|
Post by stantheman on May 26, 2019 9:05:46 GMT
A sad end to what could and should have been a striker who kicked us on. Spurs had previously been after him and it's very rare they make poor judgements these days. I genuinely thought he'd do well here. Obviously unaware of the nonsense going on behind the scenes. The fact he was signed knowing that he had had previous issues has to lead to further questions about the process I'm afraid. He was damaged goods before we signed him. Previously caught drink driving whilst doing 110 mph on M6. Publicly threatened to go on strike whilst at West Brom, having called out his chairman. Failed a drugs test, claiming his drink had been spiked whilst in a nightclub. After the interest from Tottenham cooled down, we were the only club interested in paying top dollar for this cretin, and gave him a 5 1/2 year contract. You couldn't make it up
|
|
|
Post by potterpaul on May 26, 2019 9:07:51 GMT
As Werrers suggests it isn't the drink driving conviction which will have given us the chance to tear up his contract. It is much more the fact that he has probably broken the terms of his contract by being 3 times over the driving limit in London ON A DAY WHEN HE WAS DUE TO PLAY IN A MATCH in Staffordshire! A lot will depend upon how his contract was worded. Hopefully, the fact that legal advice seems to be that we have good grounds to terminate the contract, means that the terms of the contract were broken by his behaviour. We must also hope that the contract contained a clause giving the club the right to terminate it unilaterally in such circumstances. I'm sure his lawyers will go strongly down that route too. What happens to other players late for training? Have we documented these incidents? Was he served a formal warning? Share with the court your records? I've seen several of these tribunals for ordinary jobs and they go this way , I can't really imagine football is any different. As I say , he's a gonna, but he ain't leaving without a chunk of his wages paid, the question is how much? It would be documented because it's been said that he was happy to pay fines/docked pay for being late. You can't dock or fine someone without it being documented.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on May 26, 2019 9:08:07 GMT
A sad end to what could and should have been a striker who kicked us on. Spurs had previously been after him and it's very rare they make poor judgements these days. I genuinely thought he'd do well here. Obviously unaware of the nonsense going on behind the scenes. The fact he was signed knowing that he had had previous issues has to lead to further questions about the process I'm afraid. He was damaged goods before we signed him. Previously caught drink driving whilst doing 110 mph on M6. Publicly threatened to go on strike whilst at West Brom, having called out his chairman. Failed a drugs test, claiming his drink had been spiked whilst in a nightclub. After the interest from Tottenham cooled down, we were the only club interested in paying top dollar for this cretin, and gave him a 5 1/2 year contract. You couldn't make it up We actually beat Palace and Watford to his signature Stupidity is not exclusively a Stoke City thing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 9:10:43 GMT
If true, and he has been sacked here’s food for thought Scouted 25 times, no red flags. Due diligence completed £12 million transfer fee, wages (unknown), signing on fee (unknown), agents fee (unknown) 51 appearances (mostly as substitute or being substituted) = £235K per appearance The architects of the relegation disaster Captain Smith + 1st Mate didn’t go down with the ship. Lessons Learned My A**e The club are particularly adamant that he was very much a Hughes pet signing. And if you don't back the manager (and at that point he had loads and loads of credit in the bank), where do you go from there? Surely there comes a point where you have to step in though? I'm a huge advocate of allowing a manager to do his job without meddling fingers but when you step over into the realms of having a Technical Director surely his due diligence should come into play somewhere along the line, else what is the point of his very existence? Especially in extreme cases like this, where in our hindsight, it's easy to see it wasn't hindsight in their world.
It's an easy line to allow the manager to waste money then just sit back and say "We watched him 25 times, told the manager he was a bad egg but he went on with it anyway. Nothing to do with us, gov"
There's got to be more joined up thinking and acting than that.
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on May 26, 2019 9:25:36 GMT
If true, and he has been sacked here’s food for thought Scouted 25 times, no red flags. Due diligence completed £12 million transfer fee, wages (unknown), signing on fee (unknown), agents fee (unknown) 51 appearances (mostly as substitute or being substituted) = £235K per appearance The architects of the relegation disaster Captain Smith + 1st Mate didn’t go down with the ship. Lessons Learned My A**e The club are particularly adamant that he was very much a Hughes pet signing. And if you don't back the manager (and at that point he had loads and loads of credit in the bank), where do you go from there? So your son/daughter are looking for their 1st car after passing the their test. You are going to finance it. They see a really great looking car, very shiny, bells and whistles included. Excitement is at a high. Come on Dad I’ve found the car of my dreams and it’s the right price.....OK says dad lets go and have a look at it. The car turns out to have extremely high mileage, no servicing record and bald tyres. You point these issues out and strongly recommend against the purchase. But the son/daughter throws a massive strop, so against you’re better judgement you buy the car and hand over the keys. Everyone is happy. Until? Yes you know the outcome, it was as you thought a disastrous purchase. Who do you blame, the son/daughter or yourself for not standing firm?
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on May 26, 2019 9:28:42 GMT
If true, and he has been sacked here’s food for thought Scouted 25 times, no red flags. Due diligence completed £12 million transfer fee, wages (unknown), signing on fee (unknown), agents fee (unknown) 51 appearances (mostly as substitute or being substituted) = £235K per appearance The architects of the relegation disaster Captain Smith + 1st Mate didn’t go down with the ship. Lessons Learned My A**e 100% Hughes signing The club backed him, despite all the obvious warning signs, because of his success with Arnoutivic who's rap sheet was just as bad in Germany. In other words the club went against it's own process to back the manager. Lord Your last line says it all. Poor management. See my reply to Fuller
|
|
|
Post by dreamtheater on May 26, 2019 9:30:52 GMT
The first of quite a few great wrongs, finally undone
Well done Stoke City
and --about time !
|
|
|
Post by PolPotter on May 26, 2019 9:32:14 GMT
Lets hope this is the end of a terrible chapter in our recent history. If we can off load a few others then next season looks a lot more positive for me.
|
|
|
Post by stantheman on May 26, 2019 9:35:32 GMT
He was damaged goods before we signed him. Previously caught drink driving whilst doing 110 mph on M6. Publicly threatened to go on strike whilst at West Brom, having called out his chairman. Failed a drugs test, claiming his drink had been spiked whilst in a nightclub. After the interest from Tottenham cooled down, we were the only club interested in paying top dollar for this cretin, and gave him a 5 1/2 year contract. You couldn't make it up We actually beat Palace and Watford to his signature Stupidity is not exclusively a Stoke City thing. Only by offering him a riduculously long contract
|
|
|
Post by lordb on May 26, 2019 9:37:41 GMT
How could you forget Kevin Wimmer 😱
|
|
|
Post by lordb on May 26, 2019 9:38:57 GMT
We actually beat Palace and Watford to his signature Stupidity is not exclusively a Stoke City thing. Only by offering him a riduculously long contract We obviously offered more but it's unlikely they offered him peanuts We may have been the stupidest but all three were stupid
|
|
|
Post by werrington on May 26, 2019 9:39:00 GMT
We actually beat Palace and Watford to his signature Stupidity is not exclusively a Stoke City thing. Only by offering him a riduculously long contract That’s all hypothetical and hindsight If we’d signed him on a two year contract and he’d blown everybody away the club would of been reamed for not tying him down and losing a huge transfer fee It’s football
|
|
|
Post by lordb on May 26, 2019 9:41:45 GMT
100% Hughes signing The club backed him, despite all the obvious warning signs, because of his success with Arnoutivic who's rap sheet was just as bad in Germany. In other words the club went against it's own process to back the manager. Lord Your last line says it all. Poor management. See my reply to Fuller The alternative was to not back the manager. It's not easy is it? Back the manager and run the risk of his poor judgement Don't back the manager and risk losing (at that time) a successful manager. Sack Scholes and Cartwright and everything will be much better? Sorry not buying it.
|
|
|
Post by StaffordPotter on May 26, 2019 9:46:31 GMT
Happy days, one tosser struck off the bin list.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on May 26, 2019 9:48:46 GMT
Lord Your last line says it all. Poor management. See my reply to Fuller The alternative was to not back the manager. It's not easy is it? Back the manager and run the risk of his poor judgement Don't back the manager and risk losing (at that time) a successful manager. Sack Scholes and Cartwright and everything will be much better? Sorry not buying it. The signs that Hughes was starting to struggle were evident before we signed this waster, are you telling me that the club did not see the blatant red flags in the process of letting Hughes have his way, if they didn't then sacking the two clowns should have been paramount !
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on May 26, 2019 9:49:08 GMT
The club are particularly adamant that he was very much a Hughes pet signing. And if you don't back the manager (and at that point he had loads and loads of credit in the bank), where do you go from there? So your son/daughter are looking for their 1st car after passing the their test. You are going to finance it. They see a really great looking car, very shiny, bells and whistles included. Excitement is at a high. Come on Dad I’ve found the car of my dreams and it’s the right price.....OK says dad lets go and have a look at it. The car turns out to have extremely high mileage, no servicing record and bald tyres. You point these issues out and strongly recommend against the purchase. But the son/daughter throws a massive strop, so against you’re better judgement you buy the car and hand over the keys. Everyone is happy. Until? Yes you know the outcome, it was as you thought a disastrous purchase. Who do you blame, the son/daughter or yourself for not standing firm? But you are not comparing like for like. In the circumstances you describe the parent is the "expert". In football the money men should set the criteria on age, cost, wages etc but as long as a player meets those criteria then the manager is the "expert" on player's skills and ability etc. and therefore should be the person who makes the final decision. If you don't want to work that way then the club needs to appoint an "expert" technical director/ director of football to make those decisions and a Head Coach who has an input into the process but whose job is basically to make best use of the players he is given.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on May 26, 2019 9:50:31 GMT
Only by offering him a riduculously long contract We obviously offered more but it's unlikely they offered him peanuts We may have been the stupidest but all three were stupid Ironically they are still both in the PL whilst we well .......................................
|
|
|
Post by ceejays on May 26, 2019 9:54:14 GMT
The company I worked for had a boss who had the following saying. Be half mad. So presented with a difficult and delicate decision he would go half way. He would have paid the fee(trying a retention clause which would be unlikely I guess) but then mitigated against the risk by offering a three year contract.Scholes really has little idea and the process is flawed. He would be toast in any other organisation. Berahino will be something like a £20 m plus mistake. He should fall on his word
|
|
|
Post by dreamtheater on May 26, 2019 10:07:45 GMT
noting the post immediately above
A couple of things
1) Ive been banging on for sometime now that, there's not been enough 'Blood On the corporate carpet' at Stoke City yet & my biggest beef-
This was just one example where, some of those involved and culpable, remain at the club.
2) My guess is: subject to protocol - Berahino will still be paid up, until July 1st
£70K a week is it ?
Perhaps already suspended wages paid up to fuck him off too ? ( life changing numbers to most mere mortals)*
* not to this fucking idiot tho
be interesting to know how this pans out
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on May 26, 2019 10:08:06 GMT
The company I worked for had a boss who had the following saying. Be half mad. So presented with a difficult and delicate decision he would go half way. He would have paid the fee(trying a retention clause which would be unlikely I guess) but then mitigated against the risk by offering a three year contract.Scholes really has little idea and the process is flawed. He would be toast in any other organisation. Berahino will be something like a £20 m plus mistake. He should fall on his word Seems that due diligence is an unknown concept with our transfer team, they must have seen the potential for this to go tits up in a massive way, his past record indicated that this would happen and the rest as they say is history.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on May 26, 2019 10:10:01 GMT
Having played at Goldenhill he won’t last 20 mins , I’m sure I actually got kicked by the ref and linesman as well 😉 and that was before we left the changing rooms They knew you were Benjamin Biscuit though. 😉 I don’t know I couldn’t understand what they were saying either 😉
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on May 26, 2019 10:11:00 GMT
So your son/daughter are looking for their 1st car after passing the their test. You are going to finance it. They see a really great looking car, very shiny, bells and whistles included. Excitement is at a high. Come on Dad I’ve found the car of my dreams and it’s the right price.....OK says dad lets go and have a look at it. The car turns out to have extremely high mileage, no servicing record and bald tyres. You point these issues out and strongly recommend against the purchase. But the son/daughter throws a massive strop, so against you’re better judgement you buy the car and hand over the keys. Everyone is happy. Until? Yes you know the outcome, it was as you thought a disastrous purchase. Who do you blame, the son/daughter or yourself for not standing firm? But you are not comparing like for like. In the circumstances you describe the parent is the "expert". In football the money men should set the criteria on age, cost, wages etc but as long as a player meets those criteria then the manager is the "expert" on player's skills and ability etc. and therefore should be the person who makes the final decision. If you don't want to work that way then the club needs to appoint an "expert" technical director/ director of football to make those decisions and a Head Coach who has an input into the process but whose job is basically to make best use of the players he is given. The comparison is legitimate. Your second paragraph. What about the red flag assessment, the very public statements about refusing to play for his previous chairman, his previous motoring offences, and his (at the time) FA ban for drugs. That should override any desire to acquire by a manager (or child in a sweet shop) Your third paragraph. Lessons Learned? That would have been my preferred option because TS as a CEO nor Cartwright were/are up to the task of effectively managing footballing operations. The implementation of the recruitment policy at the time was a shambles and the club paid the ultimate price of relegation under the mid managed strategy of sustainability. The owners have IMHO allowed the ship to sink by poor management, or is that purely in hindsight?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 10:13:02 GMT
noting the post immediately above A couple of things 1) Ive been banging on for sometime now that, there's not been enough 'Blood On the corporate carpet' at Stoke City yet & my biggest beef- This was just one example where, some of those involved and culpable, remain at the club. 2) My guess is: subject to protocol - Berahino will still be paid up, until July 1st £70K a week is it ? Perhaps already suspended wages paid up to fuck him off ? be interesting to know how this pans out No not £70k a week. He had a 40% drop in wages post relegation and according to some reports the players are due another drop after this season. So not £70k no.....
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on May 26, 2019 10:14:36 GMT
The alternative was to not back the manager. It's not easy is it? Back the manager and run the risk of his poor judgement Don't back the manager and risk losing (at that time) a successful manager. Sack Scholes and Cartwright and everything will be much better? Sorry not buying it. The signs that Hughes was starting to struggle were evident before we signed this waster, are you telling me that the club did not see the blatant red flags in the process of letting Hughes have his way, if they didn't then sacking the two clowns should have been paramount ! I’ve posted in the past and very recently the family failed to “oversee” and “step in” when absolutely obvious to all. Reasons are beyond me but it’s hard to accept the phrase “in hindsight” from very successful business people.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on May 26, 2019 10:15:54 GMT
The club are particularly adamant that he was very much a Hughes pet signing. And if you don't back the manager (and at that point he had loads and loads of credit in the bank), where do you go from there? Surely there comes a point where you have to step in though? I'm a huge advocate of allowing a manager to do his job without meddling fingers but when you step over into the realms of having a Technical Director surely his due diligence should come into play somewhere along the line, else what is the point of his very existence? Especially in extreme cases like this, where in our hindsight, it's easy to see it wasn't hindsight in their world.
It's an easy line to allow the manager to waste money then just sit back and say "We watched him 25 times, told the manager he was a bad egg but he went on with it anyway. Nothing to do with us, gov"
There's got to be more joined up thinking and acting than that.
Apparently not at Stoke City no wonder we are in such a fcuking mess.
|
|
|
Post by dreamtheater on May 26, 2019 10:15:55 GMT
Prestwich potter - I am happy to be a corrected
will still be a daft weekly wage tho ( 40k ?)
I wish I was a quid behind him too
and Yes it is up to Company ownership and a board incluidng the chief exec, to step in when things are overtly going wrong at the operating level
this did not happen.
|
|
|
Post by ceejays on May 26, 2019 10:18:36 GMT
To the car analogy. You mitigate the risk. Negotiate a lower price.Ask your son / daughter to contribute ( watch them Squeal) but what you don’t do is go in whole hog when the risks are transparent. Common business practice. Except at Stoke
|
|
|
Post by Davef on May 26, 2019 10:21:18 GMT
Prestwich potter - I am happy to be a corrected will still be a daft weekly wage tho ( 40k ?) I wish I was a quid behind him too and Yes it is up to Company ownership and a board incluidng the chief exec, to step in when things are overtly going wrong at the operating level this did not happen. Apart from when they sacked Hughes and Rowett.
|
|
|
Post by thefarpost on May 26, 2019 10:22:15 GMT
My guess is that Berahino will not risk a public hearing - he would just become even more toxic. He will struggle to find another club now, but if everything came out he would be untouchable, even in the Conference league (or lower).
He's just after a nominal amount (FO money) IMHO.
His career is virtually over now, but for the rest of his life he will still be blaming everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by dreamtheater on May 26, 2019 10:22:21 GMT
yep -dave they grudgingly did ( Hughes shouldve gone after the ARSENAL end of season home defeat - (any bloody idiot could see he was done)
(and after we punters saw it going tits up months and years before they finally recognised it)
Rowett yes - a more speedy reaction - but again, idiots could see it was not working in short order and, you therefore have to question the appointment
- and the rest ?
( taps foot )
|
|