|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 19:50:56 GMT
Think.he keep hughes at end season then we in championship have new manager What the hell are they putting in the water in Leek these days? White man speak with fork tongue Keemo Savvy🤡 Fucking shocking isn't it. Get that man a citizenship test.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 19:46:07 GMT
Think.he keep hughes at end season then we in championship have new manager Think you not pidgeon cause he have better English.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 19:45:15 GMT
So he voluntarily went to an appeal for a work permit for a player he didn't want, whilst a deal was concluded for a player he did. Doesn't strike me as typical behavior of the bloke I have to say. The entire Brek Shea scenario wasn’t typical of the bloke. There was clearly some sort of seismic fall out over that whole window. Of the two players, I know which one was a more Pulis-like signing. Don't see Tone signing off on signing Butland for £3/4M when he didn't need him there and then and was being frustrated at not getting the money for players he wanted for the there and then. The signing fits the profile of the direction the club hierarchy wanted to go on transfers young, cheap, high resale potential.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 19:38:32 GMT
Pieters was a Pulis signing set up before he was sacked, Arnie his best signing by a country mile, Allen will make some profit, Shaq will if he stays fit, Bojan long contract injury prone ?, Grant no real sell on profit, is it better to fail signing expensive players some who don't even play or less expensive players who will give their all every week ?. Pulis made some awful signings but the majority were fairly inexpensive, Zonz at £4 million was superb, Shawcross, Huth, Bego, Walters, Ring tone, Beattie, Pennant, Crouch, G Cam, Sorro and Crouch (expensive but a great player). Pieters was signed under Hughes, i have no idea which manager organised it. The rest have all more than paid for their transfers in footballing terms. Hughes has had 3 'bad' signings for big money, Imbula, Wimmer, Saido. Imbula was shipped out on loan when our midfield was lacking quality after less than 25 games for the club. Saido has started 2 games this season, despite looking far more sharp. Wimmer has been here less than 4 months. Pieters was linked with Stoke whilst Pulis was still here but it was at a time when he was no longer in sole control of transfers. Pieters signing could well have not been instigated by either manager but Hughes probably signed off on it when it was suggested to him. I'm sure that's more plausible than Hughes signing a player Pulis had lined up. Going by what they seem to think of one another if it had Pulis's fingerprints on it I doubt he would have signed him if he was fucking Cafu.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 19:31:12 GMT
That happens at every club though. We will always miss out on players no matter who is in charge of them because players hold the cards now not clubs. True. It happened at Chelsea, Manure, Spurs, Arsenal and every club that's under them. It happened at Barcelona and PSG. It never happens at Real Madrid, of course. And apart from Zidane, who never complains anyway, the likes of Zola, Mou, Wenger et al have been unhappy since. What we can do and should do more is pick the leftovers. Hughes claims he still has good connections at Chelsea and that is why he was able to get Zouma. But we should have had a couple of their academy starlets too. And so on. I must have missed all these players actually turning up for negotiations at these big clubs then fucking off and signing for one of their rivals of a similar size. Where did you see this SSN BBC please tell.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 19:25:37 GMT
Speaking as a bloke with absolutely no business acumen whatsoever - can I ask one extremely simple (maybe naive or even stupid) question? How the fuck did Peter Coates become a billionaire? Wouldn't trying to get the club operating in a financially efficient way be a sign of a good businessman/woman? Not really they all try now actually achieving it without damaging the clubs prospects that might be impressive but there is no sign of it happening.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 19:18:54 GMT
Speaking as a bloke with absolutely no business acumen whatsoever - can I ask one extremely simple (maybe naive or even stupid) question? How the fuck did Peter Coates become a billionaire? Well he isn't a billionaire for a start but how did he get as rich as he is. He cashed in his own business for £30M borrowed it to his Daughter to help fund bet365 start up then sat back and watched the money roll in.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 18:19:26 GMT
He’s in the public eye and talks too much for my liking. Coates shut up and concentrate on your job which is bringing in wheelbarrows full of money then fucking off out of the road. sorted that for ya.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 18:14:18 GMT
Mainly because he was sent away to deal with the Brek Shea appeal whilst the others did the Butland deal whilst he was out of the way. I thought it was largely done and dusted by that time? I'd always been under the impression he'd gone to the Brek Shea appeal in a hissy fit of his own volition because the transfer team wouldn't let him sign a knackered Darren Bent. So he voluntarily went to an appeal for a work permit for a player he didn't want, whilst a deal was concluded for a player he did. Doesn't strike me as typical behavior of the bloke I have to say.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 18:08:58 GMT
I'm not defending Hughes in any way, but the fact that the market is now bonkers means you pay considerably more than you did when Pulis was in charge. £18m for Imbula now may only have been £8m before the market went crackers (what we paid for Palacios). Like I said I'm not defending him, just that a direct £50m vs £10m comparison is a little skewed based on the market now vs the market then. Pulis didn't really do 'big ticket' signings, aside from Crouch / Palacios and possible Kenwyne. He did waste a lot of money on smaller signings though...whether you would tag all of these as disastrous is debatable... Kightly £3m Shea £3m Gudjohnsen £2m Arismendi £3m Kitson £6m Tonge £3m Sonko £3m Soares £2m Davies £2m Palacios £8m There's £35m right there....in today's market we would have paid a lot more than that. At least 7 of them were bought in to bulk the squad following a promotion. We were regarded as cannon fodder we couldn't attract players. Hughes is failing with big money transfers that are intended for the first team. Pulis record signing crouch is 'still' a big player for the club, he has turned out to be a bargain Mark's record signing is in France somewhere Cuts both ways Arnie was signed for less than quite a few of those and was sold in a deal with a maximum value of £25M how much did we sell that little lot for?
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 18:04:59 GMT
Oh and Brek Shea! Forgot all about him. I keep hearing the thing about Butland but I can't see why Pulis wouldn't have wanted him? He was a very TP-type signing. Mainly because he was sent away to deal with the Brek Shea appeal whilst the others did the Butland deal whilst he was out of the way.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 18:02:26 GMT
Pre MH with TP in control we only had the Winston Palacous debacle as a financial disaster. Let's tag a price of 10m. Post TP with the pizza boys in charge, 50m of financial disaster. Something to think about when redesigning the future structure of SCFC. I'm not defending Hughes in any way, but the fact that the market is now bonkers means you pay considerably more than you did when Pulis was in charge. £18m for Imbula now may only have been £8m before the market went crackers (what we paid for Palacios). Like I said I'm not defending him, just that a direct £50m vs £10m comparison is a little skewed based on the market now vs the market then. Pulis didn't really do 'big ticket' signings, aside from Crouch / Palacios and possible Kenwyne. He did waste a lot of money on smaller signings though...whether you would tag all of these as disastrous is debatable... Kightly £3m Shea £3m Gudjohnsen £2m Arismendi £3m Kitson £6m Tonge £3m Sonko £3m Soares £2m Davies £2m Palacios £8m There's £35m right there....in today's market we would have paid a lot more than that. This is the thing that people seem unwilling or unable to accept because it doesn't help with reflecting badly on their chosen target. Simple fact is a very high %age of footballer transfers don't work out well at all clubs not just Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 17:58:05 GMT
I've been saying for a while that I think that Hughes is getting players foisted on him. You will remember that Pulis had the same happen to him but wouldn't play their game. He would let players that he hadn't signed, sit on the bench & get splinters. That's why I think that he wouldn't play Michael Owen. He was a 'name' that was signed more for Bet 365 & not Stoke City.Someone behind the scenes is deciding who to sign, & it's not necessarily the Manager. Obviously, they don't know much about football, when we see who they come up with. I can't believe that M.H. would have signed Wimmer. Not for £18m, anyway. It makes no sense. The only people signed under Pulis that he didn't want were Triggy and Ziggy. Who signed Butland then?
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 17:21:52 GMT
Other than walking on the pitch and taking the ball off him I don't think there's much he could have done about it. Berahino put his needs in front of the teams needs. Luckily it didn't turn out costly. Players do stupid things when they are getting desperate Pennant vs Everton for example. It was costly, the lad missed the penalty. Also, Hughes should know who the penalties are. He jumped up and grabbed the ball I think you would have had to fight him to get it off him. It was very selfish and just placing himself under even greater pressure. He just needs to relax and let it come.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 17:16:34 GMT
Certain positions and attributes badly neglected full backs, CDM, size, physicality, pace. You can't just keep signing players with big club backgrounds, champions league medals, decent technique and not focus on those other attributes then just expect them to turn into a team capable of playing very physical fast paced Premier League football. His decision to let Joselu go still bemuses me. He's not been prolific at Newcastle, but we've seen flashes of why he's a good player. His whole purchase, loan, selection of his strikers bemuses me to be honest, wonder why non of them have any confidence.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 17:14:05 GMT
I'd like to see a DoF with more credibility in the game. I know Cartwright has a legal background but I can't see it being much use, I bet they still put everything through an outside legal firm anyhow. Somebody who has loads of contacts but probably doesn't want the pressure of management anymore. I'd also like to know who is responsible for screwing deals up for players who come for negotiations. Is it Scholes trying to be a clever bastard or is it just impossible to close the deals within the restrictions the Coates' place on him. We would be a lot stronger if we'd landed those targets instead of 3rd 4th 5th choice compromises because they were "the right deal" instead of "the right player". Only if the club as an organisation was more transparent could we the fans truly know who to blame when things go badly. As it is things are very opaque but that's probably just the way they like it. Absolutely, if you see how canny Walsh's signings were at Leicester, that seems the way to go about it (even if that's undermined by his subsequent cocking up of Everton's summer). Still suspect a lot of the 'right deal' stuff comes under instruction from the man at the very top. Think the Everton thing was all a bit too rushed, always a bit of a risk if you suddenly dump a shit load of money on anybody. Its like they think better get rid of it before somebody takes it off me. "right deal" Yeah bet he compromises like that in his own life not.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 17:08:57 GMT
I'm no great fan of Tony Scholes but if he keeps TP out of my club then I'd happily see him awarded the keys of the city! Well, not really but you get the gist of what I'm trying to say here. Scholes is no better than Jez Moxey just has more funds available, he should have no say in who the next manager is neither should Cartwright or any other of the spongers, Coates should have the final say on who he employs unless he really has become that weak, Pulis will not return unless it is the will of the Chairman which is only right and proper. Maybe they are worried that Pulis or similar would see right through the façade they put up, nice easy well paid job with no one to answer to is how it appears at the moment, one thing is clear these rumours will only escalate until the club comes out with a clear statement of intent. Which is this football club where you think the chief executive answers to the football manager?
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 16:58:47 GMT
Pre MH with TP in control we only had the Palacious debacle as a financial disaster. Let's tag a price of 10m. Post TP with the pizza boys in charge, 50m of financial disaster. Something to think about when redesigning the future structure of SCFC. I think the structure's fine, it's the personnel who're the problem. I'd like to see a DoF with more credibility in the game. I know Cartwright has a legal background but I can't see it being much use, I bet they still put everything through an outside legal firm anyhow. Somebody who has loads of contacts but probably doesn't want the pressure of management anymore. I'd also like to know who is responsible for screwing deals up for players who come for negotiations. Is it Scholes trying to be a clever bastard or is it just impossible to close the deals within the restrictions the Coates' place on him. We would be a lot stronger if we'd landed those targets instead of 3rd 4th 5th choice compromises because they were "the right deal" instead of "the right player". Only if the club as an organisation was more transparent could we the fans truly know who to blame when things go badly. As it is things are very opaque but that's probably just the way they like it.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 16:45:31 GMT
I'm scratching my head too. After a truly awesome display against Man City it all started to go wrong a couple of months later . Looking at the team sheet from that day it makes very interesting reading. Players that a lot of people don't or didn't rate played a big part. Also a some have left. Whatever the case they don't play now. Wollscheid, Afellay, Whelan, Bojan, Johnson, Joselu, Arnautovic, Van Ginkel It seems to suggest to me that the transfer policy of in's and out's have been the problem. Certain positions and attributes badly neglected full backs, CDM, size, physicality, pace. You can't just keep signing players with big club backgrounds, champions league medals, decent technique and not focus on those other attributes then just expect them to turn into a team capable of playing very physical fast paced Premier League football.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 16:25:31 GMT
Scholes and Cartwright will know it’s the end for them if Pulis comes back. Scholes has started having his Terminator nightmare again. Why will they? I always thought one of the main sticking points (and reasons Pulis left) was because he would no longer have complete control over every bastard thing and it was basically a case of "This is the way we're now going Tone so either get with the programme or fuck off". Why would they suddenly bend over backwards to Tone's demands now when they didn't before? If they are thinking "Well we need someone to save us and what Tone wants, Tone gets" , then it begs the question, why don't they just get rid now (or why haven't they before if Les doesn't like Cartwright) and let Les crack on without them fucking everything up? If they're happy to get rid simply on Tone's say so, then it implies they agree there's a chance that we're better off without them....in which case why have they insisted on keeping them so long and basically blaming the manager for everything??? If Hughes doesn't like Cartwright but they keep him anyway, but then get rid because Tone says so, then that for me says the board have basically been hanging Les out to dry! Whichever way it goes, it just adds to the idea that at board level it's a complete fucking shambles and whoever comes in will have sod all chance to do anything if it's this chaotic at that level. That kind of chaos, confusion and bad management filters down to all the levels below it....starting to look more and more like we need a proper restructuring and re-organisation at every level before we can even start to look at a new manager, otherwise we're just going to keep going around in circles with the same issues and problems whoever takes Les' place. Wonder why he would have issues with Cartwright anyway. I thought he was there to help identify players, I would have thought he would have more reason to have issues with Scholes as he has repeatedly failed to agree deals with first choice targets even when they were interested enough to turn up and have negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 16:08:21 GMT
That was last season what's your excuse for this season. It’s very easy to say he should have gone last summer and he probably should have. Regardless of this season he had enough credit in the bank to stay. The hindsight of this season is a wonderful thing Its only hindsight if you hadn't seen it at the time i believe its called foresight when you did.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 14:20:01 GMT
This is what happens when you let a problem fester away. Hacks make mischief. Wake up Peter, this is starting to hurt. P.S Why is Hughes falling out with the Transfer team if they are all his signings? Probably because they aren't his first choices. We seem to have a couple every window that come for talks and then go and sign for a similar sized rival and go on to do well. If you were in a corner wouldn't you keep beating them over the head with that I know I would.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 14:07:39 GMT
No but it does scupper the argument that if he stays he should not be allowed any money because it would be akin to throwing it away. Obviously if Coates is hell bent on keeping him there'd be a better chance of him keeping us in the division if he were allowed to add to the squad. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that he should keep his job, the fact that he's been so poor in the transfer market, simply adds to the many reasons why he should go. As I said I'm not arguing for him to stay but if the bloke who can make that decision says he stays I'd sooner he had money to spend than not.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 14:05:28 GMT
No doubt I'm not even arguing he's bought players for the right positions but focusing as many are on his 3 big failures in the market is a red herring. If we're keeping him there is no excuse not to back him in the market because his previous record tells you you have as much chance of making a profit as you do a loss. Its not an argument to keep him at all I want him out. As I said, you've got to look at the bigger picture, it's not just about whether the signings have left us in the black or not, you can't ignore the fact that we're left with an absolutely appalling squad of players as a result of his transfer choices. Being in the black doesn't excuse that fact. And yes I know you want him out but I dont agree with your point that his activity in the transfer market is a red herring. In the simplest of terms, if any manager sells 30, 40 or 50 million pounds worth of good players and then spends the same amount on bad players, that doesn't then make it okay because the balance sheet tallies up. Come off it you know that isn't what has happened at all he's made signings that look like they will hit us for big losses and he's also made signings that have/would make very tidy profits to offset those losses.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 14:01:31 GMT
No doubt I'm not even arguing he's bought players for the right positions but focusing as many are on his 3 big failures in the market is a red herring. If we're keeping him there is no excuse not to back him in the market because his previous record tells you you have as much chance of making a profit as you do a loss. Its not an argument to keep him at all I want him out. As I said, you've got to look at the bigger picture, it's not just about whether the signings have left us in the black or not, you can't ignore the fact that we're left with an absolutely appalling squad of players as a result of his transfer choices. Being in the black doesn't excuse that fact. No but it does scupper the argument that if he stays he should not be allowed any money because it would be akin to throwing it away. Obviously if Coates is hell bent on keeping him there'd be a better chance of him keeping us in the division if he were allowed to add to the squad.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 13:43:37 GMT
Like you I don't believe that he hasn't signed off on any of our signings. Thing is I've just been through all his permanent signings at the club and in monetary terms they're ok. For every disaster there are players that have/would show a profit that would at the very least offset all the losses even if the disastrous ones ended up in total loss to the point where there's a very good chance that his dealings would actually turn a profit overall. I've said many times I think the transfer stick is a red herring and the more I examine it the more I'm convinced that to be the case. Personally I think it only detracts from his woeful performance managing the football team on the pitch which does not hold up to similar scrutiny. Hmmm ... you can't just assess the signings in the vacuum of ... does the balance sheet actually tally up? No doubt you are right and it does but you can't then just ignore what you're left with. We have got an absolute dog's dinner of a squad, completely unbalanced, severely lacking in pace and low on quality. It is virtually impossible to create a credible starting XI out of it and this is squarely down to appalling choices in the transfer market. I seriously believe that ANY manager would struggle with this squad. Hughes has proved before that when he's got good players at his disposal he CAN be a good manager but the squad has got worse and worse over the last two seasons, it's no coincidence that our performances have got increasingly worse too. However Hughes is completely complicit in this happening. No doubt I'm not even arguing he's bought players for the right positions but focusing as many are on his 3 big failures in the market is a red herring. If we're keeping him there is no excuse not to back him in the market because his previous record tells you you have as much chance of making a profit as you do a loss. Its not an argument to keep him at all I want him out.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 13:37:18 GMT
The recruitment team includes Hughes, of course it does. He is not the type of man to ordinarily allow others to foist players on him, especially after the QPR debacle where this did seem to be happening towards the end. He clearly wanted Saido, he clearly was happy to sign Wimmer. Equally, any failures in recruitment are down to more than him. Scholes and, especially, Cartwright have to take their share of the blame. Where Hughes stands alone is in his management of the squad and of each game - his selections, formations, tactics, substitutions. On these, the buck stops with him. His record in this aspect of the role in the last 18 months is so poor as to warrant the sack without considering his part in a disappointing recruitment policy. Add in the latter, and it is absolutely gob-smackingly amazing that he is still in the job. See I agree with you when you're right.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 13:33:30 GMT
Then we sign a better player to replace Jese and start him. Ramadan doesn't have the wherewithal to battle this shitstorm out. Choupo is a better player. Christ, Shaq isn't exactly The Punisher. Why split hairs when we're all trying to suggest options without buying a whole new team. Because alster's sole MO on here is to argue with everything someone else suggests. You are not his first target and will, no doubt, not be his last. We are all in this together as Stokies FFS......... What's up jezza have I debated something you've suggested and won the debate and now I'm the bogeyman. They have a smiley for everything except crying maybe they need one for when you're being a mardarse.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 13:26:28 GMT
That maybe Dave but I was responding to the suggestion that there's some sort of conspiracy going on where Mark Hughes isn't playing players because he didn't actually want them here himself in the first place. It's a narrative that has gained quite a bit of traction in recent days as people attempt to see things in the manager's comments that just aren't there imo. They'd rather put their own twist on his comments that have nothing to do with the signing of players, whilst at the same time seemingly be prepared to rubbish the comments that the manager actually HAS made about his signings. Like you I don't believe that he hasn't signed off on any of our signings. Thing is I've just been through all his permanent signings at the club and in monetary terms they're ok. For every disaster there are players that have/would show a profit that would at the very least offset all the losses even if the disastrous ones ended up in total loss to the point where there's a very good chance that his dealings would actually turn a profit overall. I've said many times I think the transfer stick is a red herring and the more I examine it the more I'm convinced that to be the case. Personally I think it only detracts from his woeful performance managing the football team on the pitch which does not hold up to similar scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Dec 20, 2017 13:04:26 GMT
Years ago my mother would say of me and my brother - did you go to the same match ? Well I think this applies to Mr Peter Coates Coatesy version of the Lanzini penalty/dive Things not going our way Shawcross hits post Shaqiri is fouled Lanzini dives My view Stoke get a corner We go gungho (which weve been doing at corners for awhile) 9 men go up for the corner Leaves one on the halfway line to defend the breakaway West Ham get lucky Lanzini breaks away and the rest is history HOW THE F--- CAN YOU DEFEND A BREAKAWAY WITH ONE MAN BACK ON THE HALFWAY LINE RIDICULOUS I POINTED THIS OUT LAST WEEK AS SON DID THE SAME FOR SPURS BUT NO WE CONTINUED WITH THIS AFTER THE LANZINI DIVE YOU MAKE YOUR OWN LUCK MR COATES AND HAD OUR MANAGEMENT TEAM HAD TWO OR THREE ON HALFWAY LINE (THE NORM) THERE IS NO WAY LANZINI WOULD HAVE EVEN GOT TO THE PENALTY AREA AS FOR PIETERS WELL HE IS BRAIN DEAD AS LANZINI WAS GOING NOWHERE So which game were you watching Mr Coates AND MESSRS HUGHES AND BOWEN - DO ME A FAVOUR AND RECOGNISE THAT LESS IS MORE AT CORNERS 9 UP GET IN EACH OTHERS WAY I SUGGEST I DESPAIR I have not a clue what you are going on about. Lanzini penalty Geoff Cameron had ample opportunity to try to win the ball failing that bring the man down. No penalty, no dive, no goal, no fuss. Yup I really do wonder what game you're watching your Mum was right.
|
|