|
|
Post by Irish Stokie on Apr 23, 2010 17:45:19 GMT
Just a quick point Wigan are never last on MOTD are they? Well when you let in 9 against Spurs they need more time to show the highlights. I couldn give 2 fucks when were on MOTD |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 23, 2010 17:45:35 GMT
I saw every minute of quite a few of those games and about an hour (Football first) of the others, there are certainly some good performances in there but you'll only be lying to yourself if you don't aknoweledge that theres been quite a lot of really really bad ones too, the sort of football that makes your eyes hurt Liverpool, Sunderland, Portsmouthx2 and quite a few more. I'm a Stoke fan my family are Stoke fans it costs us a lot of money to attend games all I'm asking for is a bit better value for money. That is indeed your choice and your view and you are of course entitled to it. For me, I travel 3 hours each way for our 'home' games and have missed 2 or 3 away games with my son for last four years (before that he was too young so went on me own). I can honestly say this is the most value for money I have had since me dad took me as a nipper in the early 70's. Of course there are games that you think bloody hell - Sunderland and Wolves away are the stand outs this season - but I cant remember us being dicked by Spurs by 9 and feeling that low. Bottom line is if it upsets you so much you may want to re-consider going to SToke if you feel that bad about it because whatever you or I think, Mr Coates and his family will stick by TP for a long time to come. Coming on here and venting you spleen everytime will change that fact not one jot. There before he came, still there long after he's gone. I've seen out Durban, Pulis and Coates once and I'll still be there long after ones retired and the others dead. If it troubles you so much that I'm not particularly happy with the way we play ignore me but I won't stop having an opinion and I won't stop expressing it, when it comes to Stoke City I've earned that right. |
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Apr 23, 2010 17:48:44 GMT
Liverpool at home, Everton at home, Vale at home - all gutless defensive, unambitious throw aways under Gudjon.
Oh yes! Forgot about the five across the back against none fuckin League opponents.
|
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 23, 2010 17:49:43 GMT
Just a quick point Wigan are never last on MOTD are they? Well when you let in 9 against Spurs they need more time to show the highlights. I couldn give 2 fucks when were on MOTD You probably couldn't give two fucks how badly or should I say sadly we play just so long a we get enough points to stay up and you're well entitled to your opinion. Let me and others who are maybe a bit less easily satisfied have ours eh. |
|
|
|
Post by sufolkstokie on Apr 23, 2010 17:51:23 GMT
That is indeed your choice and your view and you are of course entitled to it. For me, I travel 3 hours each way for our 'home' games and have missed 2 or 3 away games with my son for last four years (before that he was too young so went on me own). I can honestly say this is the most value for money I have had since me dad took me as a nipper in the early 70's. Of course there are games that you think bloody hell - Sunderland and Wolves away are the stand outs this season - but I cant remember us being dicked by Spurs by 9 and feeling that low. Bottom line is if it upsets you so much you may want to re-consider going to SToke if you feel that bad about it because whatever you or I think, Mr Coates and his family will stick by TP for a long time to come. Coming on here and venting you spleen everytime will change that fact not one jot. There before he came, still there long after he's gone. I've seen out Durban, Pulis and Coates once and I'll still be there long after ones retired and the others dead. If it troubles you so much that I'm not particularly happy with the way we play ignore me but I won't stop having an opinion and I won't stop expressing it, when it comes to Stoke City I've earned that right. So have I - and I disagree with your view. It doesnt trouble me in the slightest re your view - this is a messageboard where all sorts air their views and that is fair enough. I do however know I enjoy my match days more than you bud  and therefore get my value for money - happy days for me, You can wallow in your vision of carpet footie and get off on moaning about how Wigwam are so much more appealing than us - either way you are paying a part of TP's wages ;D |
|
|
|
Post by luke2u on Apr 23, 2010 17:54:16 GMT
On him constantly playing five at the back at home to the terrifying likes of Cambridge, Wycombe and Peterborough. On him being a hoof merchant as well. On him clearly playing for a draw in big games and trying to nick something, like playing 6 centre halves at Brentford, like the Walsall fiasco where he played a bizarre 4-5-1 with JOC at right back and 20 goal Peter Thorne on the bench. Like the Everton cup game he totally bottled by playing 4-5-1 at home with Iwelumo up front on his own. I'm not going to argue on this Rob maybe my memory is clouded with regard to Thordarson but I thought I usually found Gudjohn's teams to have a slightly more attacking balance than Pulis'. It would be quite easy to play five at the back and still have a more attacking balance than a Pulis team, actually with raiding full backs 5:3:2 can be a very attacking formation, it could even work for Pulis he would still be able to deploy his three midfield spoilers unfortunately he would have to leave out one of his four centre halves. I support you on that alster. But as long as Pulis continue playing center halves at full back our team automatically become more defensive than a team with proper modern full backs. 5 at the back will be a more attacking team with most managers than what we get with the Pulis back line. There are so many posters here that doesn't want our club to progress as I understand it. You can't do this and you can't do that, all because of Pulis and the players we currently have. You have to look long term. It's said we can't buy a certain striker because he can't play with Fuller. We must play with Mama because of the Pulis way of playing and so on. We really need different ways to play to progress. Why not try to play Fuller and Tuncay or Fuller and Kitson, with Tuncay in the hole behind. There must be other ways of playing, and we have to experiment a bit. How can we get new players in, and make them successful if we only have to play the way the old players and Pulis always have wanted to play. That's not progress and development. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2010 17:55:37 GMT
I'm not going to argue on this Rob maybe my memory is clouded with regard to Thordarson but I thought I usually found Gudjohn's teams to have a slightly more attacking balance than Pulis'. It would be quite easy to play five at the back and still have a more attacking balance than a Pulis team, actually with raiding full backs 5:3:2 can be a very attacking formation, it could even work for Pulis he would still be able to deploy his three midfield spoilers unfortunately he would have to leave out one of his four centre halves. I support you on that alster. But as long as Pulis continue playing center halves at full back our team automatically become more defensive than a team with proper modern full backs. 5 at the back will be a more attacking team with most managers than what we get with the Pulis back line. There are so many posters here that doesn't want our club to progress as I understand it. You can't do this and you can't do that, all because of Pulis and the players we currently have. You have to look long term. It's said with can't buy a certain striker because he can't play with Fuller. We must play with Mama because of the Pulis way of playing and so on. We really need different ways to play to progress. Why not try to play Fuller and Tuncay or Fuller and Kitson, with Tuncay in the hole behind. There must be other ways of playing, and we have to experiment a bit. How can we get new players in, and make them successful if we only have to play the way the old players and Pulis always have wanted to play. That's not progress and development. We clearly have progressed this season, and Rome wasn't built in a day. |
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Apr 23, 2010 17:58:18 GMT
alster: Why do you feel you have the right to assume that those of us that disagree with your view "probably couldn't give two fucks how badly we play as long as we win"? Isn't that just a touch arrogant. Personally (and I've said it several times now) I'd like to see us creating more and being a bit better to watch. However, I accept that Pulis feels we are doing things the right way in order to establish ourselves in the Premier League and get ourselves in a better position to improve the quality of our players and thus the quality of our play. I agree with him and you clearly don't. We both want to see better quality but we differ on how that can best be achieved at Stoke. One thing is for sure, for a club that has spent just two seasons in the top division after 25 years outside, we are doing very well and we are a 'work in progress'. It will get better but obviously not quick enough for some, who feel that the likes of Wigan are what we should be aspiring to.
|
|
|
|
Post by luke2u on Apr 23, 2010 18:01:04 GMT
I support you on that alster. But as long as Pulis continue playing center halves at full back our team automatically become more defensive than a team with proper modern full backs. 5 at the back will be a more attacking team with most managers than what we get with the Pulis back line. There are so many posters here that doesn't want our club to progress as I understand it. You can't do this and you can't do that, all because of Pulis and the players we currently have. You have to look long term. It's said with can't buy a certain striker because he can't play with Fuller. We must play with Mama because of the Pulis way of playing and so on. We really need different ways to play to progress. Why not try to play Fuller and Tuncay or Fuller and Kitson, with Tuncay in the hole behind. There must be other ways of playing, and we have to experiment a bit. How can we get new players in, and make them successful if we only have to play the way the old players and Pulis always have wanted to play. That's not progress and development. We clearly have progressed this season, and Rome wasn't built in a day. Do you mean the style of play? I'll say it's pretty much the same as last season after Ethers and Beattie was bought. A bit more Mama perhaps, is that progress? |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 23, 2010 18:07:28 GMT
alster: Why do you feel you have the right to assume that those of us that disagree with your view "probably couldn't give two fucks how badly we play as long as we win"? Isn't that just a touch arrogant. Personally (and I've said it several times now) I'd like to see us creating more and being a bit better to watch. However, I accept that Pulis feels we are doing things the right way in order to establish ourselves in the Premier League and get ourselves in a better position to improve the quality of our players and thus the quality of our play. I agree with him and you clearly don't. We both want to see better quality but we differ on how that can best be achieved at Stoke. One thing is for sure, for a club that has spent just two seasons in the top division after 25 years outside, we are doing very well and we are a 'work in progress'. It will get better but obviously not quick enough for some, who feel that the likes of Wigan are what we should be aspiring to. Doz I think if you look again "properly" at the two fucks post and what it was in response to you may see it in a different light. I certainly don't think any of my posts are arrogant, I always try to respect other posters opinions even if I can't agree with them. I even have a lot of respect for Tony Pulis, no I don't like his footballing philosophies but I respect what he has achieved at the club and also that he is a decent person , quite humble and down to earth. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2010 18:09:43 GMT
We clearly have progressed this season, and Rome wasn't built in a day. Do you mean the style of play? I'll say it's pretty much the same as last season after Ethers and Beattie was bought. A bit more Mama perhaps, is that progress? No, I meant general progress. You didn't qualify what kind of progress you meant. Again, at this stage, where we're still establishing ourselves, I'll settle for the progress we have amde. There have been times when we've shown signs of evolving, but they haven't been frequent enough I agree. Pulis hasn't been averse to playing proper full backs in the past and I think he'll buy a proper right back in the summer. |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 23, 2010 18:13:08 GMT
We clearly have progressed this season, and Rome wasn't built in a day. Do you mean the style of play? I'll say it's pretty much the same as last season after Ethers and Beattie was bought. A bit more Mama perhaps, is that progress? Well it could be argued its going backward because toward the end of last season he was happy to play two offensive wide players and now we're reduced to one and anything on a football pitch involving Mama can not be described as progress. |
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Apr 23, 2010 18:17:02 GMT
alster: No worries mate, certainly no offense taken or intended. I think we all want the same things but differ in how we might achieve them. This has been a very interesting debate in the main and it'd be a bloody awful place if we all agreed on everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 23, 2010 18:24:14 GMT
alster: No worries mate, certainly no offense taken or intended. I think we all want the same things but differ in how we might achieve them. This has been a very interesting debate in the main and it'd be a bloody awful place if we all agreed on everything. We're all Stokies Doz. We all want the best for Stoke we just have different views on how to get there. I don't take offence to much, one of the worst thing people say to me is stop going or go to Wigan/Vale and stuff like that, they obviously don't undestand that none of those things are on my adgenda or ever will be. |
|
|
|
Post by sufolkstokie on Apr 23, 2010 18:27:33 GMT
Do you mean the style of play? I'll say it's pretty much the same as last season after Ethers and Beattie was bought. A bit more Mama perhaps, is that progress? Well it could be argued its going backward because toward the end of last season he was happy to play two offensive wide players and now we're reduced to one and anything on a football pitch involving Mama can not be described as progress. Yes we do miss a wide player and if all rumours are true, old floppy chops messed up our last minute deal for Petrov Liam, I do like him, but frankly the poor darling has not been at last seasons highs when he has been given the chance this season. They did try old Tunners there and he didnt do it - I am not defending TP on this as most felt a big let down in Jan t/f window re no right sided winger which kinda indicates how Liam was rated at the time Were we differ is I am in the old camp in terms of you build from the back and boy have we done that - this year we have looked so much more assured than last We also went in for Bent and Horseface - not the mgmts fault they turned us down |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 23, 2010 18:30:34 GMT
alster: No worries mate, certainly no offense taken or intended. I think we all want the same things but differ in how we might achieve them. This has been a very interesting debate in the main and it'd be a bloody awful place if we all agreed on everything. We're all Stokies Doz. We all want the best for Stoke we just have different views on how to get there. I don't take offence to much, one of the worst thing people say to me is stop going or go to Wigan/Vale and stuff like that, they obviously don't undestand that none of those things are on my adgenda or ever will be. Very true. We all want the best for SCFC. |
|
|
|
Post by actongatestokie on Apr 23, 2010 18:34:37 GMT
I've never understood why Pulis always gets the stick he does at times. Talk of attacking balance and a defensive bias are opening one avenue of praise right open to those that want to see it and walk down it.
Sure, the lack of goals point to a defensive bias. Great, so how do you gain points by playing so negatively and defensively?
Building a proper defence to defend properly is very hard to achieve at any level and Pulis has done it in every league he's been in from the Premier right down to League Two. Pundits and the like sneer at it and say how easy it is to do, yet so little can do it as effectively as Pulis. Why if its supposedly so easy?
He's actually gained promotion from League Two by scoring less than a goal per game on average. What does that prove?
1) He can coach teams to defend properly.
Sorry, but this is a point that is often overlooked and just cast aside on some scrap heap by fanciful supporters who have visions of gung-ho football from minute one to minute ninety. First and foremost, you need to be able to defend properly and the amount of coaches that overlook this basic, simple yet crucial fact is disgusting in the world of professional football IMHO.
All too many coaches simply face up with a smile and point to a team that looks to score more than the opposition and say "Isn't it wonderful". Sorry, no it isn't. It's a kop out from incompetent managers who can't and don't know how to do this basic side of their game.
It isn't about sticking a back four, or five out and saying "there you go lads, you keep the ball out of the net whilst the others get on with the game". Every position needs support and yes, the much fabled two banks of four is very crucial and again, often overlooked and sneered at. A goalkeeper is only as good as his back four. Likewise, a back four is only as good as the protection it gets.
2) His forwards are damn efficient.
Thats right. If as a team you are not creating many chances because you are set with two banks of four and you are restricting the attacking bias of your team, by first and foremost, keeping the ball out of the net, then your forwards are going to get a lot less chances per game than any forwards in a team of opposite bias.
How on earth did Ricardo Fuller score 12 goals in the Premier League last season? Pound for pound, given all that we went through last year he is the best striker in the league bar none.
How do you get a striker to perform like that week in week out? Is it a simple click of the fingers and "away you go son, just do your thing" or is it time and effort on the training ground - coupled with a natural gift of the player?
I suppose its sheer luck is it?
No manager is perfect. Different managers have different philosophies - all are right as long as they work. The philosophies that are wrong are the ones that do not work.
When you put Pulis' philosophy down to simple terms it's a simple case of "concede none, if you can't concede as little as possible and get the ball in the box as early as you can, as often as you can and do the maximum damage you can"
Whats wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 23, 2010 18:38:54 GMT
Well it could be argued its going backward because toward the end of last season he was happy to play two offensive wide players and now we're reduced to one and anything on a football pitch involving Mama can not be described as progress. Yes we do miss a wide player and if all rumours are true, old floppy chops messed up our last minute deal for Petrov Liam, I do like him, but frankly the poor darling has not been at last seasons highs when he has been given the chance this season. They did try old Tunners there and he didnt do it - I am not defending TP on this as most felt a big let down in Jan t/f window re no right sided winger which kinda indicates how Liam was rated at the time Were we differ is I am in the old camp in terms of you build from the back and boy have we done that - this year we have looked so much more assured than last We also went in for Bent and Horseface - not the mgmts fault they turned us down I have no problems as such with Pulis' Defence, I'd like proper full backs available but thats not to say I'd play them in every game. We have a solid organised defence and that great, most managers then play a holding midfielder and I think that just fine too but three is taking the piss. Most managers play either one or two strikers who pose a goal threat or are creative and provide more assists. Pulis plays a striker that does Er now I'm stuck. |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 23, 2010 18:40:23 GMT
Yes we do miss a wide player and if all rumours are true, old floppy chops messed up our last minute deal for Petrov Liam, I do like him, but frankly the poor darling has not been at last seasons highs when he has been given the chance this season. They did try old Tunners there and he didnt do it - I am not defending TP on this as most felt a big let down in Jan t/f window re no right sided winger which kinda indicates how Liam was rated at the time Were we differ is I am in the old camp in terms of you build from the back and boy have we done that - this year we have looked so much more assured than last We also went in for Bent and Horseface - not the mgmts fault they turned us down I have no problems as such with Pulis' Defence, I'd like proper full backs available but thats not to say I'd play them in every game. We have a solid organised defence and that great, most managers then play a holding midfielder and I think that just fine too but three is taking the piss. Most managers play either one or two strikers who pose a goal threat or are creative and provide more assists. Pulis plays a striker that does Er now I'm stuck. A striker that err................. defends |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 23, 2010 18:41:30 GMT
I've never understood why Pulis always gets the stick he does at times. Talk of attacking balance and a defensive bias are opening one avenue of praise right open to those that want to see it and walk down it. Sure, the lack of goals point to a defensive bias. Great, so how do you gain points by playing so negatively and defensively? Building a proper defence to defend properly is very hard to achieve at any level and Pulis has done it in every league he's been in from the Premier right down to League Two. Pundits and the like sneer at it and say how easy it is to do, yet so little can do it as effectively as Pulis. Why if its supposedly so easy? He's actually gained promotion from League Two by scoring less than a goal per game on average. What does that prove? 1) He can coach teams to defend properly.Sorry, but this is a point that is often overlooked and just cast aside on some scrap heap by fanciful supporters who have visions of gung-ho football from minute one to minute ninety. First and foremost, you need to be able to defend properly and the amount of coaches that overlook this basic, simple yet crucial fact is disgusting in the world of professional football IMHO. All too many coaches simply face up with a smile and point to a team that looks to score more than the opposition and say "Isn't it wonderful". Sorry, no it isn't. It's a kop out from incompetent managers who can't and don't know how to do this basic side of their game. It isn't about sticking a back four, or five out and saying "there you go lads, you keep the ball out of the net whilst the others get on with the game". Every position needs support and yes, the much fabled two banks of four is very crucial and again, often overlooked and sneered at. A goalkeeper is only as good as his back four. Likewise, a back four is only as good as the protection it gets. 2) His forwards are damn efficient.Thats right. If as a team you are not creating many chances because you are set with two banks of four and you are restricting the attacking bias of your team, by first and foremost, keeping the ball out of the net, then your forwards are going to get a lot less chances per game than any forwards in a team of opposite bias. How on earth did Ricardo Fuller score 12 goals in the Premier League last season? Pound for pound, given all that we went through last year he is the best striker in the league bar none. How do you get a striker to perform like that week in week out? Is it a simple click of the fingers and "away you go son, just do your thing" or is it time and effort on the training ground - coupled with a natural gift of the player? I suppose its sheer luck is it? No manager is perfect. Different managers have different philosophies - all are right as long as they work. The philosophies that are wrong are the ones that do not work. When you put Pulis' philosophy down to simple terms it's a simple case of "concede none, if you can't concede as little as possible and get the ball in the box as early as you can, as often as you can and do the maximum damage you can" Whats wrong with that? Simple its unpleasant to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2010 18:41:35 GMT
Yes we do miss a wide player and if all rumours are true, old floppy chops messed up our last minute deal for Petrov Liam, I do like him, but frankly the poor darling has not been at last seasons highs when he has been given the chance this season. They did try old Tunners there and he didnt do it - I am not defending TP on this as most felt a big let down in Jan t/f window re no right sided winger which kinda indicates how Liam was rated at the time Were we differ is I am in the old camp in terms of you build from the back and boy have we done that - this year we have looked so much more assured than last We also went in for Bent and Horseface - not the mgmts fault they turned us down I have no problems as such with Pulis' Defence, I'd like proper full backs available but thats not to say I'd play them in every game. We have a solid organised defence and that great, most managers then play a holding midfielder and I think that just fine too but three is taking the piss. Most managers play either one or two strikers who pose a goal threat or are creative and provide more assists. Pulis plays a striker that does Er now I'm stuck. Haven't Super Wigan spent a large chunk of the season playing Jason Scotland, whose record in front of goal this season makes Mama look like Gerd Muller? |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 23, 2010 18:43:16 GMT
Mama and Gerd Muller in the same sentence. Whatever next?? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 23, 2010 18:45:32 GMT
I have no problems as such with Pulis' Defence, I'd like proper full backs available but thats not to say I'd play them in every game. We have a solid organised defence and that great, most managers then play a holding midfielder and I think that just fine too but three is taking the piss. Most managers play either one or two strikers who pose a goal threat or are creative and provide more assists. Pulis plays a striker that does Er now I'm stuck. Haven't Super Wigan spent a large chunk of the season playing Jason Scotland, whose record in front of goal this season makes Mama look like Gerd Muller? I'll give you that rob he's pretty shit, worse than Mama now thats debateable but why bother niether belong in the Premier league. |
|
|
|
Post by luke2u on Apr 23, 2010 19:37:04 GMT
He's actually gained promotion from League Two by scoring less than a goal per game on average. What does that prove? How on earth did Ricardo Fuller score 12 goals in the Premier League last season? Apart from celebrating promotion, scoring less than a goal per game, can only be fun for the statistician, and as I'm one; Fuller scored 11 last season. |
|
|
|
Post by actongatestokie on Apr 23, 2010 19:47:22 GMT
He's actually gained promotion from League Two by scoring less than a goal per game on average. What does that prove? How on earth did Ricardo Fuller score 12 goals in the Premier League last season? Apart from celebrating promotion, scoring less than a goal per game, can only be fun for the statistician, and as I'm one; Fuller scored 11 last season. Thanks luke. Damn, thats my argument down the pan. Fuller is no longer pound for pound the best striker in the league. Bugger. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2010 19:47:35 GMT
He's actually gained promotion from League Two by scoring less than a goal per game on average. What does that prove? How on earth did Ricardo Fuller score 12 goals in the Premier League last season? Apart from celebrating promotion, scoring less than a goal per game, can only be fun for the statistician, and as I'm one; Fuller scored 11 last season. You haven't enjoyed any of our Premier League promotion then? You're not enjoying a club of our stature being competitive in one of the best leagues in the world? |
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 23, 2010 22:04:43 GMT
Acton - your bit about defending makes me think you had Kevin Keegan in mind. He was particularly funny at Man City, where his tactic was basically that everyone attack and left Sun Jihai on his own to defend against the opposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Apr 23, 2010 23:08:47 GMT
Actongatestokie your post is totally and utterly correct - Pulis' only crime is to have done brilliantly what countless other managers have tried to do.
People whining about the style of play clearly havent been watching Stoke for the last 30 years because apart from a very brief period with McIlroy, Chambo, Thomas etc we have NEVER played free-flowing football ...all we have played is incompetent football.
These people either need to wake up or get their kicks from sitting in an armchair getting excited about watching Barca or Arsenal string a couple of passes together.
|
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 24, 2010 12:27:13 GMT
Actongatestokie your post is totally and utterly correct - Pulis' only crime is to have done brilliantly what countless other managers have tried to do. People whining about the style of play clearly havent been watching Stoke for the last 30 years because apart from a very brief period with McIlroy, Chambo, Thomas etc we have NEVER played free-flowing football ...all we have played is incompetent football. These people either need to wake up or get their kicks from sitting in an armchair getting excited about watching Barca or Arsenal string a couple of passes together. whist it was by no means Barcelonaesque I think Macari's teams played generally better football than Pulis'. |
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Apr 24, 2010 12:34:06 GMT
Do you Alster ? Generally not much to choose I'd say , only difference being the standard they were competing at was lower so one or two individuals eg. Steino got to shine and we got to dominate games more. Cant ever remember him setting a team up to play pretty football though.
|
|
and therefore get my value for money - happy days for me, You can wallow in your vision of carpet footie and get off on moaning about how Wigwam are so much more appealing than us - either way you are paying a part of TP's wages ;D
