|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jan 8, 2022 11:33:41 GMT
" a fool and is money are easily parted , in the world of football " ...and boy did Scholes prove this old saying ,to be true . Less than directly , he seems to have conspired with others in a lack of joined up thinking on pitch, though mark Hughes , Gary rowett and the board helped him plenty . If memory serves me right , vrancic played very effectively for Norwich alongside an Alex Tetty type player ( literally Alex Tetty unless injured ) . He then arrives at stoke and apparently he no longer needs to play alongside an Alex Tetty type player ? How come ? Nobody , Scholes included asks why this is ? At least under Pulis ( for all his many faults ) the thinking was joined up and flair players like pennant and ethers needed to play alongside more industrious players like Whelan and delap / nzonzi More directly , he has overseen a massive increase in debt , we must be well north of over a hundred million in debt by now . I am not privy to looking at the stoke city FC , but from the outside it looks as if the only reason he hasn't done a derby , is that Debt is the softest debt in football. JC actually described it as like a family loan from your dad or a rich uncle to pay back when you feel like . If that debt was with high street banks , or venture capitalists or some American sports franchise as a lot of clubs are , Scholes would have been gone long before now . Potentially stoke city might have been gone too ? He had a great run when the unimaginative Pulis ran a team with a plan and ( admittedly dull ) joined up thinking . Without a Pulis type manager Scholes many faults , including a lack of knowledge of the game , are there for all to see You're pointing your finger in the wrong direction. The club has spiralled downward as a direct result of decisions made by the owners. The financial consequences of "sustainability" are way worse than you imagine. You need to add loss of asset value to the soft debt which is nearer £200M, the value of the club has imploded and the soft debt is now a bit like the golden share making the club uninvestable to anyone outside the family.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 8, 2022 11:41:27 GMT
" a fool and is money are easily parted , in the world of football " ...and boy did Scholes prove this old saying ,to be true . Less than directly , he seems to have conspired with others in a lack of joined up thinking on pitch, though mark Hughes , Gary rowett and the board helped him plenty . If memory serves me right , vrancic played very effectively for Norwich alongside an Alex Tetty type player ( literally Alex Tetty unless injured ) . He then arrives at stoke and apparently he no longer needs to play alongside an Alex Tetty type player ? How come ? Nobody , Scholes included asks why this is ? At least under Pulis ( for all his many faults ) the thinking was joined up and flair players like pennant and ethers needed to play alongside more industrious players like Whelan and delap / nzonzi More directly , he has overseen a massive increase in debt , we must be well north of over a hundred million in debt by now . I am not privy to looking at the stoke city FC , but from the outside it looks as if the only reason he hasn't done a derby , is that Debt is the softest debt in football. JC actually described it as like a family loan from your dad or a rich uncle to pay back when you feel like . If that debt was with high street banks , or venture capitalists or some American sports franchise as a lot of clubs are , Scholes would have been gone long before now . Potentially stoke city might have been gone too ? He had a great run when the unimaginative Pulis ran a team with a plan and ( admittedly dull ) joined up thinking . Without a Pulis type manager Scholes many faults , including a lack of knowledge of the game , are there for all to see It isn’t Scholes’ job to source the players though, you’re blaming him there for stuff that’s the manager’s responsibility. No manager is going to appreciate a non-football man dictating who he can and can’t sign and if there was talk he was interfering in transfer business he’d have been given the pitchfork treatment on here. A football person in a DoF or Sporting Director role is a different story, but that’s not the model we’ve got. Of course it’s not but it is his job to oversee the process , a process which has been constantly defended and delivered footballing and financial Armageddon equally the debt position is catastrophic given the paucity of assets irs secured , his statement is the footballing equivalent of Tony Blair saying what Iraq war , it’s candidly deplorable on every level .
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jan 8, 2022 11:55:17 GMT
It isn’t Scholes’ job to source the players though, you’re blaming him there for stuff that’s the manager’s responsibility. No manager is going to appreciate a non-football man dictating who he can and can’t sign and if there was talk he was interfering in transfer business he’d have been given the pitchfork treatment on here. A football person in a DoF or Sporting Director role is a different story, but that’s not the model we’ve got. Of course it’s not but it is his job to oversee the process , a process which has been constantly defended and delivered footballing and financial Armageddon equally the debt position is catastrophic given the paucity of assets irs secured , his statement is the footballing equivalent of Tony Blair saying what Iraq war , it’s candidly deplorable on every level . Great Tony Blair comparison, just not sure why you aim your contempt in both cases for the support act rather than the primary decision makers.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 12:06:42 GMT
" a fool and is money are easily parted , in the world of football " ...and boy did Scholes prove this old saying ,to be true . Less than directly , he seems to have conspired with others in a lack of joined up thinking on pitch, though mark Hughes , Gary rowett and the board helped him plenty . If memory serves me right , vrancic played very effectively for Norwich alongside an Alex Tetty type player ( literally Alex Tetty unless injured ) . He then arrives at stoke and apparently he no longer needs to play alongside an Alex Tetty type player ? How come ? Nobody , Scholes included asks why this is ? At least under Pulis ( for all his many faults ) the thinking was joined up and flair players like pennant and ethers needed to play alongside more industrious players like Whelan and delap / nzonzi More directly , he has overseen a massive increase in debt , we must be well north of over a hundred million in debt by now . I am not privy to looking at the stoke city FC , but from the outside it looks as if the only reason he hasn't done a derby , is that Debt is the softest debt in football. JC actually described it as like a family loan from your dad or a rich uncle to pay back when you feel like . If that debt was with high street banks , or venture capitalists or some American sports franchise as a lot of clubs are , Scholes would have been gone long before now . Potentially stoke city might have been gone too ? He had a great run when the unimaginative Pulis ran a team with a plan and ( admittedly dull ) joined up thinking . Without a Pulis type manager Scholes many faults , including a lack of knowledge of the game , are there for all to see Great post The club achieved what it did despite Scholes not because of him and TP was strong enough to virtually circumnavigate him for long enough to put solid foundations in place. Mark Hughes did a great job to start with but ultimately he needed Stoke to help rescue his reputation and was beholden to the manner in how the club was fiscally run with an increasing focus on the trumpeted 'self sufficiency' vision. Scholes is (was) a bean counter, a typical accountant with zero football knowledge and in my opinion contributed little or nothing during a tenure when he was blessed to work for owners with deep pockets but old fashioned values. His legacy is that we are now no further on than when he joined us. Shut the door on the way out Tony In what way was Hughes hamstrung by the self-sufficiency model? He was at his best when he was limited in what he could spend and the wheels fell off when he was given money and spunked it on expensive players who we either didn’t need or were a bad fit for what he was supposedly trying to do? Spending the Arnie money on an £18m shit centre half we didn’t even need doesn’t seem hugely self sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Jan 8, 2022 12:07:23 GMT
" a fool and is money are easily parted , in the world of football " ...and boy did Scholes prove this old saying ,to be true . Less than directly , he seems to have conspired with others in a lack of joined up thinking on pitch, though mark Hughes , Gary rowett and the board helped him plenty . If memory serves me right , vrancic played very effectively for Norwich alongside an Alex Tetty type player ( literally Alex Tetty unless injured ) . He then arrives at stoke and apparently he no longer needs to play alongside an Alex Tetty type player ? How come ? Nobody , Scholes included asks why this is ? At least under Pulis ( for all his many faults ) the thinking was joined up and flair players like pennant and ethers needed to play alongside more industrious players like Whelan and delap / nzonzi More directly , he has overseen a massive increase in debt , we must be well north of over a hundred million in debt by now . I am not privy to looking at the stoke city FC , but from the outside it looks as if the only reason he hasn't done a derby , is that Debt is the softest debt in football. JC actually described it as like a family loan from your dad or a rich uncle to pay back when you feel like . If that debt was with high street banks , or venture capitalists or some American sports franchise as a lot of clubs are , Scholes would have been gone long before now . Potentially stoke city might have been gone too ? He had a great run when the unimaginative Pulis ran a team with a plan and ( admittedly dull ) joined up thinking . Without a Pulis type manager Scholes many faults , including a lack of knowledge of the game , are there for all to see You're pointing your finger in the wrong direction. The club has spiralled downward as a direct result of decisions made by the owners. The financial consequences of "sustainability" are way worse than you imagine. You need to add loss of asset value to the soft debt which is nearer £200M, the value of the club has imploded and the soft debt is now a bit like the golden share making the club uninvestable to anyone outside the family. I’m not sure we did ever implement the ‘self-funded’, sustainable model did we? In the 3 years running up to relegation our net spend was €87m 15/16 €30m 16/17 €35m 17/18 €22m Before that Hughes didn’t spend much at all, in fact his most successful spell was when he spent pretty much nothing in his first couple of seasons.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 12:08:57 GMT
It isn’t Scholes’ job to source the players though, you’re blaming him there for stuff that’s the manager’s responsibility. No manager is going to appreciate a non-football man dictating who he can and can’t sign and if there was talk he was interfering in transfer business he’d have been given the pitchfork treatment on here. A football person in a DoF or Sporting Director role is a different story, but that’s not the model we’ve got. Of course it’s not but it is his job to oversee the process , a process which has been constantly defended and delivered footballing and financial Armageddon equally the debt position is catastrophic given the paucity of assets irs secured , his statement is the footballing equivalent of Tony Blair saying what Iraq war , it’s candidly deplorable on every level . I know you’re traditionally fuzzy on specifics, but I’m not sure what you think he should have done? He raised concerns on some of the dodgier deals but the club backed the manager. Are you saying he should/could have overruled the owners? If he stops us signing a player who goes on to be a world beater, you’d have cut him some slack, presumably?
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jan 8, 2022 12:27:38 GMT
You're pointing your finger in the wrong direction. The club has spiralled downward as a direct result of decisions made by the owners. The financial consequences of "sustainability" are way worse than you imagine. You need to add loss of asset value to the soft debt which is nearer £200M, the value of the club has imploded and the soft debt is now a bit like the golden share making the club uninvestable to anyone outside the family. I’m not sure we did ever implement the ‘self-funded’, sustainable model did we? In the 3 years running up to relegation our net spend was €87m 15/16 €30m 16/17 €35m 17/18 €22m Before that Hughes didn’t spend much at all, in fact his most successful spell was when he spent pretty much nothing in his first couple of seasons. The net spend in 17/18 is pretty misleading. In the Summer prior to that season our net spend was £0 or very close to it. Almost all of the net spend you quote was spent in January when we were already staring down the barrel but similar to the spend that Summer it was spent in completely the wrong area of the pitch. We needed firepower the pathetic attempts to replace Arnie on the cheap were missing in action and we were left unable to score goals continually having to revert to an ineffective Crouch. No one involved in running the club at the time escapes criticism. The manager had clearly lost the plot but for an established Premier League club to be unwilling to produce a transfer budget over and above what they bought in from sales was just asking to get relegated and fate duly obliged.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 12:30:08 GMT
I’m not sure we did ever implement the ‘self-funded’, sustainable model did we? In the 3 years running up to relegation our net spend was €87m 15/16 €30m 16/17 €35m 17/18 €22m Before that Hughes didn’t spend much at all, in fact his most successful spell was when he spent pretty much nothing in his first couple of seasons. The net spend in 17/18 is pretty misleading. In the Summer prior to that season our net spend was £0 or very close to it. Almost all of the net spend you quote was spent in January when we were already staring down the barrel but similar to the spend that Summer it was spent in completely the wrong area of the pitch. We needed firepower the pathetic attempts to replace Arnie on the cheap were missing in action and we were left unable to score goals continually having to revert to an ineffective Crouch. No one involved in running the club at the time escapes criticism. The manager had clearly lost the plot but for an established Premier League club to be unwilling to produce a transfer budget over and above what they bought in from sales was just asking to get relegated and fate duly obliged. Equally though, if the £18m for Wimmer is spent on a proper replacement for Arnautovic I don’t think we go down. You could probably have got that plus a better midfield option than the ghost of Darren Fletcher for that.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 8, 2022 12:39:15 GMT
Of course it’s not but it is his job to oversee the process , a process which has been constantly defended and delivered footballing and financial Armageddon equally the debt position is catastrophic given the paucity of assets irs secured , his statement is the footballing equivalent of Tony Blair saying what Iraq war , it’s candidly deplorable on every level . Great Tony Blair comparison, just not sure why you aim your contempt in both cases for the support act rather than the primary decision makers. Because one is an owner using their own money the other is a hired hand who had consistently held others responsible for failure and absented themselves from any such accountability , witness the abhorrent leaving statement
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jan 8, 2022 12:41:00 GMT
The net spend in 17/18 is pretty misleading. In the Summer prior to that season our net spend was £0 or very close to it. Almost all of the net spend you quote was spent in January when we were already staring down the barrel but similar to the spend that Summer it was spent in completely the wrong area of the pitch. We needed firepower the pathetic attempts to replace Arnie on the cheap were missing in action and we were left unable to score goals continually having to revert to an ineffective Crouch. No one involved in running the club at the time escapes criticism. The manager had clearly lost the plot but for an established Premier League club to be unwilling to produce a transfer budget over and above what they bought in from sales was just asking to get relegated and fate duly obliged. Equally though, if the £18m for Wimmer is spent on a proper replacement for Arnautovic I don’t think we go down. You could probably have got that plus a better midfield option than the ghost of Darren Fletcher for that. I agree with the sentiment if not the facts, Wimmer was not £18M but £15M makes it even worse. Hughes was collecting Champions League winners irrespective that they were and had been shit for a prolonged period prior to him signing them.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 8, 2022 12:41:23 GMT
The net spend in 17/18 is pretty misleading. In the Summer prior to that season our net spend was £0 or very close to it. Almost all of the net spend you quote was spent in January when we were already staring down the barrel but similar to the spend that Summer it was spent in completely the wrong area of the pitch. We needed firepower the pathetic attempts to replace Arnie on the cheap were missing in action and we were left unable to score goals continually having to revert to an ineffective Crouch. No one involved in running the club at the time escapes criticism. The manager had clearly lost the plot but for an established Premier League club to be unwilling to produce a transfer budget over and above what they bought in from sales was just asking to get relegated and fate duly obliged. Equally though, if the £18m for Wimmer is spent on a proper replacement for Arnautovic I don’t think we go down. You could probably have got that plus a better midfield option than the ghost of Darren Fletcher for that. But the man himself authorised Jesse is the sign of ambition” ( effectively take that Arnie ) pathetic
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jan 8, 2022 12:42:55 GMT
Great Tony Blair comparison, just not sure why you aim your contempt in both cases for the support act rather than the primary decision makers. Because one is an owner using their own money the other is a hired hand who had consistently held others responsible for failure and absented themselves from any such accountability , witness the abhorrent leaving statement Both things were happening whether they went along with them or not. We are not what we think we are as a country, America is a very very important ally.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 8, 2022 12:52:50 GMT
Of course it’s not but it is his job to oversee the process , a process which has been constantly defended and delivered footballing and financial Armageddon equally the debt position is catastrophic given the paucity of assets irs secured , his statement is the footballing equivalent of Tony Blair saying what Iraq war , it’s candidly deplorable on every level . I know you’re traditionally fuzzy on specifics, but I’m not sure what you think he should have done? He raised concerns on some of the dodgier deals but the club backed the manager. Are you saying he should/could have overruled the owners? If he stops us signing a player who goes on to be a world beater, you’d have cut him some slack, presumably? I’m not absent in detail at all 1 He leaves the club £190m in debt with assets nowhere near covering it 2 He has presided over income reduction from £100m to sub 20 3 We have a match say experience anchored in the past with horror examples around ticket access , food service and standards , retail stock , car parking 4 we have written off millions on depreciating assets signed on his watch 5 We’ve recruited a succession of appalling managers 6 we have returned in the lurch to where we were 17 years ago 7The current manager constantly says he’s constrained by previous decisions meaning we are on the brink of a FFP breach if we invest how we’d like and Need to do its not about the owners in their statement the ceo is responsible for all football related matters , it’s about being held accountable for the job he’s paid so handsomely to do , and the above is a Damning indictment of his performance and excludes any softer factors like customer engagement prety Specific detail on why I think “I leave with the club in a great position ‘ is both misleading and abhorrent
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 13:18:53 GMT
Equally though, if the £18m for Wimmer is spent on a proper replacement for Arnautovic I don’t think we go down. You could probably have got that plus a better midfield option than the ghost of Darren Fletcher for that. I agree with the sentiment if not the facts, Wimmer was not £18M but £15M makes it even worse. Hughes was collecting Champions League winners irrespective that they were and had been shit for a prolonged period prior to him signing them. Every report of the Wimmer fee I’ve ever seen quotes it at £18m or thereabouts.
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Jan 8, 2022 13:19:37 GMT
I know you’re traditionally fuzzy on specifics, but I’m not sure what you think he should have done? He raised concerns on some of the dodgier deals but the club backed the manager. Are you saying he should/could have overruled the owners? If he stops us signing a player who goes on to be a world beater, you’d have cut him some slack, presumably? I’m not absent in detail at all 1 He leaves the club £190m in debt with assets nowhere near covering it 2 He has presided over income reduction from £100m to sub 20 3 We have a match say experience anchored in the past with horror examples around ticket access , food service and standards , retail stock , car parking 4 we have written off millions on depreciating assets signed on his watch 5 We’ve recruited a succession of appalling managers 6 we have returned in the lurch to where we were 17 years ago 7The current manager constantly says he’s constrained by previous decisions meaning we are on the brink of a FFP breach if we invest how we’d like and Need to do its not about the owners in their statement the ceo is responsible for all football related matters , it’s about being held accountable for the job he’s paid so handsomely to do , and the above is a Damning indictment of his performance and excludes any softer factors like customer engagement prety Specific detail on why I think “I leave with the club in a great position ‘ is both misleading and abhorrent With the exception of no1 (only because I’m not privy to the clubs finances) you’ve pretty well nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 13:21:38 GMT
I know you’re traditionally fuzzy on specifics, but I’m not sure what you think he should have done? He raised concerns on some of the dodgier deals but the club backed the manager. Are you saying he should/could have overruled the owners? If he stops us signing a player who goes on to be a world beater, you’d have cut him some slack, presumably? I’m not absent in detail at all 1 He leaves the club £190m in debt with assets nowhere near covering it 2 He has presided over income reduction from £100m to sub 20 3 We have a match say experience anchored in the past with horror examples around ticket access , food service and standards , retail stock , car parking 4 we have written off millions on depreciating assets signed on his watch 5 We’ve recruited a succession of appalling managers 6 we have returned in the lurch to where we were 17 years ago 7The current manager constantly says he’s constrained by previous decisions meaning we are on the brink of a FFP breach if we invest how we’d like and Need to do its not about the owners in their statement the ceo is responsible for all football related matters , it’s about being held accountable for the job he’s paid so handsomely to do , and the above is a Damning indictment of his performance and excludes any softer factors like customer engagement prety Specific detail on why I think “I leave with the club in a great position ‘ is both misleading and abhorrent Yeah none of that was the detail I referred to in my post, your typical obfuscation. You’ve ducked the same questions you always duck because you have no answer to them. You’ve latched onto the catch-all, bland ‘all football matters’ quote that’s standard for that role and wilfully misinterpreted it because you’d rather have a pantomime villain than point the finger at people equally or more culpable. Scholes can be blamed for a lot but player recruitment is on the various managers and managerial appointments are on the owners.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 13:22:17 GMT
I’m not absent in detail at all 1 He leaves the club £190m in debt with assets nowhere near covering it 2 He has presided over income reduction from £100m to sub 20 3 We have a match say experience anchored in the past with horror examples around ticket access , food service and standards , retail stock , car parking 4 we have written off millions on depreciating assets signed on his watch 5 We’ve recruited a succession of appalling managers 6 we have returned in the lurch to where we were 17 years ago 7The current manager constantly says he’s constrained by previous decisions meaning we are on the brink of a FFP breach if we invest how we’d like and Need to do its not about the owners in their statement the ceo is responsible for all football related matters , it’s about being held accountable for the job he’s paid so handsomely to do , and the above is a Damning indictment of his performance and excludes any softer factors like customer engagement prety Specific detail on why I think “I leave with the club in a great position ‘ is both misleading and abhorrent With the exception of no1 (only because I’m not privy to the clubs finances) you’ve pretty well nailed it. He isn’t responsible for signings or managerial appointments.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 8, 2022 13:54:27 GMT
With the exception of no1 (only because I’m not privy to the clubs finances) you’ve pretty well nailed it. He isn’t responsible for signings or managerial appointments. Signings no, transfer fee and contract negotiations yes. Managerial appointments...he had a say but all chosen either by Peter or John Coates
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 8, 2022 13:55:59 GMT
I know you’re traditionally fuzzy on specifics, but I’m not sure what you think he should have done? He raised concerns on some of the dodgier deals but the club backed the manager. Are you saying he should/could have overruled the owners? If he stops us signing a player who goes on to be a world beater, you’d have cut him some slack, presumably? I’m not absent in detail at all 1 He leaves the club £190m in debt with assets nowhere near covering it 2 He has presided over income reduction from £100m to sub 20 3 We have a match say experience anchored in the past with horror examples around ticket access , food service and standards , retail stock , car parking 4 we have written off millions on depreciating assets signed on his watch 5 We’ve recruited a succession of appalling managers 6 we have returned in the lurch to where we were 17 years ago 7The current manager constantly says he’s constrained by previous decisions meaning we are on the brink of a FFP breach if we invest how we’d like and Need to do its not about the owners in their statement the ceo is responsible for all football related matters , it’s about being held accountable for the job he’s paid so handsomely to do , and the above is a Damning indictment of his performance and excludes any softer factors like customer engagement prety Specific detail on why I think “I leave with the club in a great position ‘ is both misleading and abhorrent Re point three With no CEO at all, never mind a bad one, worried this could get even worse
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 13:56:37 GMT
He isn’t responsible for signings or managerial appointments. Signings no, transfer fee and contract negotiations yes. Managerial appointments...he had a say but all chosen either by Peter or John Coates Transfer fee will be informed by how badly the manager wanted the player though surely?
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jan 8, 2022 14:06:15 GMT
I agree with the sentiment if not the facts, Wimmer was not £18M but £15M makes it even worse. Hughes was collecting Champions League winners irrespective that they were and had been shit for a prolonged period prior to him signing them. Every report of the Wimmer fee I’ve ever seen quotes it at £18m or thereabouts. £15M + add ons don’t suppose any of which were triggered.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 8, 2022 14:07:51 GMT
With the exception of no1 (only because I’m not privy to the clubs finances) you’ve pretty well nailed it. He isn’t responsible for signings or managerial appointments. According to the board statement he’s had executive responsibility for all football related matters , unless they aren’t football related , but even if we accept he’s nothing to do with either financial performance is liquidation material and our match say experience division one and worse unless he’s nowt to do with those either , which begs the question what did he do for 800k a year that now doesn’t need replacing . Ive bern clear for years that in my view he is the executive at the core of our issues , his parting statement is an insult , deluded , and in the trump league of ‘covid us completely under control “ he’s the comical Ali of chief executives.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 14:20:20 GMT
He isn’t responsible for signings or managerial appointments. According to the board statement he’s had executive responsibility for all football related matters , unless they aren’t football related , but even if we accept he’s nothing to do with either financial performance is liquidation material and our match say experience division one and worse unless he’s nowt to do with those either , which begs the question what did he do for 800k a year that now doesn’t need replacing . Ive bern clear for years that in my view he is the executive at the core of our issues , his parting statement is an insult , deluded , and in the trump league of ‘covid us completely under control “ he’s the comical Ali of chief executives. I don’t disagree he’s got a lot to answer for but painting him as the villain for every single thing that’s happened to the club in the last few years is very silly, whatever the marketing bumpf about his role says.
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Jan 8, 2022 14:35:45 GMT
Great post The club achieved what it did despite Scholes not because of him and TP was strong enough to virtually circumnavigate him for long enough to put solid foundations in place. Mark Hughes did a great job to start with but ultimately he needed Stoke to help rescue his reputation and was beholden to the manner in how the club was fiscally run with an increasing focus on the trumpeted 'self sufficiency' vision. Scholes is (was) a bean counter, a typical accountant with zero football knowledge and in my opinion contributed little or nothing during a tenure when he was blessed to work for owners with deep pockets but old fashioned values. His legacy is that we are now no further on than when he joined us. Shut the door on the way out Tony In what way was Hughes hamstrung by the self-sufficiency model? He was at his best when he was limited in what he could spend and the wheels fell off when he was given money and spunked it on expensive players who we either didn’t need or were a bad fit for what he was supposedly trying to do? Spending the Arnie money on an £18m shit centre half we didn’t even need doesn’t seem hugely self sufficient. Ultimately he spent less than the money generated which is the principal of self sufficiency. Arnie was directly replaced with a low cost alternative. I don't disagree that Wimmer was a shocking signing but it was the overall direction set by the club that started the decline.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 14:38:59 GMT
In what way was Hughes hamstrung by the self-sufficiency model? He was at his best when he was limited in what he could spend and the wheels fell off when he was given money and spunked it on expensive players who we either didn’t need or were a bad fit for what he was supposedly trying to do? Spending the Arnie money on an £18m shit centre half we didn’t even need doesn’t seem hugely self sufficient. Ultimately he spent less than the money generated which is the principal of self sufficiency. Arnie was directly replaced with a low cost alternative. I don't disagree that Wimmer was a shocking signing but it was the overall direction set by the club that started the decline. He was replaced with a low cost alternative though because those funds were channelled elsewhere. Was the equivalent buying ourselves a gaudy watch we didn’t need when we didn’t own a pair of shoes. Hughes wasn’t forced to replace Arnie with a low cost alternative, he chose to.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 8, 2022 14:59:29 GMT
According to the board statement he’s had executive responsibility for all football related matters , unless they aren’t football related , but even if we accept he’s nothing to do with either financial performance is liquidation material and our match say experience division one and worse unless he’s nowt to do with those either , which begs the question what did he do for 800k a year that now doesn’t need replacing . Ive bern clear for years that in my view he is the executive at the core of our issues , his parting statement is an insult , deluded , and in the trump league of ‘covid us completely under control “ he’s the comical Ali of chief executives. I don’t disagree he’s got a lot to answer for but painting him as the villain for every single thing that’s happened to the club in the last few years is very silly, whatever the marketing bumpf about his role says. He’s not the villain for everything of course not but his role dictates he’s ultimately responsible for key areas of the business and its has a shocking performance for years all of which is part of the territory in sport but to leave declaring all is rosy in the garden is disingenuous at very best
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Jan 8, 2022 15:25:50 GMT
He isn’t responsible for signings or managerial appointments. Signings no, transfer fee and contract negotiations yes. Managerial appointments...he had a say but all chosen either by Peter or John Coates He was fully complicit with every major decision including the employment of an “experienced Technical Director with global contacts“ (not)
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Jan 8, 2022 15:27:36 GMT
As I understand things, the board of directors are Scholes, Peter Coates and John Coates. If it works like any other business Scholes would bring a proposal for a major expenditure to the board who will make the final decision. Therefore, they are collectively responsible and accountable for all decisions. Of course, the Coates family who also represent the owners. They have a 2/3 majority and can accept or reject any recommendations. They can also remove the CEO if they believe he is not doing a good job. There’s no public evidence that the owners were anything but highly satisfied with Scholes. What went on behind closed does is anyone’s guess but it looks like Scholes jumped ship at the right time for him, and landed on his feet because the job at the PL looks like a big step up and a good opportunity. He may prove the old adage “all managers eventually rise to their level of incompetence”. Only time will tell. However, this is a newly created role for the PL so there’s no benchmark to judge his performance.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 15:56:28 GMT
I don’t disagree he’s got a lot to answer for but painting him as the villain for every single thing that’s happened to the club in the last few years is very silly, whatever the marketing bumpf about his role says. He’s not the villain for everything of course not but his role dictates he’s ultimately responsible for key areas of the business and its has a shocking performance for years all of which is part of the territory in sport but to leave declaring all is rosy in the garden is disingenuous at very best Some of the key areas of business you identify aren’t his domain though, and the ‘all footballing areas of the club’ thing is a throwaway line that doesn’t actually tell the story. You accept that, surely?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 8, 2022 15:58:46 GMT
Signings no, transfer fee and contract negotiations yes. Managerial appointments...he had a say but all chosen either by Peter or John Coates He was fully complicit with every major decision including the employment of an “experienced Technical Director with global contacts“ (not) Define ‘fully complicit’ and which ‘major decisions’? He raised red flags about some of the worst transfer deals we made. He wasn’t the one signing the players or appointing the managers. The Cartwright thing ultimately was neither here nor there. Yes a bit of a disgraceful jobs for the boys appointment but his overall influence in the scheme of things seems to have been negligible and our transfer dealings with the odd exception were overwhelmingly manager driven.
|
|