|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2010 11:49:55 GMT
I think we shold target Cattermole, wind him up.
He showed his petulant side against Newcastle again with a few needless challenges where his only intention was to kick the opposition.
We should play on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 11:58:28 GMT
I know a lot on here don't rate Gyan for the princely sum he cost but I don't think we should underestimate his capability, particularly given that our defence has been far from impenetrable this season. I have a horrible feeling he'll have a blinder  |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 5, 2010 12:05:29 GMT
I know a lot on here don't rate Gyan for the princely sum he cost but I don't think we should underestimate his capability, particularly given that our defence has been far from impenetrable this season. I have a horrible feeling he'll have a blinder I think people on here need to dismiss Gyan to be able to big up the deal Stoke got with Jones. "We got Jones and Sunderland replaced him with some overpaid shite" sounds much better from a Stoke point of view than "We got Jones and Sunderland replaced him with a World and African Footballer of the Year Nominee". FWIW, I don't think we'll see ther best of Gyan until next season. |
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 12:08:36 GMT
I hope you're right Captain, even if you don't see the best of him until the game after this will do for me  He's an unknown quantity in this league but I still think it would be folly to dismiss him as a threat from our point of view, particularly when we seem to have hit a major stumbling block keeping clean sheets  |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 5, 2010 12:16:02 GMT
I hope you're right Captain, even if you don't see the best of him until the game after this will do for me He's an unknown quantity in this league but I still think it would be folly to dismiss him as a threat from our point of view, particularly when we seem to have hit a major stumbling block keeping clean sheets Well so far he has 2 goals from what amounts to 1 start, and a handful of sub appearances, the most lengthy of which have come when we were down to 10-men. I haven't a clue about him tbh, although the goal he scored at Wigan was quite outragious quality. To take a long cross field pass like that over your shoulder, hit it first time with your weaker foot, and guide it into the net with it completely under your control is just sheer quality. I don't think he really got enough credit for the quality of that goal. |
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 12:23:59 GMT
On the back of your comment about Stoke supporters choosing to dismiss Gyan to suit the agenda of us acquiring Jones, I'd like to think that Jones will have a more 'consistent' game and go out with a huge point to prove. I think this will be a great game for the neutral but a 90 minute punisher for us ;D |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 5, 2010 12:36:17 GMT
On the back of your comment about Stoke supporters choosing to dismiss Gyan to suit the agenda of us acquiring Jones, I'd like to think that Jones will have a more 'consistent' game and go out with a huge point to prove. I think this will be a great game for the neutral but a 90 minute punisher for us ;D I am really looking forward to seeing Mensah v Jones. I think Jones could may be bully Turner, but one look from Mensah and Jones may well just shit himself. I know I would! Actually, I came accross an interesting stat in the build up to this game... in the last 2 and a half years, i.e. since you came up, Stoke City have spent almost twice as much net in the transfer market as Sunderland have (your £45m to our £25m). Well, having had to put up with "you spend loads more than us and we are still always above you" for a year or so on here, I found it interesting, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Nov 5, 2010 12:39:56 GMT
yes we've spent loads
I'd guess we've bought more players though so on that basis perhaps we should be measuring average price per transfer or something?
anyway Gyan is a threat for sure but he's not (imho) the wonder player some were suggesting in the summer.
plenty of players have had a decent tournamnet & then gone back to lesser performances thereafter
|
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 12:42:04 GMT
'came across an interesting stat...' Translation: hunted high and low for net spend information We had to though Captain, our squad was ridiculously threadbare when we won promotion, looking back I'd have had us relegated on paper in the same vein as paddy power did too  Don't you go forgetting the size of your squad under Keane...didn't you have 565 players on the books (give or take a few, not fully checked this stat out ) |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 5, 2010 12:47:42 GMT
'came across an interesting stat...' Translation: hunted high and low for net spend information We had to though Captain, our squad was ridiculously threadbare when we won promotion, looking back I'd have had us relegated on paper in the same vein as paddy power did too Don't you go forgetting the size of your squad under Keane...didn't you have 565 players on the books (give or take a few, not fully checked this stat out ) Nah I noticed it whilst looking at a link posted on our message boards asking about Bruce's net spend. Don't get me wrong, I am not having a go at all or trying to take the mick. No one knows better than us the need to spend and the difficulty in clawing your way into Premier League respectability and the difficulties in things such as stability and continuity of game that casues. I just wonder if now, with the benefit of your own experiences, if anyone on here who previously revelled in pointing out how much we spent, and claiming we underachieved, would like to re-assess their previous assertions regarding spending? |
|
|
|
Post by jen on Nov 5, 2010 12:52:31 GMT
On the back of your comment about Stoke supporters choosing to dismiss Gyan to suit the agenda of us acquiring Jones, I'd like to think that Jones will have a more 'consistent' game and go out with a huge point to prove. I think this will be a great game for the neutral but a 90 minute punisher for us ;D I am really looking forward to seeing Mensah v Jones. I think Jones could may be bully Turner, but one look from Mensah and Jones may well just shit himself. I know I would! Actually, I came accross an interesting stat in the build up to this game... in the last 2 and a half years, i.e. since you came up, Stoke City have spent almost twice as much net in the transfer market as Sunderland have (your £45m to our £25m). Well, having had to put up with "you spend loads more than us and we are still always above you" for a year or so on here, I found it interesting, anyway. Harldy a fair comparison is it? It's only to be expected that a club will spend more in thier first few years following promotion when they're building a new squad from bare bones. If you break down our spending you'll see that the majority of it was in the first season after promotion £30 million or so - compared with about £15 million this season. I don't expect us to continue spending at that level when we have been in the Premier League as long as Sunderland have. |
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 13:01:47 GMT
I'm not taking offence captain, but then i never made those assertions about sunderlands spending It's a seriously over priced league (that's another thread) and these days 13m for a Striker isn't as ludicrous as it sounds....13m for an unproven striker is though I genuinely hope he pays off for you (after tomorrow) because it shows that foreign scouting can work and i hope we find as much success out there in the future.....when we start looking |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 5, 2010 13:13:14 GMT
I am really looking forward to seeing Mensah v Jones. I think Jones could may be bully Turner, but one look from Mensah and Jones may well just shit himself. I know I would! Actually, I came accross an interesting stat in the build up to this game... in the last 2 and a half years, i.e. since you came up, Stoke City have spent almost twice as much net in the transfer market as Sunderland have (your £45m to our £25m). Well, having had to put up with "you spend loads more than us and we are still always above you" for a year or so on here, I found it interesting, anyway. Harldy a fair comparison is it? It's only to be expected that a club will spend more in thier first few years following promotion when they're building a new squad from bare bones. If you break down our spending you'll see that the majority of it was in the first season after promotion £30 million or so - compared with about £15 million this season. I don't expect us to continue spending at that level when we have been in the Premier League as long as Sunderland have. The link I saw has it down as follows... 08/09 £16.25m spent (£16.2m net) 09/10 £21.5m spent (£17m net) 10/11 £10.75m spent (£9.25m net) Although admittedly it said that you had signed Titus Bramble for a free and no mention of Wilson. It also said that you re-signed Higginbotham from us on a free (I am sure it was around £1.75m) so I don't consider it especially reliable, but it looks like it offers a decent rough estimate. If we take the first figure out of the comparison and just look at what both clubs have spent in the last year and a half, so to take out the required promotion spending, the figures, agian from a not entirey accurate source I suspect, at... Stoke £26.25m Sunderland (Since Bruce arrived, effectively) £4.65m (although I suspect it is closer to £8-9m tbh) Again, I don't mean to criticise Stoke or anyone else for spending money (and I don't think the link I saw can offer any more than a rough figure to go on). Both clubs have spend a huge amount over the last 3-4 years, an unprecedented level of spending in our histories, and about time it was our turn, but having had the money argument shoved down my throat on here previously, I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to ask if Stokes experiences have altered that perception a litte. |
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 13:29:47 GMT
I'd be interested to see the value of the squad we both play tomorrow head to head. I might even just be sad enough to find out when the team news is released ;D It's an interesting point captain and I suspect some people didn't quite do the maths when coming to that conclusion. That said, it's a hard one to guage as we need to know how these figures are quantified. Are they soley based on what a club has paid for them or taking into account the values of players in swap deals or deals done where a players value rises on performance (ie at what point are they calculating the players' actual worth) I dunno, but that's largely because it isn't my money and i care very little |
|
|
|
Post by th05 on Nov 5, 2010 14:29:47 GMT
GOARNNNNNNNNNN STOKE!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jen on Nov 5, 2010 15:32:42 GMT
Harldy a fair comparison is it? It's only to be expected that a club will spend more in thier first few years following promotion when they're building a new squad from bare bones. If you break down our spending you'll see that the majority of it was in the first season after promotion £30 million or so - compared with about £15 million this season. I don't expect us to continue spending at that level when we have been in the Premier League as long as Sunderland have. The link I saw has it down as follows... 08/09 £16.25m spent (£16.2m net) 09/10 £21.5m spent (£17m net) 10/11 £10.75m spent (£9.25m net) Although admittedly it said that you had signed Titus Bramble for a free and no mention of Wilson. It also said that you re-signed Higginbotham from us on a free (I am sure it was around £1.75m) so I don't consider it especially reliable, but it looks like it offers a decent rough estimate. If we take the first figure out of the comparison and just look at what both clubs have spent in the last year and a half, so to take out the required promotion spending, the figures, agian from a not entirey accurate source I suspect, at... Stoke £26.25m Sunderland (Since Bruce arrived, effectively) £4.65m (although I suspect it is closer to £8-9m tbh) Again, I don't mean to criticise Stoke or anyone else for spending money (and I don't think the link I saw can offer any more than a rough figure to go on). Both clubs have spend a huge amount over the last 3-4 years, an unprecedented level of spending in our histories, and about time it was our turn, but having had the money argument shoved down my throat on here previously, I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to ask if Stokes experiences have altered that perception a litte. Why are you only taking figures from the last year and a half? Your're not comparing like with like. A fairer comparison is to take the net spending for each club in the first 3 years since promotion - or in your case the three years following your most recent promotion. Sunderland's net spend was £40 million in 07/08 £20 million in 08/09 and 5 million in 09/10. |
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Nov 5, 2010 15:54:00 GMT
Harldy a fair comparison is it? It's only to be expected that a club will spend more in thier first few years following promotion when they're building a new squad from bare bones. If you break down our spending you'll see that the majority of it was in the first season after promotion £30 million or so - compared with about £15 million this season. I don't expect us to continue spending at that level when we have been in the Premier League as long as Sunderland have. The link I saw has it down as follows... 08/09 £16.25m spent (£16.2m net) 09/10 £21.5m spent (£17m net) 10/11 £10.75m spent (£9.25m net) Although admittedly it said that you had signed Titus Bramble for a free and no mention of Wilson. It also said that you re-signed Higginbotham from us on a free (I am sure it was around £1.75m) so I don't consider it especially reliable, but it looks like it offers a decent rough estimate. If we take the first figure out of the comparison and just look at what both clubs have spent in the last year and a half, so to take out the required promotion spending, the figures, agian from a not entirey accurate source I suspect, at... Stoke £26.25m Sunderland (Since Bruce arrived, effectively) £4.65m (although I suspect it is closer to £8-9m tbh) Again, I don't mean to criticise Stoke or anyone else for spending money (and I don't think the link I saw can offer any more than a rough figure to go on). Both clubs have spend a huge amount over the last 3-4 years, an unprecedented level of spending in our histories, and about time it was our turn, but having had the money argument shoved down my throat on here previously, I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to ask if Stokes experiences have altered that perception a litte. It's almost like money laundering in a way, seeing as probably half of your transfer money in comes from us buying your players |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 5, 2010 15:59:21 GMT
The link I saw has it down as follows... 08/09 £16.25m spent (£16.2m net) 09/10 £21.5m spent (£17m net) 10/11 £10.75m spent (£9.25m net) Although admittedly it said that you had signed Titus Bramble for a free and no mention of Wilson. It also said that you re-signed Higginbotham from us on a free (I am sure it was around £1.75m) so I don't consider it especially reliable, but it looks like it offers a decent rough estimate. If we take the first figure out of the comparison and just look at what both clubs have spent in the last year and a half, so to take out the required promotion spending, the figures, agian from a not entirey accurate source I suspect, at... Stoke £26.25m Sunderland (Since Bruce arrived, effectively) £4.65m (although I suspect it is closer to £8-9m tbh) Again, I don't mean to criticise Stoke or anyone else for spending money (and I don't think the link I saw can offer any more than a rough figure to go on). Both clubs have spend a huge amount over the last 3-4 years, an unprecedented level of spending in our histories, and about time it was our turn, but having had the money argument shoved down my throat on here previously, I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to ask if Stokes experiences have altered that perception a litte. Why are you only taking figures from the last year and a half? Your're not comparing like with like. A fairer comparison is to take the net spending for each club in the first 3 years since promotion - or in your case the three years following your most recent promotion. Sunderland's net spend was £40 million in 07/08 £20 million in 08/09 and 5 million in 09/10. The reason I haven't gone back to our first season because that in istelf is also an unfair comparison as for you the period covers 1 manager and 1 owner, while with us it covers 2 managers and 2 owners. So drastically different circumstances as we had to effectively throw away one manager's work and start again, whilst you have had the advantage of being able to stick to one plan. There appears to be no fair comparison to suit us all. You miss understand my point entirely, though. I am not criticizing Stoke's spending, I am merely acknowledgeing that it is now at a similar level to our's, and asking if having now gone through the same as we did, whether people's previous assertions that we under-achieved with that level of spending have been challenged by your own experiences. We can quibble over the figures all we want, but the fact is that we have now both thrown significant sums of money at establishing ourselves in the Premier League, where previously it was an accustaion that could only be thrown at one of the two clubs. So those who claimed that Sunderland had underachieved, do you also consider Stoke to be underachieving given there is barely anything between the clubs now? |
|
|
|
Post by nickscfc on Nov 5, 2010 16:01:10 GMT
Pretty sure Pennant's gonna be on the bench considering Tone's comments about how he wants to make sure he's fully fit for the two home games. In other words Walters will start ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 16:08:02 GMT
The way i see our current situation regarding transfers, is that we've acquired players due to necessity. First summer in the league, we just needed bodies of a marginal level of improvment as we were painfully thin all over. In January of 09 we desperately needed to bolster our midfield and needed strikers...we got beattie...thank fuck! Summer 09 we needed defensive cover and a bolstering of our midfield, we got tuncay, whitehead and Huth. January 10 we needed more strikers and improvment in midfield...we got Begovic  Summer just gone, we acquired Guudjohnsen, Pennant, Wilson, Walters and Cuvelier. With all due respect captain, we covered our needs. Keane had a 52 man squad at one time, i truly believe we've been more shrewd with our money  |
|
|
|
Post by jen on Nov 5, 2010 16:09:26 GMT
Why are you only taking figures from the last year and a half? Your're not comparing like with like. A fairer comparison is to take the net spending for each club in the first 3 years since promotion - or in your case the three years following your most recent promotion. Sunderland's net spend was £40 million in 07/08 £20 million in 08/09 and 5 million in 09/10. The reason I haven't gone back to our first season because that in istelf is also an unfair comparison as for you the period covers 1 manager and 1 owner, while with us it covers 2 managers and 2 owners. So drastically different circumstances as we had to effectively throw away one manager's work and start again, whilst you have had the advantage of being able to stick to one plan. There appears to be no fair comparison to suit us all. You miss understand my point entirely, though. I am not criticizing Stoke's spending, I am merely acknowledgeing that it is now at a similar level to our's, and asking if having now gone through the same as we did, whether people's previous assertions that we under-achieved with that level of spending have been challenged by your own experiences. We can quibble over the figures all we want, but the fact is that we have now both thrown significant sums of money at establishing ourselves in the Premier League, where previously it was an accustaion that could only be thrown at one of the two clubs. So those who claimed that Sunderland had underachieved, do you also consider Stoke to be underachieving given there is barely anything between the clubs now? To get a picture of whether a club is under - or overachieving relative to the amount of money spent you need to consider the value of the squad currently playing. |
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 16:10:40 GMT
that's exactly why, as i said earlier jen, i will be poised with a calculator when the team news is released tomorrow |
|
|
|
Post by jen on Nov 5, 2010 16:23:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 5, 2010 16:28:14 GMT
The way i see our current situation regarding transfers, is that we've acquired players due to necessity. First summer in the league, we just needed bodies of a marginal level of improvment as we were painfully thin all over. In January of 09 we desperately needed to bolster our midfield and needed strikers...we got beattie...thank fuck! Summer 09 we needed defensive cover and a bolstering of our midfield, we got tuncay, whitehead and Huth. January 10 we needed more strikers and improvment in midfield...we got Begovic Summer just gone, we acquired Guudjohnsen, Pennant, Wilson, Walters and Cuvelier. With all due respect captain, we covered our needs. Keane had a 52 man squad at one time, i truly believe we've been more shrewd with our money Well, this is the point I was trying to highlight. By "we", in talking about Sunderland, who exactly do you mean? The owner has changed, the board has changed, and the manager has changed. Niall Quinn is just about all that is left. And of Keane's spending, well we got our money back and a little more for Jones, and Gordon, Malbranque, and Richardson remain key parts of our side. He got Ferdinand badly wrong, but other than that there were no absolute howlers really, and even he is still a decent part of the squad. I am not trying to make it a competition, but I do think it is time to acknowledge that Stoke can no longer claim to be at a disadvantage in terms of investment in assembling the respective squads that they could previously. |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 5, 2010 16:29:14 GMT
And how much West Ham are underachieving. |
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 16:34:20 GMT
I don't think we are at a disadvantage captain ??? My point is that i think we had a painfully thin squad upon promotion to make a real fist of this league and bar one or two duds, i feel we've capitalised on our squad for, in a good few cases, a stonking good deal. As you said earlier...the jury's out on gyan up there right now but if he fails...he fails to the tune of 13 m We have no players in that grey area within our ranks. As I said earlier...i hope he works out for you because that's a massive monetary risk |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 5, 2010 16:39:33 GMT
I don't think we are at a disadvantage captain ??? My point is that i think we had a painfully thin squad upon promotion to make a real fist of this league and bar one or two duds, i feel we've capitalised on our squad for, in a good few case, a stonking good deal. As you said earlier...the jury's out on gyan up there right now but if he fails...he fails to the tune of 13 m We have no players in that grey area within our ranks. As I said earlier...i hope he works out for you because that's a massive monetary risk I think if we had added him to our existing front line, he would have been a huge risk at that price. But we financed the deal in it's entirity by selling Jones and Waghorn. So no further investment or incurred debt from the club was required and he will have just slipped into the spot on the wage structure vacated by Jones. I don't see what we have risked from a monetary point of view. From a squad point of view, certainly. We need him to deliver having sacrificed Jones to get him, but the books were very shrewdly balanced before we committed to the signing. |
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 17:22:09 GMT
Fair do's captain. That's the difference between us, i suppose. Apart from kitson and Lawrence going out (arguably not prem quality) for Wilson, we can't afford deals that lose us any squad players. We simply don't have the personnel come injuries or suspensions to sustain a decent line up |
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Nov 5, 2010 17:36:51 GMT
Fair do's captain. That's the difference between us, i suppose. Apart from kitson and Lawrence going out (arguably not prem quality) for Wilson, we can't afford deals that lose us any squad players. We simply don't have the personnel come injuries or suspensions to sustain a decent line up I'd wager your squad was deeper than ours. I think we named a squad of 23 players, and 4 of those are on loan to us. Quite worrying actually. |
|
|
|
Post by stokie25 on Nov 5, 2010 17:39:28 GMT
We seem to have the lions share of bad luck in terms of injuries and suspensions though captain, seems we can't keep a decent 11 together for more than a fortnight ;D then of course, if this boards to be believed, half of em are shit selections Good luck tomorrow though marra Just hope it's that bit luckier for us though ;D |
|
Summer just gone, we acquired Guudjohnsen, Pennant, Wilson, Walters and Cuvelier.
