|
Post by buckoscfc on Aug 25, 2018 10:55:43 GMT
A manager doesn’t have to use a player he didn’t want at all Dave, no. I call my first witnesses, ‘Triggy’ and ‘Ziggy’. Are managers ever involved in contract negotiations? It always used to be the chairman in the days before CEOs? Of course players are questioning recruitment, we’ve had a succession of shocking windows and were relegated. It’d be odd if they weren’t. That doesn’t mean the manager isn’t signing the players. I don’t doubt Scholes did a lot of the work to get Pennant back. I do doubt that Hughes didn’t want him. He was offered a low risk option on a pay as you play deal at a time when creative options were thin on the ground and he took it. Is it out of the question that it could be as simple as that? We are consistently failing to sign the players that the manager wants. Why? Who is responsible? The manager alone isn't responsible for bringing players to the club and offering contract extensions. That much is clear right? Why is it then that only the managers have lost their jobs? Witness no 2 is brek shea. Not wanted by the manager, played by the manager. Witness 3 Jack butland. Not wanted by the manager, played by the manager and sent out on loan by the same manager. The transfer team are clearly heavily involved in transfers, contracts and player recruitment. That role should be filled by a football man not an accountant, a solicitor and the silver spoon son of our our owner. The club is in a sorry mess following a fall from grace that should have been impossible yet those who've overseen it are still involved and remain both faceless and unaccountable. And this is why we need a Director of Football.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 25, 2018 10:56:33 GMT
We are consistently failing to sign the players that the manager wants. Why? Who is responsible? The manager alone isn't responsible for bringing players to the club and offering contract extensions. That much is clear right? Why is it then that only the managers have lost their jobs? Witness no 2 is brek shea. Not wanted by the manager, played by the manager. Witness 3 Jack butland. Not wanted by the manager, played by the manager and sent out on loan by the same manager. The transfer team are clearly heavily involved in transfers, contracts and player recruitment. That role should be filled by a football man not an accountant, a solicitor and the silver spoon son of our our owner. The club is in a sorry mess following a fall from grace that should have been impossible yet those who've overseen it are still involved and remain both faceless and unaccountable. And this is why we need a Director of Football. That is essentially Mark Cartwright.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 25, 2018 10:59:56 GMT
Who has he been told he can’t use? Choupo, wimmer who would have had a chance to play right now and is no worse than the other CB's we have. I think he's been told to use bojan hence his grudging praise and veiled criticism of bojans performances recently. He was told to play Bauer and has rebelled. Signings, you can see some are Rowetts but some are the boards. Etebo was signed by the transfer team with little if sent input from rowett. The comment about hughes rubber-stamping decisions by the board, wanting to keep them onside, rings true. Clearly, there is a muddled and confused approach hence the mess we are in now. Wimmer was gone before we appointed Rowett wasn't he? I don't see why he'd be told he can't use Choupo but could use Berahino? If Bauer was such a sticking point would he have been allowed to bring in another right back?
|
|
|
Post by doitforfrank on Aug 25, 2018 11:00:14 GMT
However you want to dress it up, the noises are getting louder, and what were rumours are starting to gain traction. You may well be playing devils advocate, but the quotes from players at the end of the season, information coming from reliable journalists and now former players suggests that all the so called knicker wetters have been right all along, and the Scholes and (possible) Cartwright are dismantling everything that was good about Stoke City Well if the rumours are as true as the stuff you posted the other day about the club vetting Oatcake articles, then there's absolutely nothing to see. I never questioned an Oatcake article. I questioned an article published by The Sentinel, that Martin had "written". I apologise if I offended you with my remark, however, you must be able to see as clearly as anyone else that there is something not right with the reporting in the Sentinel currently regarding Stoke City. To re-hash a story regarding someone at the club with a few updated details to make everything appear Ok and that "The Process" is working is not journalism. Its lazy at best and collusive at worst. The Sentinel has no credibility from me any longer. If Martin wishes to do his column, fine, but use it to vent issues that supporters are concerned about.
|
|
|
Post by buckoscfc on Aug 25, 2018 11:02:16 GMT
And this is why we need a Director of Football. That is essentially Mark Cartwright. I think the job descriptions are slightly different. Cartwright supposedly uses his contacts to get in touch with agents. While a Director of Football is an actual football man (not a former GK for Leek) who acts as the middle man between manager and board.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Aug 25, 2018 11:04:46 GMT
Needs be a West Ham style protest at some point to get rid of this pair.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 25, 2018 11:05:08 GMT
A manager doesn’t have to use a player he didn’t want at all Dave, no. I call my first witnesses, ‘Triggy’ and ‘Ziggy’. Are managers ever involved in contract negotiations? It always used to be the chairman in the days before CEOs? Of course players are questioning recruitment, we’ve had a succession of shocking windows and were relegated. It’d be odd if they weren’t. That doesn’t mean the manager isn’t signing the players. I don’t doubt Scholes did a lot of the work to get Pennant back. I do doubt that Hughes didn’t want him. He was offered a low risk option on a pay as you play deal at a time when creative options were thin on the ground and he took it. Is it out of the question that it could be as simple as that? We are consistently failing to sign the players that the manager wants. Why? Who is responsible? The manager alone isn't responsible for bringing players to the club and offering contract extensions. That much is clear right? Why is it then that only the managers have lost their jobs? Witness no 2 is brek shea. Not wanted by the manager, played by the manager. Witness 3 Jack butland. Not wanted by the manager, played by the manager and sent out on loan by the same manager. The transfer team are clearly heavily involved in transfers, contracts and player recruitment. That role should be filled by a football man not an accountant, a solicitor and the silver spoon son of our our owner. The club is in a sorry mess following a fall from grace that should have been impossible yet those who've overseen it are still involved and remain both faceless and unaccountable. The manager isn't solely responsible, no. He's part of the transfer team. But he does have the final say on who we sign. I agree that Scholes and Cartwright should have gone as well. I haven't said otherwise. They're useless. Shea got two grudging sub appearances and was never seen again. I struggle to believe that Pulis didn't want Butland even if he didn't initiate it, and he loaned him out because we had a goalkeeper playing out of his skin at the time. I agree the transfer team should be peopled by better personnel, but the vast, vast majority of signings are the manager's and he has the final say. The 180 degree turnaround in the type of targets since the managerial change is further evidence of that. There are various reasons why we've missed out on targets. Penny-pinching and incompetence are among them, but Ritchie and Gayle didn't come because of the situation at Newcastle. Chester, if we'd have acted faster and paid what they wanted, might have come but it was clear he preferred to stay there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2018 11:05:52 GMT
Sounds like more interference than medium wave...
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 25, 2018 11:05:54 GMT
Well if the rumours are as true as the stuff you posted the other day about the club vetting Oatcake articles, then there's absolutely nothing to see. I never questioned an Oatcake article. I questioned an article published by The Sentinel, that Martin had "written". I apologise if I offended you with my remark, however, you must be able to see as clearly as anyone else that there is something not right with the reporting in the Sentinel currently regarding Stoke City. To re-hash a story regarding someone at the club with a few updated details to make everything appear Ok and that "The Process" is working is not journalism. Its lazy at best and collusive at worst. The Sentinel has no credibility from me any longer. If Martin wishes to do his column, fine, but use it to vent issues that supporters are concerned about. Who are you to tell a bloke what he should and shouldn't write?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 25, 2018 11:06:59 GMT
Choupo, wimmer who would have had a chance to play right now and is no worse than the other CB's we have. I think he's been told to use bojan hence his grudging praise and veiled criticism of bojans performances recently. He was told to play Bauer and has rebelled. Signings, you can see some are Rowetts but some are the boards. Etebo was signed by the transfer team with little if sent input from rowett. The comment about hughes rubber-stamping decisions by the board, wanting to keep them onside, rings true. Clearly, there is a muddled and confused approach hence the mess we are in now. Wimmer was gone before we appointed Rowett wasn't he? I don't see why he'd be told he can't use Choupo but could use Berahino? If Bauer was such a sticking point would he have been allowed to bring in another right back? So a 5 year contract to a player a manager has already replaced is no big deal? Has no impact on further transfer dealings? Come on rob. Get real. All of our problems stem from bad decisions in relation to players, be they contract extensions or signings. Clearly the manager isn't the only one involved yet the manager is the only one who has carried the can.
|
|
|
Post by Dingdangdoo on Aug 25, 2018 11:06:59 GMT
We are consistently failing to sign the players that the manager wants. Why? Who is responsible? The manager alone isn't responsible for bringing players to the club and offering contract extensions. That much is clear right? Why is it then that only the managers have lost their jobs? Witness no 2 is brek shea. Not wanted by the manager, played by the manager. Witness 3 Jack butland. Not wanted by the manager, played by the manager and sent out on loan by the same manager. The transfer team are clearly heavily involved in transfers, contracts and player recruitment. That role should be filled by a football man not an accountant, a solicitor and the silver spoon son of our our owner. The club is in a sorry mess following a fall from grace that should have been impossible yet those who've overseen it are still involved and remain both faceless and unaccountable. The manager isn't solely responsible, no. He's part of the transfer team. But he does have the final say on who we sign. I agree that Scholes and Cartwright should have gone as well. I haven't said otherwise. They're useless. Shea got two grudging sub appearances and was never seen again. I struggle to believe that Pulis didn't want Butland even if he didn't initiate it, and he loaned him out because we had a goalkeeper playing out of his skin at the time. I agree the transfer team should be peopled by better personnel, but the vast, vast majority of signings are the manager's and he has the final say. The 180 degree turnaround in the type of targets since the managerial change is further evidence of that. There are various reasons why we've missed out on targets. Penny-pinching and incompetence are among them, but Ritchie and Gayle didn't come because of the situation at Newcastle. Chester, if we'd have acted faster and paid what they wanted, might have come but it was clear he preferred to stay there. A much more realistic opinion to some conspiracy theorists on here TA
|
|
|
Post by doitforfrank on Aug 25, 2018 11:10:00 GMT
However you want to dress it up, the noises are getting louder, and what were rumours are starting to gain traction. You may well be playing devils advocate, but the quotes from players at the end of the season, information coming from reliable journalists and now former players suggests that all the so called knicker wetters have been right all along, and the Scholes and (possible) Cartwright are dismantling everything that was good about Stoke City Which ‘reliable journalists’? A vague, throwaway sentence from Mike Pejic? If Hughes didn’t want Pennant, was it Scholes who brought him on to score at West Ham? Does Pennant’s one eyed account of his time under Pulis and his exit under Hughes not discredit him a little bit? I’ll ask again - which of this summer’s signings do you think weren’t signed by Rowett? I would regard John Percy as a reliable journalist. his articles are always genuine, well written pieces, and his recent one regarding Stoke basically ticked off the concerns on here. I don't believe for one minute that he would be using this forum for his information. I would agree that Pennant wouldn't be at the top of my list for a reliable comment, however, now with his mutterings, along with Charlie and Jack at the end of the season and an unsubstantiated comment from one of our strikers, a pattern is forming. I would say Etebo was definitely NOT Rowetts signing and I think you agree, you've previously said the signings of Bauer and Badou were already in motion before Hughes left and we still signed them. Given that logic, and Stokes record for time delays with signings, Etebo must have been in motion before Rowett was signed, the signing of Afobe, may also be included given timescales from when Rowett signed. your well stated timeframe for transfers. And to that you can add the contracts of Bauer, Allen, and whoever else has been rewarded for failure.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Aug 25, 2018 11:10:25 GMT
We entirely deserve everything that has happened to us and the misery yet to unfold. We'll wake up one day. There'll only be 11,000 fans their again but I'm sure we'll wake up eventually. Well I don't deserve what's happening. I've suffered for years at the hands of Stoke & want someTLC
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Aug 25, 2018 11:12:43 GMT
Well if the rumours are as true as the stuff you posted the other day about the club vetting Oatcake articles, then there's absolutely nothing to see. I never questioned an Oatcake article. I questioned an article published by The Sentinel, that Martin had "written". I apologise if I offended you with my remark, however, you must be able to see as clearly as anyone else that there is something not right with the reporting in the Sentinel currently regarding Stoke City. To re-hash a story regarding someone at the club with a few updated details to make everything appear Ok and that "The Process" is working is not journalism. Its lazy at best and collusive at worst. The Sentinel has no credibility from me any longer. If Martin wishes to do his column, fine, but use it to vent issues that supporters are concerned about. If an article written by The Oatcake's editor appears in The Sentinel, then it's an Oatcake article and again, nothing is vetted or re-hashed.
|
|
|
Post by bigcashprizes on Aug 25, 2018 11:12:49 GMT
A manager doesn’t have to use a player he didn’t want at all Dave, no. I call my first witnesses, ‘Triggy’ and ‘Ziggy’. Are managers ever involved in contract negotiations? It always used to be the chairman in the days before CEOs? Of course players are questioning recruitment, we’ve had a succession of shocking windows and were relegated. It’d be odd if they weren’t. That doesn’t mean the manager isn’t signing the players. I don’t doubt Scholes did a lot of the work to get Pennant back. I do doubt that Hughes didn’t want him. He was offered a low risk option on a pay as you play deal at a time when creative options were thin on the ground and he took it. Is it out of the question that it could be as simple as that? We are consistently failing to sign the players that the manager wants. Why? Who is responsible? The manager alone isn't responsible for bringing players to the club and offering contract extensions. That much is clear right? Why is it then that only the managers have lost their jobs? Witness no 2 is brek shea. Not wanted by the manager, played by the manager. Witness 3 Jack butland. Not wanted by the manager, played by the manager and sent out on loan by the same manager. The transfer team are clearly heavily involved in transfers, contracts and player recruitment. That role should be filled by a football man not an accountant, a solicitor and the silver spoon son of our our owner.
The club is in a sorry mess following a fall from grace that should have been impossible yet those who've overseen it are still involved and remain both faceless and unaccountable. In a nutshell. It’s fucking obvious
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 25, 2018 11:17:39 GMT
Wimmer was gone before we appointed Rowett wasn't he? I don't see why he'd be told he can't use Choupo but could use Berahino? If Bauer was such a sticking point would he have been allowed to bring in another right back? So a 5 year contract to a player a manager has already replaced is no big deal? Has no impact on further transfer dealings? Come on rob. Get real. All of our problems stem from bad decisions in relation to players, be they contract extensions or signings. Clearly the manager isn't the only one involved yet the manager is the only one who has carried the can. I'm not saying the other two shouldn't carry the can Dave. I want them gone. I just don't think it's as easy as them being convenient bogeymen and the club's ills vanishing overnight without them. I'm saying they alone aren't the problem. It's more complex than that. And the vast majority of signings are the manager's men. They were under Hughes. They are under Rowett.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 25, 2018 11:26:32 GMT
So a 5 year contract to a player a manager has already replaced is no big deal? Has no impact on further transfer dealings? Come on rob. Get real. All of our problems stem from bad decisions in relation to players, be they contract extensions or signings. Clearly the manager isn't the only one involved yet the manager is the only one who has carried the can. I'm not saying the other two shouldn't carry the can Dave. I want them gone. I just don't think it's as easy as them being convenient bogeymen and the club's ills vanishing overnight without them. I'm saying they alone aren't the problem. It's more complex than that. And the vast majority of signings are the manager's men. They were under Hughes. They are under Rowett. Until they are gone or until Cartwright goes and scholes reverts back to being an accountant the manager doesn't have a chance. Did you see scholes words on leaving Preston? Posted by Paulspencer? He's got his dream job and everything that has gone on at this club over the last 2 years has his grubby mits all over it.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 25, 2018 11:30:12 GMT
I'm not saying the other two shouldn't carry the can Dave. I want them gone. I just don't think it's as easy as them being convenient bogeymen and the club's ills vanishing overnight without them. I'm saying they alone aren't the problem. It's more complex than that. And the vast majority of signings are the manager's men. They were under Hughes. They are under Rowett. Until they are gone or until Cartwright goes and scholes reverts back to being an accountant the manager doesn't have a chance. Did you see scholes words on leaving Preston? Posted by Paulspencer? He's got his dream job and everything that has gone on at this club over the last 2 years has his grubby mits all over it. Is it that simple? We had three excellent years under Hughes while 'the process' was very much in place? Are we saying Scholes had no involvement in contract negotiations before 'the process'? The manager has actually been very well backed this season.
|
|
|
Post by nottspotter on Aug 25, 2018 11:31:46 GMT
‘Evidanance’ ???
🤔
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 25, 2018 11:39:35 GMT
I think it's a bit like River Dance only different.
|
|
|
Post by onefatcopper on Aug 25, 2018 11:39:39 GMT
Bauer,Shawcross, Allen & possibly Butland have been rewarded for FAILURE with new contracts,where the rest of the relegation squad equally culpable have been rewarded for Failure with wage reductions . Now that seems a fantastic way of building team spirit and morale in the camp “ one rule for one and a different rule for the rest” Now these contracts are dealt with by Stan & Ollie and where handed out before Rowett took office, isn’t that interfering in team matters ?
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Aug 25, 2018 11:42:23 GMT
Needs be a West Ham style protest at some point to get rid of this pair. Good luck with that one. The average Stoke fan probably couldn't even name this 'pair'. Give it a go, you might just about get a muted 'sack the board' chant going.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Aug 25, 2018 11:44:33 GMT
Needs be a West Ham style protest at some point to get rid of this pair. Good luck with that one. The average Stoke fan probably couldn't even name this 'pair'. Give it a go, you might just about get a muted 'sack the board' chant going. That's the spirit 👍
|
|
|
Post by doitforfrank on Aug 25, 2018 11:44:51 GMT
I never questioned an Oatcake article. I questioned an article published by The Sentinel, that Martin had "written". I apologise if I offended you with my remark, however, you must be able to see as clearly as anyone else that there is something not right with the reporting in the Sentinel currently regarding Stoke City. To re-hash a story regarding someone at the club with a few updated details to make everything appear Ok and that "The Process" is working is not journalism. Its lazy at best and collusive at worst. The Sentinel has no credibility from me any longer. If Martin wishes to do his column, fine, but use it to vent issues that supporters are concerned about. If an article written by The Oatcake's editor appears in The Sentinel, then it's an Oatcake article and again, nothing is vetted or re-hashed. Then I apologise. I wasn't suggesting Martin was re-hashing, but the Sentinel did with their Cartwright story, which also appeared a few months ago.
|
|
|
Post by doitforfrank on Aug 25, 2018 11:52:15 GMT
Until they are gone or until Cartwright goes and scholes reverts back to being an accountant the manager doesn't have a chance. Did you see scholes words on leaving Preston? Posted by Paulspencer? He's got his dream job and everything that has gone on at this club over the last 2 years has his grubby mits all over it. Is it that simple? We had three excellent years under Hughes while 'the process' was very much in place? Are we saying Scholes had no involvement in contract negotiations before 'the process'? The manager has actually been very well backed this season. This, I very much agree with. so what has changed, what has gone wrong with the process? Hughes couldn't have picked good players then all of a sudden started packing bad one after bad one. Additionally the transfer team couldn't have gone from getting good deals for good players, to getting awful value and bad contract decisions. Is there some dogdyness with agents etc.? or do the gruesome twosome genuinely believe they are so good at what they do they are untouchable? The only thing remaining since our glory days are Scholes and Cartwright. If the mistakes had stopped with Hughes leaving, you can blame him totally but the mistakes are continuing, so who do you blame now?
|
|
|
Post by doitforfrank on Aug 25, 2018 11:56:04 GMT
Bauer,Shawcross, Allen & possibly Butland have been rewarded for FAILURE with new contracts,where the rest of the relegation squad equally culpable have been rewarded for Failure with wage reductions . Now that seems a fantastic way of building team spirit and morale in the camp “ one rule for one and a different rule for the rest” Now these contracts are dealt with by Stan & Ollie and where handed out before Rowett took office, isn’t that interfering in team matters ? Apart from anything else its just plain bad business. They signed the contracts with the relegation adjustment, it should have just carried on. If they weren't happy and want to leave they can submit a transfer request and we walk away without having to pay the rest of their contract. I appreciate it isn't just as simple as that, but we shouldn't have just caved in. It made for good PR at the time, but a lot of fans haven't bought it, and neither it seems has Rowett.
|
|
|
Post by Dingdangdoo on Aug 25, 2018 12:04:38 GMT
Bauer,Shawcross, Allen & possibly Butland have been rewarded for FAILURE with new contracts,where the rest of the relegation squad equally culpable have been rewarded for Failure with wage reductions . Now that seems a fantastic way of building team spirit and morale in the camp “ one rule for one and a different rule for the rest” Now these contracts are dealt with by Stan & Ollie and where handed out before Rowett took office, isn’t that interfering in team matters ? Apart from anything else its just plain bad business. They signed the contracts with the relegation adjustment, it should have just carried on. If they weren't happy and want to leave they can submit a transfer request and we walk away without having to pay the rest of their contract. I appreciate it isn't just as simple as that, but we shouldn't have just caved in. It made for good PR at the time, but a lot of fans haven't bought it, and neither it seems has Rowett. How would you have played it immediately after being relegated?
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Aug 25, 2018 12:07:29 GMT
It clearly wasn't his decision to keep me... Jermaine pennants comment in his book in regard to resigning for stoke city under Mark Hughes. Who is making these decisions again? That extended quote makes sad reading.. "Clearly it wasn’t his decision to keep me, it was more Tony Scholes and the hierarchy. I got the impression that Hughes wanted to be seen as the one who was going to give it the ok. He said yes because he wanted to keep the board on his side.” The manager has the final say rhetoric, I suspect Rowett has not just nodded aimlessly so far and neither should he. The fact this was ghost written a while ago gives an insight how long this has been going on.
|
|
|
Post by onefatcopper on Aug 25, 2018 12:08:36 GMT
Can you imagine how you would react at your place of work if that you found out that several colleagues had been rewarded with a pay rise and that the rest of you had agreed to a reduction so as to save another colleagues job ?, could this be what we are witnessing out there on the pitch with players not playing for each other open dissent?
|
|
|
Post by doitforfrank on Aug 25, 2018 12:10:19 GMT
In my opinion we should have waited for the new manager and at very least the first two weeks of training, let him judge the mood and what he felt he needed, or didn't need. Joe Allen may be a good player but if he doesn't suit the new mans philosophy let him go.
I really don't think failure should have been rewarded.
|
|