 9:09:08 GMT
You don't get parachute payments if you get back first time into Prem?
|
|