|
Post by cvillestokie on Feb 5, 2022 13:05:48 GMT
We're not like "all clubs" - we're Stoke City. The board back the manager as long as they can see he's doing the best he can, and the club is moving forward. Coates, Smith, and Coates are rational people, They can see that injuries to key players in all sections has had an unfortunate impact on any promises the manager might have made. The average fan might be less rational, b ut they dont run the club, And that approach took us from a stable Premier League club into the mess we've been in for the last 6 years. 'We're Stoke City'- hardly a ringing endorsement is it? It did also take us from a non-entity to Europe as well.
|
|
|
Post by mowlee on Feb 5, 2022 13:12:52 GMT
so why did we let Gareth Jennings go To take up the role of head of technical developments at FIFA. A step up in his career I would think you would accept? in life u realise how sad it is.. it’s all about money.. people move jobs for more money.. so yeah a step up
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Feb 5, 2022 13:14:54 GMT
Do you want the supporters to chant 'we're Port Vale' instead? You're welcome to start that one in our next game... I didn't say that did I 😀 It's just that the 'We're Stoke City' thing seemed like we have a unique way of doing things which has brought a history of success, which isn't really the case. In fact the parochial mindset of our owners has probably hamstrung us if anything. You might be right. But if the owners have their way of doing things, they're probably not going to change on a whim. If going down or not going up is the result of that, then so be it. The ordinary fan might like more progressive owners, but we only have to look at any number of our neighbours to see how badly those clubs have fared with owners that didn't really commit themselves like ours have. I think 'we're Stoke City' has the ring of a unique way of doing things that no other club can match. There's just other forms of achievement than mere titles.
|
|
|
Post by TrentValePotter96 on Feb 5, 2022 13:21:38 GMT
Its took years to sort out because the board/ownership has say there during years of rubbish and decline. It.was never gonna change overnight.
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Feb 5, 2022 13:37:18 GMT
Of course O'Neill can't get every signing right, but it would nice if he got a few right. Players signed by Hughes that are still in and around the first team are Souttar, Tymon, Bursik, and Campbell, none of whom were academy players but were signed for a fee. Funny thing: I say nothing about historians but you twist my words into saying that. I'm not the one who started going back in history. You did. Don't bother writing me back. I have no time for your manipulations, which seem to be the one thing you know how to do well. They were signed in the Hughes era but I doubt very much whether they were Hughes signings as they were signed for the academy. They were signed for a fee because all players u21 have to be paid for. I believe Tymon and Campbell were about £1.5 million, Souttar £250000. Yes and no. Hughes didn't find them on a scouting mission and he didn't personally oversee their training at first. But he did give debuts to both Campbell and Tymon. None of them were signed for the academy, because then we would have had to sign them by the age of 15 or earlier. They eventually landed in the u23s, but that's different, technically speaking. I believe Tymon - and Edwards on the right - were among the reasons that Hughes wanted us to be set up with wingbacks. He's often been criticised for playing with wingbacks when he didn't have any, and that's wrong. He played 3-5-2/3-4-3 with Josh and Tom in preseason. But then the League started and Hughes could see they weren't ready yet. So he played with Diouf and Pieters instead, they might have been "ready" but they weren't wingbacks. It's a little ironic that Tymon is now playing so well going forward as a wingback. But he's still not too great at defending. .
|
|
|
Post by mowlee on Feb 5, 2022 13:46:20 GMT
Its took years to sort out because the board/ownership has say there during years of rubbish and decline. It.was never gonna change overnight. it’s still not working now.. it’s never worked for us
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Feb 5, 2022 14:16:45 GMT
He hasn't rbought a single player through from the club academy! He has brought a number of players through from other clubs' academies...Citeh's especially. Then he manages to convince people like femark and many others that he's great for the club's academy. DWP was ours for a year before he played senior football. Porter, Forrester, Norton and Taylor have all made Stoke debuts under MON and have since been sent on loans to build match day experience. What constitutes “our academy player”? Norton hasn’t been here for long, but he’s not featured for others prior to Stoke. It’s worth noting that our better academy players are being loaned to league 2 and the conference not lowly placed Championship teams. Perhaps there’s a reason why they aren’t being selected for our first team? I think loans are a mistake. Players are much better off on the bench and getting minutes here, preparing for the team they should be playing in. At least they would be if they did get minutes but often they don't. Unless your manager on loan is named Joey Burton, you're more likely to regress playing a style of football that's illfitting for what is played here. I also think loans are a bad indicator for what an academy product stands for. We should know enough about them already. To be an academy player you have to be specifically signed for the academy by the age of 15 or earlier. A lot of Oatcake folks keep using the Academy and the u23s synonymously, but it's wrong. So DWP, who signed at 19, and Norton, who signed at 18, are not current or former academy players at this club. DWP was with Citeh's and Norton, I presume, was with So'ton's academy, although I haven't checked to see his longer history. I'm not at all impressed with MON's record of using academy players. Porter hasn't played in the league, but only in early Caraboa ties. Neither Forrester or Taylor played because it was part of a plan, but because MON was short of replacements for injured and suspended players. They've only played the one time. I didn't see Taylor's debut, but I thought Forrester did well, and I wasn't alone, he was named MotM. But neither player has become part of the first team's matchday squads (when they weren't out on loans instead). DWP was ready to play for a year, but didn't. I saw him often for the u23s. but having seen him now in the cup and league, I think he was held back too long (and others too). We could have benefitted from his skill and eye for goal; instead we were forced to have to look at Brown's limited skills and often failure to hit target, though he is our topscorer. If DWP had played that amount of games, I believe he would have already have scored double double figures and ensured we had at least 10 more pts than we have, and if we had that, the world would look much better for Stoke supporters. Wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 5, 2022 15:08:43 GMT
DWP was ours for a year before he played senior football. Porter, Forrester, Norton and Taylor have all made Stoke debuts under MON and have since been sent on loans to build match day experience. What constitutes “our academy player”? Norton hasn’t been here for long, but he’s not featured for others prior to Stoke. It’s worth noting that our better academy players are being loaned to league 2 and the conference not lowly placed Championship teams. Perhaps there’s a reason why they aren’t being selected for our first team? I think loans are a mistake. Players are much better off on the bench and getting minutes here, preparing for the team they should be playing in. At least they would be if they did get minutes but often they don't. Unless your manager on loan is named Joey Burton, you're more likely to regress playing a style of football that's illfitting for what is played here. I also think loans are a bad indicator for what an academy product stands for. We should know enough about them already. To be an academy player you have to be specifically signed for the academy by the age of 15 or earlier. A lot of Oatcake folks keep using the Academy and the u23s synonymously, but it's wrong. So DWP, who signed at 19, and Norton, who signed at 18, are not current or former academy players at this club. DWP was with Citeh's and Norton, I presume, was with So'ton's academy, although I haven't checked to see his longer history. I'm not at all impressed with MON's record of using academy players. Porter hasn't played in the league, but only in early Caraboa ties. Neither Forrester or Taylor played because it was part of a plan, but because MON was short of replacements for injured and suspended players. They've only played the one time. I didn't see Taylor's debut, but I thought Forrester did well, and I wasn't alone, he was named MotM. But neither player has become part of the first team's matchday squads (when they weren't out on loans instead). DWP was ready to play for a year, but didn't. I saw him often for the u23s. but having seen him now in the cup and league, I think he was held back too long (and others too). We could have benefitted from his skill and eye for goal; instead we were forced to have to look at Brown's limited skills and often failure to hit target, though he is our topscorer. If DWP had played that amount of games, I believe he would have already have scored double double figures and ensured we had at least 10 more pts than we have, and if we had that, the world would look much better for Stoke supporters. Wouldn't it? Alright I concede that I am using academy loosely to mean our young players but whatever they were they were considered not ready when they came in. Someone above mentions Tymon coming straight in but not being ready. I would argue that those games he did play did more harm than good as his confidence was shot and it put his career back two years. Do you really think that we play no part in the development of these players because they are not part of our academy? You think they just come in and hang around waiting for a chance without any coaching? I don't think it's understood what a big jump it is from U23 to first team. For a while Tyrese seemed completely out of his depth and unlikely to succeed here. There was even talk of him dropping down to Shrewsbury permanently after his loan there. I'm not sure I understand how DWP has been held back. There are not many players in the Championship who are under 20. He obviously doesn't feel held back having just signed a new contract here. He also joined our club after Brown so your argument falls apart a bit. Which of our academy players would you argue should have stayed here and played for us? I haven't noticed any of them having huge success apart from perhaps Taylor but he technically isn't our academy player by your definition. As for loans I can see your point if take the place of one of our young players. You could possibly say THB has taken the place of Taylor but I would argue he's better staying where he is doing well this season than coming in here and possibly having his confidence shattered. I also hadn't thought of the point MON made about young players coming from top academies like Man City and Villa. He said it gave a chance to our young players to work in quite a large group of youngsters and gives them a great incentive to try to match players who are expected to become Premier players. Wright Phillips for example needs to match JPB.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Feb 5, 2022 15:59:09 GMT
Every manager gets some signings wrong. O'Neill has recognised a mistake and fixed quickly and with minimal loss. Expecting a manager to get every signing right is nonsense - no-one does. Other than Allen name a Hughes signing who is still in and around the squad? You can't credit Hughes for bringing in academy players as the first team manager has little input in those decisions and the only youngster's Hughes bloodied as far as I recall were Edwards and N'Goy - neither of whom have made it. I started watching Stoke in the Waddington era - and you are right about him bringing on some good youngsters but going back 50 years does little to support your argument that we have a history of bringing on youngsters - unless you mean the last time we did it is now a matter for historians. Of course O'Neill can't get every signing right, but it would nice if he got a few right. Players signed by Hughes that are still in and around the first team are Souttar, Tymon, Bursik, and Campbell, none of whom were academy players but were signed for a fee. Funny thing: I say nothing about historians but you twist my words into saying that. I'm not the one who started going back in history. You did. Don't bother writing me back. I have no time for your manipulations, which seem to be the one thing you know how to do well. Hughes signed Wimmer, Berahino and Imbula for around £50 million, around £1 million a game, plus £7m on Zouma, £5m signing fee for Choupo and Jesé’s loan. That is where our financial struggles started. MON has spent next to nothing while sorting out the mess he inherited. In terms of value for money MON is light years ahead
|
|
|
Post by dave1 on Feb 5, 2022 16:25:18 GMT
FA cup final??
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Feb 5, 2022 16:59:36 GMT
We’re the famous Stoke City and we’re going to….
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Feb 5, 2022 17:02:17 GMT
Of course O'Neill can't get every signing right, but it would nice if he got a few right. Players signed by Hughes that are still in and around the first team are Souttar, Tymon, Bursik, and Campbell, none of whom were academy players but were signed for a fee. Funny thing: I say nothing about historians but you twist my words into saying that. I'm not the one who started going back in history. You did. Don't bother writing me back. I have no time for your manipulations, which seem to be the one thing you know how to do well. Hughes signed Wimmer, Berahino and Imbula for around £50 million, around £1 million a game, plus £7m on Zouma, £5m signing fee for Choupo and Jesé’s loan. That is where our financial struggles started. MON has spent next to nothing while sorting out the mess he inherited. In terms of value for money MON is light years ahead You've jumped into a discussion which has nothing to do with what you are saying. But you can find plenty of anti-Hughes threads on here, so go there.
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Feb 5, 2022 17:09:42 GMT
I think loans are a mistake. Players are much better off on the bench and getting minutes here, preparing for the team they should be playing in. At least they would be if they did get minutes but often they don't. Unless your manager on loan is named Joey Burton, you're more likely to regress playing a style of football that's illfitting for what is played here. I also think loans are a bad indicator for what an academy product stands for. We should know enough about them already. To be an academy player you have to be specifically signed for the academy by the age of 15 or earlier. A lot of Oatcake folks keep using the Academy and the u23s synonymously, but it's wrong. So DWP, who signed at 19, and Norton, who signed at 18, are not current or former academy players at this club. DWP was with Citeh's and Norton, I presume, was with So'ton's academy, although I haven't checked to see his longer history. I'm not at all impressed with MON's record of using academy players. Porter hasn't played in the league, but only in early Caraboa ties. Neither Forrester or Taylor played because it was part of a plan, but because MON was short of replacements for injured and suspended players. They've only played the one time. I didn't see Taylor's debut, but I thought Forrester did well, and I wasn't alone, he was named MotM. But neither player has become part of the first team's matchday squads (when they weren't out on loans instead). DWP was ready to play for a year, but didn't. I saw him often for the u23s. but having seen him now in the cup and league, I think he was held back too long (and others too). We could have benefitted from his skill and eye for goal; instead we were forced to have to look at Brown's limited skills and often failure to hit target, though he is our topscorer. If DWP had played that amount of games, I believe he would have already have scored double double figures and ensured we had at least 10 more pts than we have, and if we had that, the world would look much better for Stoke supporters. Wouldn't it? Alright I concede that I am using academy loosely to mean our young players but whatever they were they were considered not ready when they came in. Someone above mentions Tymon coming straight in but not being ready. I would argue that those games he did play did more harm than good as his confidence was shot and it put his career back two years. Do you really think that we play no part in the development of these players because they are not part of our academy? You think they just come in and hang around waiting for a chance without any coaching? I don't think it's understood what a big jump it is from U23 to first team. For a while Tyrese seemed completely out of his depth and unlikely to succeed here. There was even talk of him dropping down to Shrewsbury permanently after his loan there. I'm not sure I understand how DWP has been held back. There are not many players in the Championship who are under 20. He obviously doesn't feel held back having just signed a new contract here. He also joined our club after Brown so your argument falls apart a bit. Which of our academy players would you argue should have stayed here and played for us? I haven't noticed any of them having huge success apart from perhaps Taylor but he technically isn't our academy player by your definition. As for loans I can see your point if take the place of one of our young players. You could possibly say THB has taken the place of Taylor but I would argue he's better staying where he is doing well this season than coming in here and possibly having his confidence shattered. I also hadn't thought of the point MON made about young players coming from top academies like Man City and Villa. He said it gave a chance to our young players to work in quite a large group of youngsters and gives them a great incentive to try to match players who are expected to become Premier players. Wright Phillips for example needs to match JPB. The someone you refer to...is me. I'm not going into a discussion with myself...
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Feb 5, 2022 17:22:09 GMT
Hughes signed Wimmer, Berahino and Imbula for around £50 million, around £1 million a game, plus £7m on Zouma, £5m signing fee for Choupo and Jesé’s loan. That is where our financial struggles started. MON has spent next to nothing while sorting out the mess he inherited. In terms of value for money MON is light years ahead You've jumped into a discussion which has nothing to do with what you are saying. But you can find plenty of anti-Hughes threads on here, so go there. I was in this discussion way before you joined if you care to read it you will learn a great deal about the economics and finance of football. (My book on the subject is available on Amazon, let me know if you would like a link). I was trying to help you by pointing out how wrong your analysis of MON’s transfer business was as you failed to take account of the financial constraints he is operating under while your citing of young players promoted by Mark Hughes failed to acknowledge the financial costs of that period. MON has shipped out 30 players, improved the quality and culture of the squad while making a £7m profit (even his errors like Surridge have been managed well) and embedded young players in the squad. It’s an exceptional piece of all round management
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Feb 5, 2022 18:37:29 GMT
Alright I concede that I am using academy loosely to mean our young players but whatever they were they were considered not ready when they came in. Someone above mentions Tymon coming straight in but not being ready. I would argue that those games he did play did more harm than good as his confidence was shot and it put his career back two years. Do you really think that we play no part in the development of these players because they are not part of our academy? You think they just come in and hang around waiting for a chance without any coaching? I don't think it's understood what a big jump it is from U23 to first team. For a while Tyrese seemed completely out of his depth and unlikely to succeed here. There was even talk of him dropping down to Shrewsbury permanently after his loan there. I'm not sure I understand how DWP has been held back. There are not many players in the Championship who are under 20. He obviously doesn't feel held back having just signed a new contract here. He also joined our club after Brown so your argument falls apart a bit. Which of our academy players would you argue should have stayed here and played for us? I haven't noticed any of them having huge success apart from perhaps Taylor but he technically isn't our academy player by your definition. As for loans I can see your point if take the place of one of our young players. You could possibly say THB has taken the place of Taylor but I would argue he's better staying where he is doing well this season than coming in here and possibly having his confidence shattered. I also hadn't thought of the point MON made about young players coming from top academies like Man City and Villa. He said it gave a chance to our young players to work in quite a large group of youngsters and gives them a great incentive to try to match players who are expected to become Premier players. Wright Phillips for example needs to match JPB. The someone you refer to...is me. I'm not going into a discussion with myself... You wouldn't be because I make several other points which you haven't answered and argued against you that MON has brought on our young players and nursed Tymon into being one of our more important players from the low ebb he was at when MON arrived. I assume you have no answer to my reasons why I think MON has had a positive influence on our young players and even our academy. You argue pedantic about what constitutes an academy player but can't argue why you think MON has not progressed our young players.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Feb 5, 2022 18:47:56 GMT
They were signed in the Hughes era but I doubt very much whether they were Hughes signings as they were signed for the academy. They were signed for a fee because all players u21 have to be paid for. I believe Tymon and Campbell were about £1.5 million, Souttar £250000. who were they signed by if they weren’t signed by hughes Campbell was a Cartwright signing I think.
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Feb 5, 2022 19:17:30 GMT
You've jumped into a discussion which has nothing to do with what you are saying. But you can find plenty of anti-Hughes threads on here, so go there. I was in this discussion way before you joined if you care to read it you will learn a great deal about the economics and finance of football. (My book on the subject is available on Amazon, let me know if you would like a link). I was trying to help you by pointing out how wrong your analysis of MON’s transfer business was as you failed to take account of the financial constraints he is operating under while your citing of young players promoted by Mark Hughes failed to acknowledge the financial costs of that period. MON has shipped out 30 players, improved the quality and culture of the squad while making a £7m profit (even his errors like Surridge have been managed well) and embedded young players in the squad. It’s an exceptional piece of all round management Thank you but no thank you to your perverse help. You entered a discussion between two persons inside the thread, and you have no place in it, because you don't understand what it's about. and the history between those two persons. It was actually at a point where I tried to shut it down, so I'm not exactly overjoyed that you re-open it. The comparison between Hughes in his spending prime and O'Neill under financial constraints is completely misguided. We don't know what would happen if O'Neill had £100M in his hands and the board wasn't interfering. What we do know is the business Hughes conducted when he too was under financial constraints at the start of his watch here. he too had a lot of deadwood to get rid of. The players that needed shifting were promotion and cup final heroes , whereas the players O'Neill has paid to leave were some nobody wanted, least of all us. The inexpensive signings Hughes made at first were excellent and remain club heroes to this day, years after they left: Muniesa, Bojan, even Arnie cost relatively little. That's the comparison we can draw between Hughes and O'Neill, because we know the facts. We know that Hughes' early signings gave Stoke a very different profile than we'd had in the years before. We don't really know the same about O'Neill yet. There's some promising signs, but in 2 years he's yet to make a defining signing that has done for Stoke what he was hired to do. It may come, but the players that are the backbone of his team were all signed under Hughes' watch: Allen, Souttar, Bursik, Tymon, and Campbell, except Powell who was signed by Jones. Smith and Clucas were signed by Rowett, but their influence may be waning. Then later but only then, he was given "a free account" of the Coates finances, and he completely lost the plot. You don't have to educate me on Imbula et al. There's not a Stoke fan who doesn't know the sordid details and the consequences of that second Hughes period. In another thread I'm arguing that we must keep faith with O'Neill at at all costs, as long as he continues taking Stoke forwards. I feel as though you're pushing me into a corner where my viewpoint would be the exact opposite. I'm not having that.
|
|
|
Post by jokker on Feb 5, 2022 19:20:42 GMT
who were they signed by if they weren’t signed by hughes Campbell was a Cartwright signing I think. Cartwright was never manager at Stoke, but he was at Leek Town...so whatever scouting he did, it was still a Hughes signing.
|
|
|
Post by adamsson on Feb 5, 2022 19:48:18 GMT
5th round of the FA Cup
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Feb 6, 2022 9:50:30 GMT
And that approach took us from a stable Premier League club into the mess we've been in for the last 6 years. 'We're Stoke City'- hardly a ringing endorsement is it? It did also take us from a non-entity to Europe as well. Well it took us to a Cup Final (about bloody time!) and Europe by default as we lost to the champions. Millwall reached Europe via a similar route in the 2000s.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 6, 2022 12:56:29 GMT
I was in this discussion way before you joined if you care to read it you will learn a great deal about the economics and finance of football. (My book on the subject is available on Amazon, let me know if you would like a link). I was trying to help you by pointing out how wrong your analysis of MON’s transfer business was as you failed to take account of the financial constraints he is operating under while your citing of young players promoted by Mark Hughes failed to acknowledge the financial costs of that period. MON has shipped out 30 players, improved the quality and culture of the squad while making a £7m profit (even his errors like Surridge have been managed well) and embedded young players in the squad. It’s an exceptional piece of all round management Thank you but no thank you to your perverse help. You entered a discussion between two persons inside the thread, and you have no place in it, because you don't understand what it's about. and the histo misguided. We don't know what would happen if O'Neill had £100M in his hands and the board wasn't interfering. What we do know is the business Hughes conducted when he too was under financial constraints at the start of his watch here. he too had a lot of deadwood to get rid of. The players that needed shifting were promotion and cup final heroes , whereas the players O'Neill has paid to leave were some nobody wanted, least of all us. The inexpensive signings Hughes made at first were excellent and remain club heroes to this day, years after they left: Muniesa, Bojan, even Arnie cost relatively little. That's the comparison we can draw between Hughes and O'Neill, because we know the facts. We know that Hughes' early signings gave Stoke a very different profile than we'd had in the years before. We don't really know the same about O'Neill yet. There's some promising signs, but in 2 years he's yet to make a defining signing that has done for Stoke what he was hired to do. It may come, but the players that are the backbone of his team were all signed under Hughes' watch: Allen, Souttar, Bursik, Tymon, and Campbell, except Powell who was signed by Jones. Smith and Clucas were signed by Rowett, but their influence may be waning. Then later but only then, he was given "a free account" of the Coates finances, and he completely lost the plot. You don't have to educate me on Imbula et al. There's not a Stoke fan who doesn't know the sordid details and the consequences of that second Hughes period. In another thread I'm arguing that we must keep faith with O'Neill at at all costs, as long as he continues taking Stoke forwards. I feel as though you're pushing me into a corner where my viewpoint would be the exact opposite. I'm not having that. If you want to join in a message board be prepared to get challenged by anyone - it isn't a private conversation. And as to trying to shut down an argument because you didn't like what was being said - who made you the arbiter of what can and can't be said on here?
|
|