|
Post by sage on Aug 1, 2013 2:16:32 GMT
Sign him up, looks a top prospect, should be cheapish, why not!
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Aug 1, 2013 5:51:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2013 6:04:14 GMT
I posted on the Loud and Prod facebook thread last night that it seems to me that Stoke are operating a two track approach this season. Yes, we are aiming to sign good youngish players who are "first team ready" - players such as Pieters and Diouf. But we are also trying to find young (cheap or free) players who may not be ready for first team starts yet but who look to have potential to challenge for first team starts in the next year or so and who should increase in value as a result. Muniesa was the first of these - interestingly, from his displays in the US he may be closer to first team starts than we thought when we bought him. Agudelo would fall into the same category as Muniesa.
I don't know why so many Stokies are concerned about this. It is the sort of thing that the bigger clubs have done for a while. It has the advantage of costing very little in terms of transfer fees and, by Prem standards, comparatively little in terms of wages as these players will be on low basic wages with better money for first team appearances. If, say, one in three of these players makes the grade at Stoke, then we will have acquired a good first teamer at minimal cost. Hopefully another might be sold at a profit and if one in three fails to make the grade it has cost us very little. Compared to £10 million + for Crouch + £40 k per week it looks like a sound policy to me.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Aug 1, 2013 6:10:06 GMT
Whats new Lakeland ? Butland and Ness last season fall into same catagory. Just that the names are more exotic this year which always turns heads.
Problem I fear is that for clubs such as ours to start getting clever about long term planning is very difficult - short term survival of the season ahead needs every penny (or cent as seems more appropriate at the moment) that we have.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Aug 1, 2013 6:15:25 GMT
He sounds an exciting prospect. I think a lot of people get put off because of where he's based and the league he plays in. The bits I've seen of him he looks a real talent.
|
|
|
Post by sufolkstokie on Aug 1, 2013 6:25:14 GMT
I posted on the Loud and Prod facebook thread last night that it seems to me that Stoke are operating a two track approach this season. Yes, we are aiming to sign good youngish players who are "first team ready" - players such as Pieters and Diouf. But we are also trying to find young (cheap or free) players who may not be ready for first team starts yet but who look to have potential to challenge for first team starts in the next year or so and who should increase in value as a result. Muniesa was the first of these - interestingly, from his displays in the US he may be closer to first team starts than we thought when we bought him. Agudelo would fall into the same category as Muniesa. I don't know why so many Stokies are concerned about this. It is the sort of thing that the bigger clubs have done for a while. It has the advantage of costing very little in terms of transfer fees and, by Prem standards, comparatively little in terms of wages as these players will be on low basic wages with better money for first team appearances. If, say, one in three of these players makes the grade at Stoke, then we will have acquired a good first teamer at minimal cost. Hopefully another might be sold at a profit and if one in three fails to make the grade it has cost us very little. Compared to £10 million + for Crouch + £40 k per week it looks like a sound policy to me. True, but there is little evidence of us replacing our much needed strike force with at least a 10+ goal a season player. Time will tell, but the lock is ticking and we are now in August Hopefully now Hughes is back and he has had a good look at the team, things will start to move, assuming he has some transfer kitty
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2013 6:26:59 GMT
Whats new Lakeland ? Butland and Ness last season fall into same catagory. Just that the names are more exotic this year which always turns heads. Problem I fear is that for clubs such as ours to start getting clever about long term planning is very difficult - short term survival of the season ahead needs every penny (or cent as seems more appropriate at the moment) that we have. Well, not entirely new but it is a policy we neglected until recently. I think the Coates family made it very clear that we HAD to adopt a policy of developing at least some of our own talent plus getting into a position where some players can be sold at a profit - rather than the regular losses we make on player sales at present. Until the Academy starts to produce first team talent on a regular basis (and that will take years) there has to be a policy of recruiting SOME unproven players we can develop. Yes, it means that, in the short term, we may be operating on a wing and a prayer but the family are surely right that the club cannot be run as some sort of North Staffordshire "black hole" into which subsidy has to be poured every year to the end of time. Self sufficiency HAS to be the way forward and we are now seeing a significant number of our transfer targets being selected with this in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2013 6:32:50 GMT
I posted on the Loud and Prod facebook thread last night that it seems to me that Stoke are operating a two track approach this season. Yes, we are aiming to sign good youngish players who are "first team ready" - players such as Pieters and Diouf. But we are also trying to find young (cheap or free) players who may not be ready for first team starts yet but who look to have potential to challenge for first team starts in the next year or so and who should increase in value as a result. Muniesa was the first of these - interestingly, from his displays in the US he may be closer to first team starts than we thought when we bought him. Agudelo would fall into the same category as Muniesa. I don't know why so many Stokies are concerned about this. It is the sort of thing that the bigger clubs have done for a while. It has the advantage of costing very little in terms of transfer fees and, by Prem standards, comparatively little in terms of wages as these players will be on low basic wages with better money for first team appearances. If, say, one in three of these players makes the grade at Stoke, then we will have acquired a good first teamer at minimal cost. Hopefully another might be sold at a profit and if one in three fails to make the grade it has cost us very little. Compared to £10 million + for Crouch + £40 k per week it looks like a sound policy to me. True, but there is little evidence of us replacing our much needed strike force with at least a 10+ goal a season player. Time will tell, but the lock is ticking and we are now in August Hopefully now Hughes is back and he has had a good look at the team, things will start to move, assuming he has some transfer kitty Given that Diouf was one of our first targets this summer then it is clear that Hughes recognises the need for a prolific striker. I doubt we have given up on Diouf (and I still think we might get him) and I expect there will be other targets as well but it has never been our policy to conduct transfers in public - we sometimes confirm a target when asked (eg Diouf and Oliveira) ) but that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by 36dd on Aug 1, 2013 6:36:29 GMT
I reckon the rival Premier league side will be West Ham?
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Aug 1, 2013 6:39:17 GMT
True, but there is little evidence of us replacing our much needed strike force with at least a 10+ goal a season player. Time will tell, but the lock is ticking and we are now in August Hopefully now Hughes is back and he has had a good look at the team, things will start to move, assuming he has some transfer kitty Given that Diouf was one of our first targets this summer then it is clear that Hughes recognises the need for a prolific striker. I doubt we have given up on Diouf (and I still think we might get him) and I expect there will be other targets as well but it has never been our policy to conduct transfers in public - we sometimes confirm a target when asked (eg Diouf and Oliveira) ) but that's about it. Agreed, Forny. There's definitely a two tier strategy going on here. The club top brass want to invest in exciting, young potential but not at the expense of the current team. So far we've spent bugger all (relatively speaking) and I firmly believe the kitty is yet to be really dented. As you say, I also think we will continue the pursuit of Diouf.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Aug 1, 2013 6:40:03 GMT
Its a fine theory Lakeland but what happens when we get relegated ? Any 'prospects' scuttle off as quick as their agents can carry them and we settle into a long term period of mediocrity (sustainable or otherwise). Only chance of success is that our management (ie Mr Cartwright) has an eye for outstanding talent ..... nothing to indicate that yet but time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 1, 2013 7:09:36 GMT
Looks like we're doing things on the cheap this year.....ominous. Had trials with Celtic and West ham....Cheapest option..Coates is up to his old tricks again! We have a squad that has been assembled at a huge cost, we lost £millions last season, it couldn't carry on, is that not easy to see, or would you rather we went the way of Pompey? He's one for the future if we get him, just like Muniesa, they'll be ready for full PL seasons as our existing squad, which should be able to be a mid table team, start to depart. Financial fair play is coming in, from what I can see we are looking ahead and getting ready for it.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Aug 1, 2013 7:15:48 GMT
He's only 20 so wont be taking up a place in our nominated squad. Plus I think that MH might be prepared to use some of our younger players alongside the more experienced ones.
I do agree however that we do need at least one proven goalscorer at this level.
|
|
|
Post by Binndy on Aug 1, 2013 7:17:05 GMT
Fine with me, I like the excitement of an unknown , along with Defoe. Fabian in mid with Agudelo Defoe Rudnevs , in a 4-3-3 . come on stoke city.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2013 7:21:21 GMT
Its a fine theory Lakeland but what happens when we get relegated ? Any 'prospects' scuttle off as quick as their agents can carry them and we settle into a long term period of mediocrity (sustainable or otherwise). Only chance of success is that our management (ie Mr Cartwright) has an eye for outstanding talent ..... nothing to indicate that yet but time will tell. Relegation won't be determined by the "development" players we sign this year, will it? The development program runs in parallel with the first team program. Relegation (or a top 10 finish) will be decided by how the first team squad plays and how we add to (and subtract from) that squad. So far, and with a month still to go in this window, we've signed our first proper left back in years - a current Dutch International. We have made a bid for a "1 in 2" Bundesliga striker and, if we fail to get him we'll no doubt bid for a player of similar calibre. Hughes said he would not be making his major moves until he had evaluated his squad and that squad arrived (or arrives) back from an evaluation tour in the States this morning - so he's hardly delaying acting on that promise is he? You may be the sort who feels better in doom and gloom mode. Thankfully, I am not!
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Aug 1, 2013 7:25:22 GMT
I posted on the Loud and Prod facebook thread last night that it seems to me that Stoke are operating a two track approach this season. Yes, we are aiming to sign good youngish players who are "first team ready" - players such as Pieters and Diouf. But we are also trying to find young (cheap or free) players who may not be ready for first team starts yet but who look to have potential to challenge for first team starts in the next year or so and who should increase in value as a result. Muniesa was the first of these - interestingly, from his displays in the US he may be closer to first team starts than we thought when we bought him. Agudelo would fall into the same category as Muniesa. I don't know why so many Stokies are concerned about this. It is the sort of thing that the bigger clubs have done for a while. It has the advantage of costing very little in terms of transfer fees and, by Prem standards, comparatively little in terms of wages as these players will be on low basic wages with better money for first team appearances. If, say, one in three of these players makes the grade at Stoke, then we will have acquired a good first teamer at minimal cost. Hopefully another might be sold at a profit and if one in three fails to make the grade it has cost us very little. Compared to £10 million + for Crouch + £40 k per week it looks like a sound policy to me. Sound policy? Well, players will only develop and increase in value if they are played regularly. Muniesa untried and unproven at prem level, ditto Shea, ditto Agueldo, ditto Edu. Precisely how many untried and unproven players do you suggest Stoke put out in one match? You moan about Crouch, the top goalscorer and assist player but regard spending money on several untried and untested players as good value? Furthermore, would relegation improve their value? I think not! Don't try and dress up the new tight policy of 'the family' as a progression when it is clearly a regression to the bad, old days!
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Aug 1, 2013 7:57:21 GMT
Is it ultimately exclusively MLS's decision whether to accept a bid of X?
If they run the risk of him leaving for nothing in November, can we really lean on them price-wise?
If he's good friends with Shea, we should have a clearish run at him, despite this apparent rival interest.
|
|
|
Post by PerCyfilth ....Captains Log on Aug 1, 2013 8:07:37 GMT
Awesome header!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 8:43:33 GMT
I posted on the Loud and Prod facebook thread last night that it seems to me that Stoke are operating a two track approach this season. Yes, we are aiming to sign good youngish players who are "first team ready" - players such as Pieters and Diouf. But we are also trying to find young (cheap or free) players who may not be ready for first team starts yet but who look to have potential to challenge for first team starts in the next year or so and who should increase in value as a result. Muniesa was the first of these - interestingly, from his displays in the US he may be closer to first team starts than we thought when we bought him. Agudelo would fall into the same category as Muniesa. I don't know why so many Stokies are concerned about this. It is the sort of thing that the bigger clubs have done for a while. It has the advantage of costing very little in terms of transfer fees and, by Prem standards, comparatively little in terms of wages as these players will be on low basic wages with better money for first team appearances. If, say, one in three of these players makes the grade at Stoke, then we will have acquired a good first teamer at minimal cost. Hopefully another might be sold at a profit and if one in three fails to make the grade it has cost us very little. Compared to £10 million + for Crouch + £40 k per week it looks like a sound policy to me. Yes....All very true . This is the future and our long term aim. That said , part of that future is the here and now.! This season we need at least one proven prolific striker or our future could be the championship... I think Hughes realises this and may take chances on players like Agudelo in the hope that he can break into the first team straight away. Obviously his aim will be to continue in his search for a more experienced striker , but Hughes seems to be exploring all options. Exciting , int eet..? mumf
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Aug 1, 2013 8:54:12 GMT
I posted on the Loud and Prod facebook thread last night that it seems to me that Stoke are operating a two track approach this season. Yes, we are aiming to sign good youngish players who are "first team ready" - players such as Pieters and Diouf. But we are also trying to find young (cheap or free) players who may not be ready for first team starts yet but who look to have potential to challenge for first team starts in the next year or so and who should increase in value as a result. Muniesa was the first of these - interestingly, from his displays in the US he may be closer to first team starts than we thought when we bought him. Agudelo would fall into the same category as Muniesa. I don't know why so many Stokies are concerned about this. It is the sort of thing that the bigger clubs have done for a while. It has the advantage of costing very little in terms of transfer fees and, by Prem standards, comparatively little in terms of wages as these players will be on low basic wages with better money for first team appearances. If, say, one in three of these players makes the grade at Stoke, then we will have acquired a good first teamer at minimal cost. Hopefully another might be sold at a profit and if one in three fails to make the grade it has cost us very little. Compared to £10 million + for Crouch + £40 k per week it looks like a sound policy to me. Yes....All very true . This is the future and our long term aim. That said , part of that future is the here and now.! This season we need at least one proven prolific striker or our future could be the championship... I think Hughes realises this and may take chances on players like Agudelo in the hope that he can break into the first team straight away. Obviously his aim will be to continue in his search for a more experienced striker , but Hughes seems to be exploring all options. Exciting , int eet..? mumf Spot on the answer is somewhere in the middle we've done it at LB with Pieters (now) and Muniesa (future but maybe now) now we need to do it upfront with Agudelo and hopefully 2 nows like Defoe and the Mexican lad or Hoillett.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Aug 1, 2013 8:56:14 GMT
I posted on the Loud and Prod facebook thread last night that it seems to me that Stoke are operating a two track approach this season. Yes, we are aiming to sign good youngish players who are "first team ready" - players such as Pieters and Diouf. But we are also trying to find young (cheap or free) players who may not be ready for first team starts yet but who look to have potential to challenge for first team starts in the next year or so and who should increase in value as a result. Muniesa was the first of these - interestingly, from his displays in the US he may be closer to first team starts than we thought when we bought him. Agudelo would fall into the same category as Muniesa. I don't know why so many Stokies are concerned about this. It is the sort of thing that the bigger clubs have done for a while. It has the advantage of costing very little in terms of transfer fees and, by Prem standards, comparatively little in terms of wages as these players will be on low basic wages with better money for first team appearances. If, say, one in three of these players makes the grade at Stoke, then we will have acquired a good first teamer at minimal cost. Hopefully another might be sold at a profit and if one in three fails to make the grade it has cost us very little. Compared to £10 million + for Crouch + £40 k per week it looks like a sound policy to me. Yes....All very true . This is the future and our long term aim. That said , part of that future is the here and now.! This season we need at least one proven prolific striker or our future could be the championship... I think Hughes realises this and may take chances on players like Agudelo in the hope that he can break into the first team straight away. Obviously his aim will be to continue in his search for a more experienced striker , but Hughes seems to be exploring all options. Exciting , int eet..? mumf There is a lot of sense in what Lakeland is saying. The aim is both long term self sufficiency as well as short term improvement. No sensible businessman fails to invest in the long term particularly at little cost. PC has said that funds will be available, just ensuring they are not wasted. Mumf it is indeed exciting looking forward to the next fortnight in particular. All the right moves so far.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 1, 2013 8:59:55 GMT
Looks like we're doing things on the cheap this year.....ominous. Had trials with Celtic and West ham....Cheapest option..Coates is up to his old tricks again! We have a squad that has been assembled at a huge cost, we lost £millions last season, it couldn't carry on, is that not easy to see, or would you rather we went the way of Pompey? He's one for the future if we get him, just like Muniesa, they'll be ready for full PL seasons as our existing squad, which should be able to be a mid table team, start to depart. Financial fair play is coming in, from what I can see we are looking ahead and getting ready for it. The previous cost relates to the previous manager. I wouldn't like to feel that MH hands are tied because Tone wasted a lot of money. Financial fair play only comes into effect for European competitions. Plus I doubt giving MH 20m and selling a few players is going to qualify us for any penalties.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Aug 1, 2013 11:41:03 GMT
Sentinel uses the term "advanced talks".
Wonder where exactly we are with this?
And then no doubt we have the long-winded, convoluted work permit stuff to get through again.
|
|
|
Post by potterpaul on Aug 1, 2013 12:51:45 GMT
Sentinel uses the term "advanced talks". Wonder where exactly we are with this? And then no doubt we have the long-winded, convoluted work permit stuff to get through again. I wonder if MH will be sent down to oversee the permit application on deadline day
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 1, 2013 13:12:13 GMT
We have a squad that has been assembled at a huge cost, we lost £millions last season, it couldn't carry on, is that not easy to see, or would you rather we went the way of Pompey? He's one for the future if we get him, just like Muniesa, they'll be ready for full PL seasons as our existing squad, which should be able to be a mid table team, start to depart. Financial fair play is coming in, from what I can see we are looking ahead and getting ready for it. 1.The previous cost relates to the previous manager. 2.I wouldn't like to feel that MH hands are tied because Tone wasted a lot of money. 3.Financial fair play only comes into effect for European competitions. 4.Plus I doubt giving MH 20m and selling a few players is going to qualify us for any penalties. 1. Yes I know, but the accounts don't differ between managers 2. Neither would I but we can't keep losing money, can we? 3. No it isn't it's all clubs in UEFA 4. It's really about wages not transfers
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Aug 1, 2013 13:15:48 GMT
One for the future I hope!?!
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 1, 2013 13:23:07 GMT
1.The previous cost relates to the previous manager. 2.I wouldn't like to feel that MH hands are tied because Tone wasted a lot of money. 3.Financial fair play only comes into effect for European competitions. 4.Plus I doubt giving MH 20m and selling a few players is going to qualify us for any penalties. 1. Yes I know, but the accounts don't differ between managers 2. Neither would I but we can't keep losing money, can we? 3. No it isn't it's all clubs in UEFA 4. It's really about wages not transfers 1. That's up to the chairman. 2. Losing what? Around 3m a year that PC has paid off? We can make that through selling one of our poorer players. We get 30m more this year in TV rights anyway. 3. It's about excluding teams that overspend from European competition. Teams can overspend massively up to the time that they qualify. After which they'll look for a quick way to reduce the wage bill. 4. Selling a few players will reduce the wage bill. It's really about the overall spend even though wages are restricted to X% of the clubs revenue for teams in European competition.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Aug 1, 2013 13:38:59 GMT
The wage bill is clearly a much bigger issue then is generally considered. Signing players from MLS,Mexico e.t.c rather than other prem (or even champ) clubs will cost signifcantly less. - so TP had to go -
Thats the up-side. Down-side is bigger chance of those players not doing the business.
It can be done but it's risky
Personally I would be a lot happier if we made just one signing from traditional sources who we could all see should be a good player for us & alos got in some low cost gambles.
Not convinced we have a two tier transfer policy myself.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 1, 2013 13:49:45 GMT
1. Yes I know, but the accounts don't differ between managers 2. Neither would I but we can't keep losing money, can we? 3. No it isn't it's all clubs in UEFA 4. It's really about wages not transfers 1. That's up to the chairman. 2. Losing what? Around 3m a year that PC has paid off? We can make that through selling one of our poorer players. We get 30m more this year in TV rights anyway. 3. It's about excluding teams that overspend from European competition. Teams can overspend massively up to the time that they qualify. After which they'll look for a quick way to reduce the wage bill. 4. Selling a few players will reduce the wage bill. It's really about the overall spend even though wages are restricted to X% of the clubs revenue for teams in European competition. foster, you are forgetting that as well as the UEFA fair play regulations, the Premier League has introduced its own fair play financial regulations this year which, basically limits the increase in club wage bills this season. The Premier League regulations have nothing to do with Europe and have been brought in to ensure that no more than £4 million of the increased Sky money is spent on wages.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Aug 1, 2013 14:00:02 GMT
1. Yes I know, but the accounts don't differ between managers 2. Neither would I but we can't keep losing money, can we? 3. No it isn't it's all clubs in UEFA 4. It's really about wages not transfers 1. That's up to the chairman. 2. Losing what? Around 3m a year that PC has paid off? We can make that through selling one of our poorer players. We get 30m more this year in TV rights anyway. 3. It's about excluding teams that overspend from European competition. Teams can overspend massively up to the time that they qualify. After which they'll look for a quick way to reduce the wage bill. 4. Selling a few players will reduce the wage bill. It's really about the overall spend even though wages are restricted to X% of the clubs revenue for teams in European competition. 1. No it isn't it's a financial accounting year 2. £3m ????? It was £31m, can you see the points being now? www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Stoke-City-Potters-reveal-financial-figures/story-19359845-detail/story.html#axzz2aj3ZEqzv
|
|