|
Post by chesterfieldstokie on Sept 28, 2019 16:50:40 GMT
I dont think he is. I think hes saying it was a much more collaborative process before Hughes demanded more power of the back of a few successful seasons. The big thing for me is that under both pulis and Hughes we missed out on loads of players because Mr Scholes kept the purse strings tight. If the deal wasnt right for the club financially, the manager was forced to walk away. When or what changed that then saw us spunk ridiculous sums of money up the wall on transfer fees and wages seemingly on a whim? So having been burned under Hughes, which resulted in relegation, they then went and did exactly the same thing with Rowett and then AGAIN with Jones. Come on Dave, it's just not plausible. It's far too convenient to say that the successful signings were down to Scholes and Cartwright and that the bad ones were all down to three separate managers. Why would Liam Lawrence lie??
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 28, 2019 16:51:43 GMT
I dont think he is. I think hes saying it was a much more collaborative process before Hughes demanded more power of the back of a few successful seasons. The big thing for me is that under both pulis and Hughes we missed out on loads of players because Mr Scholes kept the purse strings tight. If the deal wasnt right for the club financially, the manager was forced to walk away. When or what changed that then saw us spunk ridiculous sums of money up the wall on transfer fees and wages seemingly on a whim? So having been burned under Hughes, which resulted in relegation, they then went and did exactly the same thing with Rowett and then AGAIN with Jones. Come on Dave, it's just not plausible. It's far too convenient to say that the successful signings were down to Scholes and Cartwright and that the bad ones were all down to three separate managers. I would never dream of defending Scholes. Quite clearly Hughes bought in his own players early doors. He also relied on the transfer team. Erik pieters for example. Anyone who has had any input in transfers over the last 4 years should be sacked, Scholes included. He should follow Jones out of the door. No excuses.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 28, 2019 16:53:26 GMT
So having been burned under Hughes, which resulted in relegation, they then went and did exactly the same thing with Rowett and then AGAIN with Jones. Come on Dave, it's just not plausible. It's far too convenient to say that the successful signings were down to Scholes and Cartwright and that the bad ones were all down to three separate managers. Why would Liam Lawrence lie?? I dont think he would. He is, however, only relaying what hes been told. Those feeding him the line may well lie, particularly when certain people are in arse covering mode.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 28, 2019 16:53:54 GMT
So having been burned under Hughes, which resulted in relegation, they then went and did exactly the same thing with Rowett and then AGAIN with Jones. Come on Dave, it's just not plausible. It's far too convenient to say that the successful signings were down to Scholes and Cartwright and that the bad ones were all down to three separate managers. Why would Liam Lawrence lie?? Maybe the person who told him has an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 28, 2019 16:54:28 GMT
So having been burned under Hughes, which resulted in relegation, they then went and did exactly the same thing with Rowett and then AGAIN with Jones. Come on Dave, it's just not plausible. It's far too convenient to say that the successful signings were down to Scholes and Cartwright and that the bad ones were all down to three separate managers. Why would Liam Lawrence lie?? I’m sure he believes every word. Doesn’t mean it’s true, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 16:57:21 GMT
So having been burned under Hughes, which resulted in relegation, they then went and did exactly the same thing with Rowett and then AGAIN with Jones. Come on Dave, it's just not plausible. It's far too convenient to say that the successful signings were down to Scholes and Cartwright and that the bad ones were all down to three separate managers. Why would Liam Lawrence lie?? He's quoting a third party's opinion. And ultimately that opinion may indeed be correct but all I'm saying, is that to me, it seems completely illogical and makes the owners look like complete and utter idiots, which although I accept, they've made some poor decisions, I don't believe they are.
|
|
|
Post by theoptimist on Sept 28, 2019 16:57:31 GMT
It makes little difference either way .... ultimately, as CEO, Scholes has responsibility for his subordinates decisions.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 28, 2019 16:58:38 GMT
Why would Liam Lawrence lie?? He's quoting a third party's opinion. And ultimately that opinion may indeed be correct but all I'm saying, is that to me, it seems completely illogical and makes the owners look like complete and utter idiots, which although I accept, they've made some poor decisions, I don't believe they are. We are talking about a bloke that appointed Jones because of his mate at BET365 though Paul
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 28, 2019 17:00:43 GMT
Why would Liam Lawrence lie?? He's quoting a third party's opinion. And ultimately that opinion may indeed be correct but all I'm saying, is that to me, it seems completely illogical and makes the owners look like complete and utter idiots, which although I accept, they've made some poor decisions, I don't believe they are. Even after today's managerial announcement? I'd say the club has totally lost the plot
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 17:00:44 GMT
He's quoting a third party's opinion. And ultimately that opinion may indeed be correct but all I'm saying, is that to me, it seems completely illogical and makes the owners look like complete and utter idiots, which although I accept, they've made some poor decisions, I don't believe they are. We are talking about a bloke that appointed Jones because of his mate at BET365 though Paul Well yeah, there is that ...
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 28, 2019 17:00:53 GMT
He's quoting a third party's opinion. And ultimately that opinion may indeed be correct but all I'm saying, is that to me, it seems completely illogical and makes the owners look like complete and utter idiots, which although I accept, they've made some poor decisions, I don't believe they are. We are talking about a bloke that appointed Jones because of his mate at BET365 though Paul If you stop for a second to look at the signings made at the time though Mutts, it’s clear Hughes had significant input into them isn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 28, 2019 17:03:00 GMT
We are talking about a bloke that appointed Jones because of his mate at BET365 though Paul If you stop for a second to look at the signings made at the time though Mutts, it’s clear Hughes had significant input into them isn’t it? Yes unfortunately Rob😄
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 28, 2019 17:03:26 GMT
We are talking about a bloke that appointed Jones because of his mate at BET365 though Paul If you stop for a second to look at the signings made at the time though Mutts, it’s clear Hughes had significant input into them isn’t it? ... And it's clear that all the signings in the summer were totally all Jones debacles.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 17:04:14 GMT
He's quoting a third party's opinion. And ultimately that opinion may indeed be correct but all I'm saying, is that to me, it seems completely illogical and makes the owners look like complete and utter idiots, which although I accept, they've made some poor decisions, I don't believe they are. Even after today's managerial announcement? I'd say the club has totally lost the plot It's more about the money Mark. They wouldn't have a process that was financially working, then change it to one that wasn't financially working, see that the change had resulted in relegation and then use the same process that had gone wrong with two new managers, would they? They're not that stupid surely?
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Sept 28, 2019 17:05:56 GMT
If you stop for a second to look at the signings made at the time though Mutts, it’s clear Hughes had significant input into them isn’t it? ... And it's clear that all the signings in the summer were totally all Jones debacles. Hackett have you had any updates? Didn’t you say he was a toner last night?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 28, 2019 17:06:02 GMT
We are talking about a bloke that appointed Jones because of his mate at BET365 though Paul If you stop for a second to look at the signings made at the time though Mutts, it’s clear Hughes had significant input into them isn’t it? Exactly. They had the smell of Hughes all over them.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 28, 2019 17:07:19 GMT
Even after today's managerial announcement? I'd say the club has totally lost the plot It's more about the money Mark. They wouldn't have a process that was financially working, then change it to one that wasn't financially working, see that the change had resulted in relegation and then use the same process that had gone wrong with two new managers, would they? They're not that stupid surely? I'd say if Jon Coates has anything to do with it then yes they are that stupid. Look at Rowett and the 50m he spent.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 28, 2019 17:09:24 GMT
... And it's clear that all the signings in the summer were totally all Jones debacles. Hackett have you had any updates? Didn’t you say he was a toner last night? I didn't say I'd been told he was a goner same as Paul hadn't. I said that there couldn't be any way he kept his job after that. I'm sure Paul would say the same but I can't speak for him.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 28, 2019 19:07:09 GMT
It doesn't make much sense but why would Liam tell us porkies? Because he's just repeating what he's been told without thinking it through fully? If they had a system that was working brilliantly but Hughes wanted more power and so the system changed accordingly, to accommodate his wishes but it ultimately failed spectacularly, leading to him getting the sack, then they wouldn't continue with the new (same) failed system would they? Possibly they would continue with the same system because they are inept. Anyway its all irrelevant, scholes has presided over 4 years of shit, doesn't matter where the blame lies because he is the CEO. And ultimately the buck has to stop with him. Otherwise its totally pointless because he will still be there if we have another 10 years of shit. Scholes has to go now.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Sept 29, 2019 0:31:01 GMT
Because he's just repeating what he's been told without thinking it through fully? If they had a system that was working brilliantly but Hughes wanted more power and so the system changed accordingly, to accommodate his wishes but it ultimately failed spectacularly, leading to him getting the sack, then they wouldn't continue with the new (same) failed system would they? Possibly they would continue with the same system because they are inept. Anyway its all irrelevant, scholes has presided over 4 years of shit, doesn't matter where the blame lies because he is the CEO. And ultimately the buck has to stop with him. Otherwise its totally pointless because he will still be there if we have another 10 years of shit. Scholes has to go now. Judging by recent events I'd say the owners wouldn't have any idea how to run the club on a daily basis without Scholes. I think that's the real issue here.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Sept 29, 2019 7:36:11 GMT
If you stop for a second to look at the signings made at the time though Mutts, it’s clear Hughes had significant input into them isn’t it? ... And it's clear that all the signings in the summer were totally all Jones debacles. Just a thought 1 Jones said he accepted the process when he arrived so the process hasn’t changed . 2 No manger Hughes Rowett or Jones is going to say I dot want players or investing in role . 3 Those around Hughes was very very clear post his departure that the clubs desire to shift the blame entirely to him was out order . 4 It’s clear Rowett Tried to walk before a ball was kicked and was persuaded not to I love Liam but he needs the role and removed from stoke coverage as has happened to others doesn’t fit the bill The answers to 1 3and 4 above would she’s some light but of course they won’t come 3 and 4 no doubt covered By NDA regardless the performance of if the chief executive is even more deplorable than the teams over a 4 year not 1 year period he simply has to go
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 29, 2019 14:39:08 GMT
I’ve only been saying for years the problem at Stoke was when Hughes demanded more power over who was recruited. I could go into reasons why he demanded it but I’ve already said it all before but nobody listens as it doesn’t suit their agenda of hating against Cartwright and Scholes.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 29, 2019 14:41:44 GMT
I’ve only been saying for years the problem at Stoke was when Hughes demanded more power over who was recruited. I could go into reasons why he demanded it but I’ve already said it all before but nobody listens as it doesn’t suit their agenda of hating against Cartwright and Scholes. Say it all again if you don't mind Marc, I'd be very interested, for one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 14:41:49 GMT
I’ve only been saying for years the problem at Stoke was when Hughes demanded more power over who was recruited. I could go into reasons why he demanded it but I’ve already said it all before but nobody listens as it doesn’t suit their agenda of hating against Cartwright and Scholes. So you're telling me we've continued to employ the owners son's mate in a highly paid role for where he was rendered useless, and a highly paid CEO in a role where he is slightly less useless? Excuse me while I go and write this down as reason 1001 why the Coates family are fast becoming THE main issue at this football club.
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 29, 2019 14:52:32 GMT
I’ve only been saying for years the problem at Stoke was when Hughes demanded more power over who was recruited. I could go into reasons why he demanded it but I’ve already said it all before but nobody listens as it doesn’t suit their agenda of hating against Cartwright and Scholes. Say it all again if you don't mind Marc, I'd be very interested, for one. When Hughes was appointed he knew he had to rebuild his reputation and did not want to rock the boat. Hughes put to the recruitment team the type of player he wanted and Cartwright used his database of knowledge and club scouts to find suitable players to fill the role Hughes wanted. Hughes then picked a player he wanted the most out of the 3 or 4 offered to him. After gaining his 3rd 9th place finish it all changed as Everton asked Stoke to speak to Hughes about the Everton job, Stoke refused the approach and Hughes wasn’t best pleased. He basically spat his dummy out and wanted to take control of the recruitment as he said he couldn’t achieve any higher than 9th with the current structure. He was given the control and that’s when we went from the likes of Arnautovic, Shaqiri and other players who had points to prove to the likes of Wimmer, who was Mark Bowen’s scouting by the way and Imbula a player Hughes wanted due to his performance against us in a friendly. Even though Hughes got his way with recruitment he was still miffed at the chance to manager Everton had not allowed and basically down tools, very rarely did he take training and if he did was rather stand offish. What amazes me more is when Rowett was appointed he wanted the same full control over signings that Hughes had when he was sacked. Scholes disagreed with a few of the signings, in particular McClean to the point that Rowett almost left but for John Coates sanctioning the signing. Jones has the control too even though Mark Cartwright was the bloke who put Nathan Jones’s name into the hat for the managers job due to their friendship back when both played for Brighton. Cartwright has left has he feels he has not been used for 3 years now and has just basically built up a dossier for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 29, 2019 15:08:10 GMT
Possibly they would continue with the same system because they are inept. Anyway its all irrelevant, scholes has presided over 4 years of shit, doesn't matter where the blame lies because he is the CEO. And ultimately the buck has to stop with him. Otherwise its totally pointless because he will still be there if we have another 10 years of shit. Scholes has to go now. Judging by recent events I'd say the owners wouldn't have any idea how to run the club on a daily basis without Scholes. I think that's the real issue here. So scholes therefore needs replacing because by that measure the 4 years of crap is definitely down to him. He's just got to go.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 29, 2019 15:09:37 GMT
Say it all again if you don't mind Marc, I'd be very interested, for one. When Hughes was appointed he knew he had to rebuild his reputation and did not want to rock the boat. Hughes put to the recruitment team the type of player he wanted and Cartwright used his database of knowledge and club scouts to find suitable players to fill the role Hughes wanted. Hughes then picked a player he wanted the most out of the 3 or 4 offered to him. After gaining his 3rd 9th place finish it all changed as Everton asked Stoke to speak to Hughes about the Everton job, Stoke refused the approach and Hughes wasn’t best pleased. He basically spat his dummy out and wanted to take control of the recruitment as he said he couldn’t achieve any higher than 9th with the current structure. He was given the control and that’s when we went from the likes of Arnautovic, Shaqiri and other players who had points to prove to the likes of Wimmer, who was Mark Bowen’s scouting by the way and Imbula a player Hughes wanted due to his performance against us in a friendly. Even though Hughes got his way with recruitment he was still miffed at the chance to manager Everton had not allowed and basically down tools, very rarely did he take training and if he did was rather stand offish. What amazes me more is when Rowett was appointed he wanted the same full control over signings that Hughes had when he was sacked. Scholes disagreed with a few of the signings, in particular McClean to the point that Rowett almost left but for John Coates sanctioning the signing. Jones has the control too even though Mark Cartwright was the bloke who put Nathan Jones’s name into the hat for the managers job due to their friendship back when both played for Brighton. Cartwright has left has he feels he has not been used for 3 years now and has just basically built up a dossier for no reason. Thanks Marc. That all makes sense up to a point. That point being, what happened after Hughes was sacked ... If the club had had a system that was working, producing three top 9 finishes but then changed that system on the say so of Hughes, which ultimately failed, resulting in relegation and a whole bunch of poor, big money signings, then why did they continue with the same, failed system and not resort back to the original system, not only with the next manager but with the one after that as well? It makes absolutely zero sense. Rowett didn't have any stock to fall back on to warrant total control, just like Hughes didn't when he took the job and what makes it even less believable, is that Jones absolutely was not in a position to demand any control whatsoever but after being burned not once but twice on the bounce, the board apparently just handed the reigns over to him to? Can you see how unbelievable the whole thing sounds and why it seems incredibly convenient that all the poor signings are being laid at the door of each of the three managers, whilst the good signings were the responsibility of somebody else?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 29, 2019 15:14:57 GMT
I’ve only been saying for years the problem at Stoke was when Hughes demanded more power over who was recruited. I could go into reasons why he demanded it but I’ve already said it all before but nobody listens as it doesn’t suit their agenda of hating against Cartwright and Scholes. Is it possible that you and Liam just have the same source, Marc? Because the idea that all the good signings were Carto’s and all the bad ones were Hughes seems a rather jaundiced take and doesn’t really square with what we’ve seen.
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 29, 2019 15:17:37 GMT
I’ve only been saying for years the problem at Stoke was when Hughes demanded more power over who was recruited. I could go into reasons why he demanded it but I’ve already said it all before but nobody listens as it doesn’t suit their agenda of hating against Cartwright and Scholes. Is it possible that you and Liam just have the same source, Marc? Because the idea that all the good signings were Carto’s and all the bad ones were Hughes seems a rather jaundiced take and doesn’t really square with what we’ve seen. Not all Cartwrights signings were good ones, don’t forget he brought Brek Shea to the club. Just the fact the two main signings that Stoke fans want to linch someone for are Imbula and Wimmer and 100% that Cartwright had nothing to do with them
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 29, 2019 15:19:38 GMT
Say it all again if you don't mind Marc, I'd be very interested, for one. When Hughes was appointed he knew he had to rebuild his reputation and did not want to rock the boat. Hughes put to the recruitment team the type of player he wanted and Cartwright used his database of knowledge and club scouts to find suitable players to fill the role Hughes wanted. Hughes then picked a player he wanted the most out of the 3 or 4 offered to him. After gaining his 3rd 9th place finish it all changed as Everton asked Stoke to speak to Hughes about the Everton job, Stoke refused the approach and Hughes wasn’t best pleased. He basically spat his dummy out and wanted to take control of the recruitment as he said he couldn’t achieve any higher than 9th with the current structure. He was given the control and that’s when we went from the likes of Arnautovic, Shaqiri and other players who had points to prove to the likes of Wimmer, who was Mark Bowen’s scouting by the way and Imbula a player Hughes wanted due to his performance against us in a friendly. Even though Hughes got his way with recruitment he was still miffed at the chance to manager Everton had not allowed and basically down tools, very rarely did he take training and if he did was rather stand offish. What amazes me more is when Rowett was appointed he wanted the same full control over signings that Hughes had when he was sacked. Scholes disagreed with a few of the signings, in particular McClean to the point that Rowett almost left but for John Coates sanctioning the signing. Jones has the control too even though Mark Cartwright was the bloke who put Nathan Jones’s name into the hat for the managers job due to their friendship back when both played for Brighton. Cartwright has left has he feels he has not been used for 3 years now and has just basically built up a dossier for no reason. That's all really insightful stuff and I will take it at face value. But having digested it, it still leaves me feeling Scholes needs to go immediately. He has overseen all of this and has landed us in the shit big time. Hes been here too long and the last 4 years of failure have killed us. Time to go I am afraid.
|
|