|
|
Post by hardcastle on Oct 20, 2020 15:43:08 GMT
TS gets a lot of stick but but I doubt it's his decision to buy ANY player we have ever signed or made any decision regarding how much they get paid. He may make the odd suggestion (possibly) but it's not his money that is used, and I'm certain he does not write any cheques without the agreement of those above him. In other words he is virtually blameless for signing the likes of Wimmer,Berahino, Bauer et al. Correct. |
|
|
|
Post by hardcastle on Oct 20, 2020 15:45:48 GMT
You're both right, of course. But when you're chief executive, everything negative that happens on your watch reflects on you. My point is that the opposite must therefore also apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 20, 2020 15:48:36 GMT
TS gets a lot of stick but but I doubt it's his decision to buy ANY player we have ever signed or made any decision regarding how much they get paid. He may make the odd suggestion (possibly) but it's not his money that is used, and I'm certain he does not write any cheques without the agreement of those above him. In other words he is virtually blameless for signing the likes of Wimmer,Berahino, Bauer et al. And hence he is called Teflon Tony. Totally unaccountable yet he as CEO has overseen it all. Its a ridiculous situation. Fact is from what I can gather the transfer policy is a mixed bag of manager suggestions and contacts from the transfer team upstairs. Its how it works with a lot of clubs without a director of football. But at some point someone has to be accountable for gross mis management of the situation and for that reason I am amazed TS is still here. The last 5 years has been an unmitigated mess. Scholes out. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 20, 2020 16:29:55 GMT
TS gets a lot of stick but but I doubt it's his decision to buy ANY player we have ever signed or made any decision regarding how much they get paid. He may make the odd suggestion (possibly) but it's not his money that is used, and I'm certain he does not write any cheques without the agreement of those above him. In other words he is virtually blameless for signing the likes of Wimmer,Berahino, Bauer et al. And hence he is called Teflon Tony. Totally unaccountable yet he as CEO has overseen it all. Its a ridiculous situation. Fact is from what I can gather the transfer policy is a mixed bag of manager suggestions and contacts from the transfer team upstairs. Its how it works with a lot of clubs without a director of football. But at some point someone has to be accountable for gross mis management of the situation and for that reason I am amazed TS is still here. The last 5 years has been an unmitigated mess. Scholes out. all the financial aspects of a transfer are negotiate by Scholes & nobody else it's madness |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 20, 2020 16:36:33 GMT
And hence he is called Teflon Tony. Totally unaccountable yet he as CEO has overseen it all. Its a ridiculous situation. Fact is from what I can gather the transfer policy is a mixed bag of manager suggestions and contacts from the transfer team upstairs. Its how it works with a lot of clubs without a director of football. But at some point someone has to be accountable for gross mis management of the situation and for that reason I am amazed TS is still here. The last 5 years has been an unmitigated mess. Scholes out. all the financial aspects of a transfer are negotiate by Scholes & nobody else it's madness 80 odd million spent since relegation. They may as well have spent half of that on a new CEO, director of football and ancillary staff and we would now be seeing some genuine progress and a new direction. But for some reason we are stuck with Scholes. You are right it is utter madness. In fact isn't one of the definitions of madness to keep repeating the same process but expecting different results? |
|
|
|
Post by J-Roar on Oct 20, 2020 17:50:39 GMT
This is nothing new, he was aware of the transfer situation a year ago. However, he really should have forseen the impact of Covid which has limited the chance of finding new clubs for a number of the fringe players... For this reason O'Neill must go Is this a serious post? Fuck me. Is yours a serious post? |
|
|
|
Post by bgreen13 on Oct 20, 2020 17:59:50 GMT
Fuck me. Is yours a serious post? Is yours? |
|
|
|
Post by captainmainwaring on Oct 20, 2020 18:41:22 GMT
And hence he is called Teflon Tony. Totally unaccountable yet he as CEO has overseen it all. Its a ridiculous situation. Fact is from what I can gather the transfer policy is a mixed bag of manager suggestions and contacts from the transfer team upstairs. Its how it works with a lot of clubs without a director of football. But at some point someone has to be accountable for gross mis management of the situation and for that reason I am amazed TS is still here. The last 5 years has been an unmitigated mess. Scholes out. all the financial aspects of a transfer are negotiate by Scholes & nobody else it's madness The board of directors have always, if possible, supported their managers. Mark Hughes says he wants Kevin Wimmer and the fee is £15m, the board support him and sign the player. Scholes does the paper work. It turns out to be a bad buy....blame the manager. The Manager says he wants Joe Allen for 12m, the board support him. Scholes does the paper work and it turns out to be a decent buy....credit the manager etc. etc., I could go on. I know that there have been more bad signings than good ones, and lots of money wasted (thankfully the club can afford it) but as far as I'm concerned, and it's just my opinion, the managers are responsible for bringing players into the club. Stoke City are not the only club to have made bad signings, it's the nature of the game. I heard the name Bolasie the other day, as far as I know he's been a bad buy at £25m. If I'd got the inclination to do some research I could probably come up with a fair old list of bad, expensive signings, made by other clubs. Come on fellow Stokies help me out here. I'm sure you could come up with an extensive list. So those of you who want to blame Scholes for everything that's not worked out at the club, you must give him credit for the things that have worked out well. We have had three 9th place finishes in the premier league, thank you Mr Scholes. He brought us Arnautovic, Shaqiri, Bojan, Crouch, Walters and Adam, to name a few. We have two young centre backs in Souttar and Collins who could be worth £50m this time next year and of course there's Campbell too. He's also negotiated the transfer of Powell, Stephen Fletcher, TOB, Brown, Mikel, Thompson, Fox and Chester, for little or no outlay, but of course....... they were the manager's choices. You can't blame the board for supporting their managers. some things work out, some things don't. That's life. I'm sure that you all want the board of directors to support Michael O'Neill, as best they can after the FFP restrictions are lifted, when he identifies players who he wants to bring into the club to get us back into the premier league. |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Oct 20, 2020 21:11:13 GMT
Careful Michael “ snake behind you. “ it’s done for 4 managers and TD already Why don't you write to Peter/John Coates to tell them how bad Scholes is. Seems to me that they think it is down to bad managerial decisions or are they just as incompetent as him? Surely the fees paid and length of contacts were agreed at board level? as well as the CEO in charge of negotiating contracts, salary etc. with incoming "transfers" along with negotiating the "transfers" or mainly loans in our case for the shit players he was responsible for employing on said long lucrative contracts in the first place, visa vie he has failed in both aspects in spectacular fashion, would you employ him on that basis ? |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Oct 20, 2020 21:17:04 GMT
all the financial aspects of a transfer are negotiate by Scholes & nobody else it's madness The board of directors have always, if possible, supported their managers. Mark Hughes says he wants Kevin Wimmer and the fee is £15m, the board support him and sign the player. Scholes does the paper work. It turns out to be a bad buy....blame the manager. The Manager says he wants Joe Allen for 12m, the board support him. Scholes does the paper work and it turns out to be a decent buy....credit the manager etc. etc., I could go on. I know that there have been more bad signings than good ones, and lots of money wasted (thankfully the club can afford it) but as far as I'm concerned, and it's just my opinion, the managers are responsible for bringing players into the club. Stoke City are not the only club to have made bad signings, it's the nature of the game. I heard the name Bolasie the other day, as far as I know he's been a bad buy at £25m. If I'd got the inclination to do some research I could probably come up with a fair old list of bad, expensive signings, made by other clubs. Come on fellow Stokies help me out here. I'm sure you could come up with an extensive list. So those of you who want to blame Scholes for everything that's not worked out at the club, you must give him credit for the things that have worked out well. We have had three 9th place finishes in the premier league, thank you Mr Scholes. He brought us Arnautovic, Shaqiri, Bojan, Crouch, Walters and Adam, to name a few. We have two young centre backs in Souttar and Collins who could be worth £50m this time next year and of course there's Campbell too. He's also negotiated the transfer of Powell, Stephen Fletcher, TOB, Brown, Mikel, Thompson, Fox and Chester, for little or no outlay, but of course....... they were the manager's choices. You can't blame the board for supporting their managers. some things work out, some things don't. That's life. I'm sure that you all want the board of directors to support Michael O'Neill, as best they can after the FFP restrictions are lifted, when he identifies players who he wants to bring into the club to get us back into the premier league. Why have the majority of ours not worked out ?, our record signing £18.3 m written off, our record defensive signing £18m, Berhaino £12m written off, multi million pound players out on loan who do you blame for the lack of due diligence ? |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Oct 20, 2020 21:19:13 GMT
Careful Michael “ snake behind you. “ it’s done for 4 managers and TD already Why don't you write to Peter/John Coates to tell them how bad Scholes is. Seems to me that they think it is down to bad managerial decisions or are they just as incompetent as him? Surely the fees paid and length of contacts were agreed at board level? They made their loyalty very clear the best owners one cooks wish for but they aren’t infallible as our decline in fortunes shows I’ve said for years where the key issue sits . WBA and villa are just tie recent examples of changing the chief executive changing the whole culture of a club we choose to hair keep doing the things that caused our fall from the top table |
|
|
|
Post by captainmainwaring on Oct 20, 2020 21:29:49 GMT
The board of directors have always, if possible, supported their managers. Mark Hughes says he wants Kevin Wimmer and the fee is £15m, the board support him and sign the player. Scholes does the paper work. It turns out to be a bad buy....blame the manager. The Manager says he wants Joe Allen for 12m, the board support him. Scholes does the paper work and it turns out to be a decent buy....credit the manager etc. etc., I could go on. I know that there have been more bad signings than good ones, and lots of money wasted (thankfully the club can afford it) but as far as I'm concerned, and it's just my opinion, the managers are responsible for bringing players into the club. Stoke City are not the only club to have made bad signings, it's the nature of the game. I heard the name Bolasie the other day, as far as I know he's been a bad buy at £25m. If I'd got the inclination to do some research I could probably come up with a fair old list of bad, expensive signings, made by other clubs. Come on fellow Stokies help me out here. I'm sure you could come up with an extensive list. So those of you who want to blame Scholes for everything that's not worked out at the club, you must give him credit for the things that have worked out well. We have had three 9th place finishes in the premier league, thank you Mr Scholes. He brought us Arnautovic, Shaqiri, Bojan, Crouch, Walters and Adam, to name a few. We have two young centre backs in Souttar and Collins who could be worth £50m this time next year and of course there's Campbell too. He's also negotiated the transfer of Powell, Stephen Fletcher, TOB, Brown, Mikel, Thompson, Fox and Chester, for little or no outlay, but of course....... they were the manager's choices. You can't blame the board for supporting their managers. some things work out, some things don't. That's life. I'm sure that you all want the board of directors to support Michael O'Neill, as best they can after the FFP restrictions are lifted, when he identifies players who he wants to bring into the club to get us back into the premier league. Why have the majority of ours not worked out ?, our record signing £18.3 m written off, our record defensive signing £18m, Berhaino £12m written off, multi million pound players out on loan who do you blame for the lack of due diligence ? As I said these were bad choices by the managers. Do you want the board to say to the manager we don't trust your judgement you can't have the players you want? |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 20, 2020 21:31:27 GMT
Why have the majority of ours not worked out ?, our record signing £18.3 m written off, our record defensive signing £18m, Berhaino £12m written off, multi million pound players out on loan who do you blame for the lack of due diligence ? As I said these were bad choices by the managers. Do you want the board to say to the manager we don't trust your judgement you can't have the players you want? That's what well run clubs do,yes. Of course good managers have good judgement so it doesn't happen too often. |
|
|
|
Post by captainmainwaring on Oct 20, 2020 21:40:50 GMT
As I said these were bad choices by the managers. Do you want the board to say to the manager we don't trust your judgement you can't have the players you want? That's what well run clubs do,yes. Of course good managers have good judgement so it doesn't happen too often. Tell me which club says to their manager we don't trust your judgement on a player you can't have him? What would you say about the Stoke board if they said it to the current manager? Do you think Michael O'Neill would work under those conditions? |
|
|
|
Post by captainmainwaring on Oct 20, 2020 22:07:35 GMT
Why don't you write to Peter/John Coates to tell them how bad Scholes is. Seems to me that they think it is down to bad managerial decisions or are they just as incompetent as him? Surely the fees paid and length of contacts were agreed at board level? They made their loyalty very clear the best owners one cooks wish for but they aren’t infallible as our decline in fortunes shows I’ve said for years where the key issue sits . WBA and villa are just tie recent examples of changing the chief executive changing the whole culture of a club we choose to hair keep doing the things that caused our fall from the top table That doesn't make much sense Benji. As for West Brom changing the whole culture of the club, they seem to be following Stoke City's lead. Their manager identifies a player that he wants and the board supports his judgement. BBC. West Brom have signed Karlan Grant from Huddersfield in a £15m move. Grant scored 19 goals last season and Baggies manager Slaven Bilic has been interested in signing him for some time. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 20, 2020 22:19:17 GMT
TS gets a lot of stick but but I doubt it's his decision to buy ANY player we have ever signed or made any decision regarding how much they get paid. He may make the odd suggestion (possibly) but it's not his money that is used, and I'm certain he does not write any cheques without the agreement of those above him. In other words he is virtually blameless for signing the likes of Wimmer,Berahino, Bauer et al.Can I ask, do you know that as a fact, or just your opinion? The club have backed successive managers to the hilt, indeed you could say to a fault. They are also generous employers and give lengthy lucrative contracts, which may also be to a fault but arguably necessary to get a player to sign for an unfashionable club like Stoke.* However the Chief Executive of a company has responsibilities to ensure the management team do not step beyond their brief, or the mark. It is clear that due diligence was not carried out in many of the signings with respect to the character of the signings. It is not unreasonable to expect to sign a few questionable characters, but over the last 10 years the club has signed an endless list of individuals whose commitment and professionalism has been extremely questionable. That demonstrates a lack of corporate expertise in the recruitment of employees. I don't know the above as a fact, but purely my opinion based on what I have observed. Not only has the management of recruitment been questionable, so has other issues like IT and catering. I'm sure people will think of other examples. There have been some excellent management decisions such as freezing ticket prices, free travel, and honouring employees contracts during the pandemic, but somehow I suspect that the owners had a hand in those decisions not the Chief Executive. Somebody please tell me if I am wrong. * I suspect there will be some aggravation to many loyal fans, my saying the club is unfashionable. I have lived in many parts of the country and met/known many football fans and believe me when I say Stoke is well thought of by many, but is considered an unfashionable club by most of the population. Nevertheless it is "our club" just as Burnley, Sheffield Utd., Middlesbrough, Hull, etc. are to their fans/supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 22:38:29 GMT
Why don't you write to Peter/John Coates to tell them how bad Scholes is. Seems to me that they think it is down to bad managerial decisions or are they just as incompetent as him? Surely the fees paid and length of contacts were agreed at board level? They made their loyalty very clear the best owners one cooks wish for but they aren’t infallible as our decline in fortunes shows I’ve said for years where the key issue sits . WBA and villa are just tie recent examples of changing the chief executive changing the whole culture of a club we choose to hair keep doing the things that caused our fall from the top table In reality we made three horrendous signings in Berahino, Imbulla and Wimmer. Circa 50 million with zero resale value because Coates was too loyal to Hughes not Scholes. That was where the rot started. For all we know Scholes may have been against all these signings but was out voted. Perhaps that is why he has kept his job. In truth none of us really know who is to blame and all your ramblings are just supposition. |
|
|
|
Post by sensiblestokie on Oct 21, 2020 0:42:52 GMT
Seems as though he isn't impressed with our transfer dealings under this regime from the Sentinel:
He said: “Yeah I think it is – slowly, because we haven’t been able to possibly change the personnel as much as we’d have liked because of the contractual situation of players at the club.
“But I think the players we’ve brought in have all been positives, both in the previous window and this window.
“We’re realigning the club a little bit, financially as well, so there’s that aspect to deal with as well.
“We want a hungry team, a team that is reflective of what Stoke stand for, I think, when the club was successful.
“What we’ve managed to do is get some of the younger players around as well, players who couldn’t get near it because of the bodies that we had and the signings we made.
“It’s taking shape. It’s still a long way from where I would like it to be but I think we’re going in the right direction.”
What sort of a mess have the "transfer" overseen.
This is nothing new, he was aware of the transfer situation a year ago. However, he really should have forseen the impact of Covid which has limited the chance of finding new clubs for a number of the fringe players... For this reason O'Neill must go The amount of people who think this isn’t anything other than a piss take post is worrying 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 21, 2020 10:50:12 GMT
They made their loyalty very clear the best owners one cooks wish for but they aren’t infallible as our decline in fortunes shows I’ve said for years where the key issue sits . WBA and villa are just tie recent examples of changing the chief executive changing the whole culture of a club we choose to hair keep doing the things that caused our fall from the top table In reality we made three horrendous signings in Berahino, Imbulla and Wimmer. Circa 50 million with zero resale value because Coates was too loyal to Hughes not Scholes. That was where the rot started. For all we know Scholes may have been against all these signings but was out voted. Perhaps that is why he has kept his job. In truth none of us really know who is to blame and all your ramblings are just supposition. You're correct that in truth none of us really know what exactly has gone on behind the scenes, I will concede that. But I simply can't get over the fact we have had nigh on 5 years of absolute chaos in our transfer dealings. We all know Wimmer wasn't watched the magic 20 times. And why give him a 5 year deal? if he wouldn't accept a 3 year deal then why not walk away? Financial suicide. Someone has to be accountable and logic tells me in any "normal" organisation that is always the CEO. I guess Stoke aren't "normal" and that I believe is where our actual problems lie. Generous owners and I am glad they are here but alarmingly naïve it would appear to me. With our finances we could easily be a permanent top half premiership club if they sorted the internal infrastructure out properly. Edit And whichever prick let Bojan go should be sacked immediately  |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 21, 2020 10:52:17 GMT
Fuck me. Is yours a serious post? Is yours? And what about yours? |
|
|
|
Post by spirered on Oct 21, 2020 11:19:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Oct 21, 2020 11:57:14 GMT
This is the last season of parachute payments and they are only payable now at 20% or roughly £12m so I guess that is another factor in the 'financial realignment' for which we should read spend less not more ! One lesson about this is that, whether you like or loath the concept of parachute payments (and personally I'd prefer PROPER relegation clauses in all our PL contracts) the whole point of parachute payments was to cover player contracts until those contracts expired. Irrespective of how contracts are worded to take account of relegation, we should never have reached relegation with big contracts which stretched beyond the term of the parachute payments - and that is the case with one or two of our player PL contracts which extend beyond the last parachute payment. Scholes should hang for allowing that to happen.  Amended it for you 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2020 11:57:28 GMT
For me the alarm bells started ringing when we signed Shaq.
We already had the diminutive Bojan did we need another similar player?
Our whole philosophy for signing him was come play for us and be in the shop window. A player has to want to come and play for the club for different reasons than that.
We just went too continental.
We should have had Will Hughes not Imbula!
|
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Oct 21, 2020 19:11:10 GMT
They made their loyalty very clear the best owners one cooks wish for but they aren’t infallible as our decline in fortunes shows I’ve said for years where the key issue sits . WBA and villa are just tie recent examples of changing the chief executive changing the whole culture of a club we choose to hair keep doing the things that caused our fall from the top table In reality we made three horrendous signings in Berahino, Imbulla and Wimmer. Circa 50 million with zero resale value because Coates was too loyal to Hughes not Scholes. That was where the rot started. For all we know Scholes may have been against all these signings but was out voted. Perhaps that is why he has kept his job. In truth none of us really know who is to blame and all your ramblings are just supposition. Well that’s a funny way of being responsible for all football related matters |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Oct 22, 2020 7:13:12 GMT
In reality we made three horrendous signings in Berahino, Imbulla and Wimmer. Circa 50 million with zero resale value because Coates was too loyal to Hughes not Scholes. That was where the rot started. For all we know Scholes may have been against all these signings but was out voted. Perhaps that is why he has kept his job. In truth none of us really know who is to blame and all your ramblings are just supposition. Well that’s a funny way of being responsible for all football related matters He's only responsible when things are going well which isn't often recently, remember Teflon's statement when "Hughes" signed Jesse "that's what you call ambition" |
|
