|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 29, 2019 15:19:43 GMT
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 I buy that 100%. I don’t buy that all the German-based signings or Barca links were down to Carto though, especially since the links with German-based players evaporated the second Hughes left.
|
|
|
Post by burge2u on Sept 29, 2019 16:11:27 GMT
I can't see how the Winner, Imbula or Berahino signings went through 'the process' I'd always assumed they were signings sanctioned by Coates after Hughes kicked off and said he wanted them. Perhaps the managers who followed said they wanted free rein to recruit who they wanted. It would certainly explain Afobe, Ince and McLean last summer and the crap that was brought in this time. A former colleague & West Brom fan is adamant that Hughes was trying to outdo Pulis (who was then West Brom Manager) by offering £2M more than West Brom for Wimmer. Similarly, Hughes was keen to make Berahino a success after he had so publicly failed at West Brom under Pulis’ stewardship.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 29, 2019 16:21:22 GMT
I can't see how the Winner, Imbula or Berahino signings went through 'the process' I'd always assumed they were signings sanctioned by Coates after Hughes kicked off and said he wanted them. Perhaps the managers who followed said they wanted free rein to recruit who they wanted. It would certainly explain Afobe, Ince and McLean last summer and the crap that was brought in this time. A former colleague & West Brom fan is adamant that Hughes was trying to outdo Pulis (who was then West Brom Manager) by offering £2M more than West Brom for Wimmer. Similarly, Hughes was keen to make Berahino a success after he had so publicly failed at West Brom under Pulis’ stewardship. I don't think there's much doubt that Hughes was trying to outwit Pulis over Berahino. I wouldn't be surprised if the Wimmer rumour was true either. Add the McClean transfer into the mix and West Brom really must be pissing themselves over their dealings with us over the last few years. They've certainly had their revenge in spades for that long unbeaten run we had on them.
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 29, 2019 16:27:02 GMT
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? I can see how it all looks unbelievable but at the same time there was a power struggle between Peter and John which didn’t help matters as they took their eye of the ball. John appointed Rowett as his first major decision he made at Stoke. He gave what Rowett wanted to take the job and he didn’t want his ego knocked by people in the club saying it was a mistake over some of the signings he wanted. Low and behold he wasn’t going to make the same mistake again but has done.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 29, 2019 16:47:06 GMT
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? I can see how it all looks unbelievable but at the same time there was a power struggle between Peter and John which didn’t help matters as they took their eye of the ball. John appointed Rowett as his first major decision he made at Stoke. He gave what Rowett wanted to take the job and he didn’t want his ego knocked by people in the club saying it was a mistake over some of the signings he wanted. Low and behold he wasn’t going to make the same mistake again but has done. Thanks Marc, that's a good answer. It does paint John Coates in a thoroughly poor light however and it doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence in things for the future. I still have to believe that the Barca and German links (as Rob has already said) were very much to do with Hughes though and it does beg the question, that if Hughes had pretty much downed tools because he was sulking over the Everton approach, then why did the board take so long to get rid of him? I wonder what the approach will be going forwards, if Moyes or Hughton or whoever, want total control from the start?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 29, 2019 16:58:37 GMT
And lets not forget re Scholes, he’s the CEO and on the board and the club in general is pretty useless and has been in his time here.
Scholes should be shown the door ASAP.
Cartwright was a glorified scout on massive wages. Good riddance.
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 29, 2019 16:59:19 GMT
I can see how it all looks unbelievable but at the same time there was a power struggle between Peter and John which didn’t help matters as they took their eye of the ball. John appointed Rowett as his first major decision he made at Stoke. He gave what Rowett wanted to take the job and he didn’t want his ego knocked by people in the club saying it was a mistake over some of the signings he wanted. Low and behold he wasn’t going to make the same mistake again but has done. Thanks Marc, that's a good answer. It does paint John Coates in a thoroughly poor light however and it doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence in things for the future. I still have to believe that the Barca and German links (as Rob has already said) were very much to do with Hughes though and it does beg the question, that if Hughes had pretty much downed tools because he was sulking over the Everton approach, then why did the board take so long to get rid of him? I wonder what the approach will be going forwards, if Moyes or Hughton or whoever, want total control from the start? The fact we have not filled Cartwrights role yet would suggest it depends on which direction we go in next and with who as manager. Chapple come in to take Cruickshank’s job
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Sept 29, 2019 17:27:03 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. Sounds plausible be good to hear the hughes side which I suspect would feature the names McGuire , Robertson , Redmond , Lemina , Tadic , Soares , Delph , Etc as the reasons he wanted more influence and I feel sure would not say I overruled the Board in signing Jesse and choupe -moting
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 29, 2019 17:41:06 GMT
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. Sounds plausible be good to hear the hughes side which I suspect would feature the names McGuire , Robertson , Redmond , Lemina , Tadic , Soares , Delph , Etc as the reasons he wanted more influence and I feel sure would not say I overruled the Board in signing Jesse and choupe -moting Choupo Moting is a good point actually. If Hughes was in total charge by that point, why would he let Arnie go for £20 million and then replace him with a free agent who wasn't anywhere near as good as the player he was replacing?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 29, 2019 17:44:58 GMT
Sounds plausible be good to hear the hughes side which I suspect would feature the names McGuire , Robertson , Redmond , Lemina , Tadic , Soares , Delph , Etc as the reasons he wanted more influence and I feel sure would not say I overruled the Board in signing Jesse and choupe -moting Choupo Moting is a good point actually. If Hughes was in total charge by that point, why would he let Arnie go for £20 million and then replace him with a free agent who wasn't anywhere near as good as the player he was replacing? He was one who he'd long had a lob on for though I think Paul, even when he was under contract. I think he was first linked with us towards the back end of his third season.
|
|
|
Post by JurgenVandeurzen on Sept 29, 2019 17:51:35 GMT
I take everything Lawrence says about the club with a pinch of salt.
Good player for us, mediocre pundit trying to stay in a job.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 29, 2019 17:56:29 GMT
Choupo Moting is a good point actually. If Hughes was in total charge by that point, why would he let Arnie go for £20 million and then replace him with a free agent who wasn't anywhere near as good as the player he was replacing? He was one who he'd long had a lob on for though I think Paul, even when he was under contract. I think he was first linked with us towards the back end of his third season. Fair comment Rob.
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on Sept 30, 2019 8:36:36 GMT
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 I buy that 100%. I don’t buy that all the German-based signings or Barca links were down to Carto though, especially since the links with German-based players evaporated the second Hughes left. There must be a bit of an ebb and flow with this process -- meaning Carto and Scholes worked with agents that Hughes had relations with like Kia Joorbachian et al. -- AND Vice Versa, where Hughes would meet with agents and players the club put forward. Another signing I would put down to Hughes for sure is Berahino. I simply cannot see our board targetting a player with a drugs ban and all the other negative press that came with Saido -- ESPECIALLY for what we paid. Whole thing is a clusterfook
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 30, 2019 8:50:00 GMT
I buy that 100%. I don’t buy that all the German-based signings or Barca links were down to Carto though, especially since the links with German-based players evaporated the second Hughes left. There must be a bit of an ebb and flow with this process -- meaning Carto and Scholes worked with agents that Hughes had relations with like Kia Joorbachian et al. -- AND Vice Versa, where Hughes would meet with agents and players the club put forward. Another signing I would put down to Hughes for sure is Berahino. I simply cannot see our board targetting a player with a drugs ban and all the other negative press that came with Saido -- ESPECIALLY for what we paid. Whole thing is a clusterfook I agree (though I think we told Hughes to sack off Joorabchian) - it's supposedly a collaborative process.
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on Sept 30, 2019 9:12:21 GMT
There must be a bit of an ebb and flow with this process -- meaning Carto and Scholes worked with agents that Hughes had relations with like Kia Joorbachian et al. -- AND Vice Versa, where Hughes would meet with agents and players the club put forward. Another signing I would put down to Hughes for sure is Berahino. I simply cannot see our board targetting a player with a drugs ban and all the other negative press that came with Saido -- ESPECIALLY for what we paid. Whole thing is a clusterfook I agree (though I think we told Hughes to sack off Joorabchian) - it's supposedly a collaborative process. I'm pretty sure Kia is Hughes' personal agent as well though ? For all his scrupulousness as a manager, not to mention his gifts as a player for Manchester United, Barcelona and Bayern Munich, Hughes does continue to make some peculiar decisions. It is odd in the eyes of many that a man of considerable erudition would, for example, keep Kia Joorabchian as his representative, aware of the agent’s controversial past and accusations that he was influencing player contracts at QPR. “Kia’s just a friend and an adviser,” he says, bristling slightly. “He hasn’t been involved at Stoke, he’s just a guy whose company I like.” www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/stoke-city/10730322/Mark-Hughes-Please-dont-judge-me-on-12-games-at-QPR.html
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Sept 30, 2019 9:23:36 GMT
I've said it before, but isn't it telling that almost 7 years later none of us really have too much of a clue as to who does what in the process?
If it had any lucidity about it, we wouldn't need the club to spell it out to us, it'd be obvious. Instead, it's always seemed more than a bit randon and undefined. It looks messy, like the league table.
|
|
|
Post by potterpaul on Sept 30, 2019 9:55:36 GMT
A former colleague & West Brom fan is adamant that Hughes was trying to outdo Pulis (who was then West Brom Manager) by offering £2M more than West Brom for Wimmer. Similarly, Hughes was keen to make Berahino a success after he had so publicly failed at West Brom under Pulis’ stewardship. I don't think there's much doubt that Hughes was trying to outwit Pulis over Berahino. I wouldn't be surprised if the Wimmer rumour was true either. Add the McClean transfer into the mix and West Brom really must be pissing themselves over their dealings with us over the last few years. They've certainly had their revenge in spades for that long unbeaten run we had on them. They'd be more than pissing themselves when you also include Fletcher
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 30, 2019 10:18:19 GMT
I agree (though I think we told Hughes to sack off Joorabchian) - it's supposedly a collaborative process. I'm pretty sure Kia is Hughes' personal agent as well though ? For all his scrupulousness as a manager, not to mention his gifts as a player for Manchester United, Barcelona and Bayern Munich, Hughes does continue to make some peculiar decisions. It is odd in the eyes of many that a man of considerable erudition would, for example, keep Kia Joorabchian as his representative, aware of the agent’s controversial past and accusations that he was influencing player contracts at QPR. “Kia’s just a friend and an adviser,” he says, bristling slightly. “He hasn’t been involved at Stoke, he’s just a guy whose company I like.” www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/stoke-city/10730322/Mark-Hughes-Please-dont-judge-me-on-12-games-at-QPR.htmlWell yeah, we couldn't force him to stop hanging out with him on his own time, could we? But my understanding was we insisted he not be involved in any transfer dealings at Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Sept 30, 2019 20:48:47 GMT
Total lack of clarity since Pulis left. Success and failure you knew Pulis was managing the club thick or thin. He carried the can. No fucker knows whats going on now hence we sit at the bottom of the league
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Sept 30, 2019 21:01:05 GMT
Total lack of clarity since Pulis left. Success and failure you knew Pulis was managing the club thick or thin. He carried the can. No fucker knows whats going on now hence we sit at the bottom of the league But he wasn't, was he. He was working within the process. So I guess you knew wrongly that TP was managing all aspects !
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Sept 30, 2019 21:07:14 GMT
I can't see how the Winner, Imbula or Berahino signings went through 'the process' I'd always assumed they were signings sanctioned by Coates after Hughes kicked off and said he wanted them. Perhaps the managers who followed said they wanted free rein to recruit who they wanted. It would certainly explain Afobe, Ince and McLean last summer and the crap that was brought in this time. A former colleague & West Brom fan is adamant that Hughes was trying to outdo Pulis (who was then West Brom Manager) by offering £2M more than West Brom for Wimmer. Similarly, Hughes was keen to make Berahino a success after he had so publicly failed at West Brom under Pulis’ stewardship. Well, that turned out well😁😎
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Sept 30, 2019 21:17:15 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. Sorry to drag this detail back up from yesterday, but that bit about Jones being Cartwright's pick is totally inconsistent with what J Coates said at that Q & A a few months ago. He made out Jones had been on his (John's) radar for years (after his mate met him in a pub ). He went into quite a lot of detail and didn't mention Cartwright at all.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Sept 30, 2019 21:40:09 GMT
Total lack of clarity since Pulis left. Success and failure you knew Pulis was managing the club thick or thin. He carried the can. No fucker knows whats going on now hence we sit at the bottom of the league Hmm. Didn't TP use one agent for the vast majority of his transfers? Bit murky that.
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Oct 1, 2019 7:54:54 GMT
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. Sorry to drag this detail back up from yesterday, but that bit about Jones being Cartwright's pick is totally inconsistent with what J Coates said at that Q & A a few months ago. He made out Jones had been on his (John's) radar for years (after his mate met him in a pub ). He went into quite a lot of detail and didn't mention Cartwright at all. I was the one that asked him the question as I wanted to see if he would admit what I knew. He didn’t a said it was him. Cartwright & Jones house shared when at Brighton I believe. Anyone who thinks that Cartwright has no say in him coming a believe John spoke to someone in a bar is deluded
|
|