|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 4, 2014 16:16:02 GMT
Absolute transformation now he has been given a great mix of responsibility and freedom.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 4, 2014 16:14:13 GMT
now after todays results? You have your modelling clay out for the Brucie statue to commemorate first FA Cup final and Euro default qualification don't you?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 3, 2014 19:27:40 GMT
Thank fook none of em managed it in that case! He'll probably score 60 goals for Palace next season (Either that or he'll retire) Not if Zamora is available he won't!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 3, 2014 19:20:58 GMT
A manager before them wanted to do likewise. Thank goodness neither succeeded. To be fair the current manager also wanted him and made enquiries. Talk of "he chose Fulham and London" makes it appear he did consider us on football grounds at least. Thank fook none of em managed it in that case!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 3, 2014 19:17:50 GMT
Me too.
He is always going to look better in a situation where he hasn't had to flog himself to death game after game after game chasing hoofed balls aimed in his general direction whilst also being expected to cover the centre halves.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 3, 2014 19:13:39 GMT
This is the Darren Bent that a selection of fans wanted to break the bank for in summer, yes? ;D A manager before them wanted to do likewise. Thank goodness neither succeeded.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 2, 2014 15:49:30 GMT
The people responsible for contracts and wages are still here. True. But happily no one can go over their heads anymore. Denise has seen to that.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 27, 2014 11:58:28 GMT
A player shouldn't have to go down to get a penalty if its a foul just like a cricketer shouldn't have to appeal for an LBW but unless they do they tend not to be given. If you don't appeal in cricket the umpire can't give a decision.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 27, 2014 11:52:49 GMT
Right explain the rules here to me then lads.
If Wickham goes on and scores there, does Cala ultimately NOT get sent off because he didn't prevent a goal scoring opportunity?
He would have stayed on as he didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity. You answered it yourself Paul. It's why there is an element of stupidity in deliberately fouling a forward in that position.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 27, 2014 11:50:43 GMT
Always thought he was a liability. Flashy shot stopper but Peter Fox on the cross balls and general keeping.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 27, 2014 11:49:16 GMT
Dowd is a Stokie! Hates Arsenal. Hates Cardiff.
Great decision mind.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 27, 2014 9:19:51 GMT
Hodgson is doing what every England manager does which is be led by media. As soon as he fucks it up they'll slaughter him. How exactly is he led by the media?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 26, 2014 18:48:44 GMT
Yes you will never catch a Bosnian, Serbian a Croat or anyone from that region diving or cheating! What a great choice!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 26, 2014 10:22:21 GMT
You can do one with your blarting about having your opinion suppressed as well. What you are not handling very well here is that you are being challenged every time you make something up to try and make it fit the story you have been peddling since the summer. I recall you denounced the last two transfer windows as a complete and utter failure and derided me for suggesting they were sound in the context of the obvious policy shift adopted since Crouchgate (the player who cost £16m and came with a free bonus Palcios). I'm sure that with the benefit of hindsight you will now accept that you called that wrong? I just don't understand how anyone with Stoke City at heart cannot be at least be prepared to give a sensible and needed structure the opportunity to succeed and instead try to rubbish individuals they know nothing about with made up briefs and imaginary targets as their evidence. WHAT HAVE I MADE UP? The only thing made up on this thread is your utter Crouch bollocks. Your Scholes/Cartwright apologist act is quite vomit inducing actually. Im not defending any individuals. I am trying to explain a process that you are trying to twist with made up targets and measures for individuals that you are trying to pass off as fact. The more you make up to try and make things fit the dafter it is looking. You can call my Crouch reference bollocks as much as you like but it won't change the fact that it was the very thing that changed everything. That's a pretty big set of bollocks isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 26, 2014 10:07:42 GMT
You don't really know where the problem is. Scholes? Cartwright? Denise? Peter? All of them? None of us are party to the internal recruitment at the club. If people weren't doing what Denise and Peter expected, they'd be out by now surely? You can have an opinion, but you're guessing at where the blame - if any - should be apportioned. What's this got to do with TP FFS? People had very clear view on the transfer policy under the ex manager, now it's all 'well you don't really know what's going on....' Strange that. You can do one with your blarting about having your opinion suppressed as well. What you are not handling very well here is that you are being challenged every time you make something up to try and make it fit the story you have been peddling since the summer. I recall you denounced the last two transfer windows as a complete and utter failure and derided me for suggesting they were sound in the context of the obvious policy shift adopted since Crouchgate (the player who cost £16m and came with a free bonus Palcios). I'm sure that with the benefit of hindsight you will now accept that you called that wrong? I just don't understand how anyone with Stoke City at heart cannot be at least be prepared to give a sensible and needed structure the opportunity to succeed and instead try to rubbish individuals they know nothing about with made up briefs and imaginary targets as their evidence.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 26, 2014 9:20:23 GMT
Absolutely and totally wrong. If you think that is the measure of success and the way the club is operating now then we may as well start erecting the ducking stools and build the bonfires right now. You are setting measures that allow you to scream failure but not ones that even begin to match our transfer policy. You don't have to be a genius or have some sort of bullshit inside knowledge to work out what has changed. You just have to look and listen. I do look and listen. 18 months Cartwright has been here with a brief to sign a striker. He has failed. The end. You certainly have a different way of judging failure depending on the personality involved old fruit don't you! Cartwright a personal friend? I'm not sure if I would recognise him if I saw him in a Pizza Hut. Is your argument getting a bit desperate? Im not the one trying to judge personalities here. Im talking about processes and policies. You are making up things about individuals and making statement about their brief that you could not possibly know. On the basis of your made up brief you are then judging them a failure. Im tempted to say, you just couldn't make it up but it seems you can. And you can't half repeat it either! The only thing I can't fathom is why?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 26, 2014 9:10:41 GMT
Momo, reading what Mark says on this thread it certainly seems that he thinks Cartwright has done a decent job since he was appointed. Now, I don't always agree with Mark (and he is well aware of that) but he certainly is much closer to knowing about the internal workings of our club than most fans - certainly more than most of the posters on this thread. And in this case the evidence I see suggests he is probably right. Since Cartwright arrived the club does seem to be getting closer to Peter Coates brief of signing a bigger number of youngish players with potential and who will have a resale value if/when they move on. Since we got promoted our record of producing income from player sales is frankly shocking - what is it - £8 million generated from player sales in six years. About half the Championship clubs will have better records than that. This years signings of Muniesa, Arnie, Pieters and Ireland look to have potential resale value should we ever move them on - and they have been signed for bugger all in terms of transfer fees. That doesn't preclude older players, of course. Odemwingie and our persuit of Olic show that we are not setting ourselves up as a kindergarten. If Mark thinks Cartwright has been a contributor to this policy then I tend to believe him. I could just about buy that the longer term policy is in safe hands forny but the short term identification of targets moving to closure of deal has not improved a jot under this head of recruitment's tenure. 18 months and still no striker. There is simply no defending that. No striker? We have got one who cost £16million on our hands!!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 26, 2014 9:07:51 GMT
After the past three windows and the current Premier League bounty, if we do net get at least £20M - £25M spend out of the door this summer, someone is doing their job very, very badly......... or fans are being taken for a ride Absolutely and totally wrong. If you think that is the measure of success and the way the club is operating now then we may as well start erecting the ducking stools and build the bonfires right now. You are setting measures that allow you to scream failure but not ones that even begin to match our transfer policy. You don't have to be a genius or have some sort of bullshit inside knowledge to work out what has changed. You just have to look and listen.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 26, 2014 8:56:11 GMT
As someone as wisely said on this thread, if you repeat shit often enough it becomes accepted wisdom. How many times has this particular piece of shit been put into its proper context for you and yet here we are again? You have agitated so often on this subject (on the basis that you actually believe that other forces than St Peter dismissed Pulis) that some less bright sparks have swallowed some of the bollocks hook line and sinker. One individual who has not a clue about how long Beswicks have been involved with the club and what they have done for the club to get players in and the donkey work involved in transfers sorted has stated he doesn't trust them! On what basis? In the Pulis days we were completely reliant on them. They are the clubs friend not the enemy but unfortunately you and others have chosen to paint them otherwise based on a complete crock of shit about Pulis (who incidentally will undoubtedly have them involved at Palace). Isn't it time to actually appreciate your football club is now big enough to have a professional approach to recruitment of players at all levels rather than relying on Harry Redknapps cast offs? We suddenly seem to be finding better, younger players at a fraction of the cost. That will surely increase over time. Is that not good news? Simple question. Do you think that Cartwright has done a good job since he joined the club? Answer that then we might see some 'agendas' and 'less than bright sparks' I wouldn't pretend to be in a position to judge if an individual has done a good job. What we will be able to judge over time is if the process is working well. The basis on which the best clubs in the world operate is that they have good processes that operate regardless of say, who the manager is. That applies to areas of the club such as player recruitment and youth development. The club should have a vision of what it wants to be and stay consistent to that vision. Stoke as one of the smaller Premier League clubs cannot operate as they have in the last few years - we all know that. We have to buy wisely and develop some of our own. Hopefully the processes and people have been put into place that make this happen successfully. Time will tell and that doesn't mean spending shed loads in the summer!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 26, 2014 8:41:44 GMT
I'd certainly rather the plump pizza eating Cartwright directing affairs than Hughes's seedy agent but he was definitely introduced - and I quote - as the 'head of the recruitment department' and in those simple five words he has clearly failed so far. As someone as wisely said on this thread, if you repeat shit often enough it becomes accepted wisdom. How many times has this particular piece of shit been put into its proper context for you and yet here we are again? You have agitated so often on this subject (on the basis that you actually believe that other forces than St Peter dismissed Pulis) that some less bright sparks have swallowed some of the bollocks hook line and sinker. One individual who has not a clue about how long Beswicks have been involved with the club and what they have done for the club to get players in and the donkey work involved in transfers sorted has stated he doesn't trust them! On what basis? In the Pulis days we were completely reliant on them. They are the clubs friend not the enemy but unfortunately you and others have chosen to paint them otherwise based on a complete crock of shit about Pulis (who incidentally will undoubtedly have them involved at Palace). Isn't it time to actually appreciate your football club is now big enough to have a professional approach to recruitment of players at all levels rather than relying on Harry Redknapps cast offs? We suddenly seem to be finding better, younger players at a fraction of the cost. That will surely increase over time. Is that not good news?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 25, 2014 20:27:48 GMT
Wonder if he's an each way punter?. I thought you were more of a "bonus" ball man?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 25, 2014 18:18:51 GMT
I don't know what he does to be honest. No doubt Wolstanton will tell me???? And no doubt you and others will fail to understand again??? I won't bother because people need a scapegoat and why not? There are still people who believe its down to Cartwright if we sign a player we have targeted or not. Look at this thread. It's more fun to ramble on about pizzas!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 25, 2014 11:57:06 GMT
Pleased beyond expectations.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 25, 2014 11:54:00 GMT
Some people tend to forget we were promoted with an average championship side that drastically needed investment, we couldn’t sell anyone at the time cause they were worth bugger all so a massive intake of players was needed, add to that players didn’t really want to know when Stoke came calling so we were realistically left with the scraps that other premiership teams didn’t want who we had to pay big prices and big wages to entice them to come here, quite a few of them failed to make any impact and had hardly any sell on value which kind of distorts the whole “transfer league table”. If we’d have started off with even a hint of a premiership team (not even squad) it might have been different. On balance I think we’ve done pretty well out of Sir Peters investment and come to think of it so has Sir Peter. Gouranga. Fine but why is it that every other club promoted since 2008 are below us in the spend table - some way, way off spending anywhere near as much? I'm going to take some persuading that we came up with a much more inferior squad than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 24, 2014 20:34:05 GMT
Are admin allowed to use words like ***t ? It is always allowed when used in the same sentence as Wolves
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 24, 2014 13:38:59 GMT
Scholes has never managed to heroically relegate Wolves down to the third division either.
Scholes is indeed a useless cunt.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 24, 2014 13:32:03 GMT
And why does he play for one of the top clubs who compete at the highest level including Champions League and Ryan doesn't? It is possibly the same reason that Cahill plays for England and Ryan doesn't. I see we have the same old horseshit claiming it is all about Hodgson. It isn't. Add to the list Ferguson and every other manager of our top clubs. Ryan is perfect for Stoke City in the way Denis Smith was years ago. Unless he can add to his all round game then he will remain as uncapped as Denis and will remain at Stoke.
Who knows why Ryan hasn't moved to one of the top clubs. Given what Alex Ferguson said of him I'm surprised Man U didn't come back for him - or maybe Ryan is one of those strange creatures - who is actually happy at a smaller club, being a big fish in a small pond?
Cahill has had a decent season but he's been a liability defensively for both Chelsea and England prior to that - but still got picked.
You're not trying to imply that Smalling is a better defender than Ryan then? And Jones? And Caulker?
What exactly does Ryan need to add to his all round game? 90 year passes? I'm not trying to imply anything other than good judges consider Cahill a better bet for the very top class football than Ryan. I tend to agree but would add that I would not swap Ryan for any of the England contenders in terms of Stoke City. He fits us like a glove in the same way that Denis did. I would differ with you in your view that Ryan stays at Stoke because he likes being a big fish in a smaller pond. I tend to think that if one of the really top clubs came in for him he would go and Stoke would not stand in his way. I would suggest that Ryan needs to be a hell of a lot more comfortable on the ball than he is (although he has improved this term) and to modify his way of defending (successful as it is with Stoke in the Premier League). I suspect (like Denis before him) that in international competition forwards would be rubbing their hands with glee at the number of fouls and penalties they would be winning if Ryan played as he does for Stoke. I wonder how long he would stay on the pitch. That would be my concern. International and European football won't change for Ryan believe me. He would have to adapt. I'm not sure he could.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 24, 2014 12:43:58 GMT
There will be audible groans of disappointment from within the Supporters Council inner sanctum, Merk when they realise that you are unlikely to fulfil their hope that you would stand as the representative of "slightly overweight supporters who sit on Row 28 of Block 29, Seddon Stand with a preference for Nike trainers and grey waterproof jackets"! The bloke who represents the "back row of the Q Railings Upper Deck supporters who have an uninterrupted view of the directors box but suffer with a cheese allergy and slightly greying hair", will just have to continue to cover that role as well as his own. Well Mark, that happens to be me you are talking about, the SC member for Q Railing Upper. I don't get to post on here much, frankly I don't have time, but I read the Oatie website 3 or 4 times a week. I have followed this thread for a few days and nothing much surprises me, but here is my take on the SC. - the SC is well chaired by Angela with Malcolm's support. The vast majority of the SC are diehard Stoke fans, but the nature of it's make-up is that members represent different sections of the fan base, so we have members from the Family stand, from disabled section, from all areas of the ground. The fact that issues like flags, catering provision in the hospitality areas, the content of Stoke City player etc get raised is a function of the disparate nature of the SC members and their respective interests and match day bugbears. My own interest is in ticketing for exiles, as I have been one for 35 years since I left S-o-T.....not with regard to my own issues with tickets as I am a season ticket holder and Platinum member , but for friends and relations who are exiles.. Personally for instance I feel unable to comment on the parking problems as I always park at Trentham for home matches and walk along the canal to the Brit, and herein lies the latent problem with the way any supporters' body can be expected to perform: there will be very few issues where all members are equally engaged, interested or passionate in their opinions. Certainly they will not appear to be presenting a united front on every single issue. - the Club has not got its relationship with the SC right, and the impression remains that it is going through the motions a bit or at best in a quandary as to the role of the SC in its wider communications strategy to the fan base. It would help greatly if certain members of staff stop calling fans "customers", but that may change a bit for the better with the change in management of the commercial team. - I believe like most things in life that cock-up not conspiracy is the explanation for most things that go wrong at the club. Obviously Tony Scholes is not everyone's cup of tea...but personally I think Stoke are better with him there than with someone like Jez Moxey. He was honest enough to admit to the SC that buying tickets initially with the new membership card was a nightmare. - the SC is conscious that better communication to the fan base is required, but this will always perhaps have to be in conjunction with the Club otherwise the Club will just withhold info from the SC for fear of scuppering their own communications plans. The season ticket announcement for early bird sales this year just shows the deficiencies of the Club's approach: the SC pressed for a freeze on prices , as you would all expect us to do, but the Club did not consult us on withdrawing the Quarterly payment option even though they asked for our views on the monthly DD option which we strongly supported. - for me the future is about more fan consultation via the Oatcake site and other forums but we have to avoid the problem of those shouting loudest dominating every issue. To be honest folks, I don't go around in real life calling people cunts, fuckwits, wankstains, dickheads etc so whilst it doesn't bother me that much being called such online I don't take such emotion as seriously as a well argued case (and there have been many well argued points in this thread) - like most of you, I love this club, it is my main interest in life, I've been to 78 league grounds following Stoke over the years. As Angela said somewhere above, we are all on the same side. Happy to have a beer with any of you to talk things over. I sit block 2, row 3, seat 49 Hi Surrey, No it didn't happen to be you or anybody at all. It was meant to be light-hearted and as I explained it was a hangover from the Fans Forum days. I could have randomly mentioned the third row from the front of the Boothen End. Sorry to have caused you to assume it was directed at you but be assured the mention of the Q Railings was completely random as I said. I don't even know the exact constitutions of the current supporter liaison, let alone be specific about one of them. On to your specific points. I would endorse your view of the abilities of Ange and Malcolm. Much of the problems the Fans Forum ran into was down to the quality of some (by no means all) of the representation. That will not be an issue currently. I also agree entirely with your Moxey/Scholes comparison; I doubt many would argue otherwise. Im not so convinced that Mr Scholes is as prone to cock up rather than design as you may wish to think. I tend to think he is a bit smarter than may meet the eye. In terms of communication with the supporters then it is all a familiar flop at this point. The club puts out apparently propaganda fuelled minutes that are supposedly representative of the meetings and yet we have Council members having to come onto this thread telling us that they are not and listing matters raised that have no space on the club's version. Then someone from the Council signs them off as true! We have Mr Scholes warning against taking any notice of this website although it has a broader and larger church of opinion from Stoke City supporters than any he can access. That is why he reads it/has it read for him! We have a repeat of the Fans Forum failing to date from the new body where they are struggling to actually communicate or be communicated with. I see no apparatus in place that gives me any confidence that the Council is positioned to understand what supporter's problems are. The obvious danger is that, like the Fans Forum it will become a self serving entity. It is interesting to note that it has taken a thread that started with implied criticism of the Council before this website has been used to any extent to engage with the people that use it. I repeat the point made elsewhere about this website being the most populated form of supporter access you can dream of having. From my own personal perspective I have said from the outset that I consider the whole exercise of supporter consultation set up in this way to be ineffective and I have explained why many times. The fact that this incarnation was set up at a time when the club was and is in the strongest position it has ever been to do as it pleases only amplifies those reasons. The topic that started this thread is proof positive. The club hasn't bothered with the instalment scheme because it will shift the tickets without having to invest the time or money to do so. End of story. The constitution of our club means that they are only accountable to themselves and the shareholders. Certainly not the supporters and certainly not when money rolls in without trying. You can buy me a drink anytime you fancy changing my mind though
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 24, 2014 11:55:57 GMT
Cahill was afforded the luxury of blowing his two or three times and actually allowed to start a game. He plays for Chelsea (and they new he was going to when at Bolton) And why does he play for one of the top clubs who compete at the highest level including Champions League and Ryan doesn't? It is possibly the same reason that Cahill plays for England and Ryan doesn't. I see we have the same old horseshit claiming it is all about Hodgson. It isn't. Add to the list Ferguson and every other manager of our top clubs. Ryan is perfect for Stoke City in the way Denis Smith was years ago. Unless he can add to his all round game then he will remain as uncapped as Denis and will remain at Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 23, 2014 13:36:41 GMT
There will be audible groans of disappointment from within the Supporters Council inner sanctum, Merk when they realise that you are unlikely to fulfil their hope that you would stand as the representative of "slightly overweight supporters who sit on Row 28 of Block 29, Seddon Stand with a preference for Nike trainers and grey waterproof jackets"! The bloke who represents the "back row of the Q Railings Upper Deck supporters who have an uninterrupted view of the directors box but suffer with a cheese allergy and slightly greying hair", will just have to continue to cover that role as well as his own. Thats no way to Talk about me I've always admired the completely irrelevant "special roles" that was originally applied in the good old days of the Fans Forum and was delighted to see the nonsensical representation descriptions adopted by the Supporters Council. I always recall the original meeting that was held with supporters to set up the Fans Forum held in the Waddo Suit. The then chair dismissed the idea of an Oatcake representation (the idea had nothing to do with us by the way) as the Oatcake apparently is not representative of Stoke supporters but it transpired that a group representing the people who catch a number 23A bus from Knypersley was a genuine section of the support requiring a legitimate voice to present its views on the forum. Im sure he was right. Mr Scholes obviously shares a similar view.
|
|