|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 25, 2018 18:54:55 GMT
Shirley you mean evidantantly? Evidenentendencely you don’t know what I mean to say. And stop calling me Shirley You said you liked it
|
|
|
Post by blackpoolred on Aug 25, 2018 19:11:15 GMT
A few brief points about how this kind of stuff works, from someone who spent a few years on the inside. A) the CEO is generally not making any decisions on player acquisitions, other than setting financial and budgetary restrictions. To paint Scholes as the boogy man in the situation is a bit naive... we are where we are through the bad player acquisition of the Hughes era. I know everyone wants someone to blame for the current state of things, but try to separate the business side of the club and the football side. Scholes is far more likely to be dealing with ticket pricing / club operational issues than he is scouting players. B) generally speaking, and I haven't spoken to anyone at Stoke in a couple of year on this, the recruitment staff (i.e. Cartwright) are tasked with finding players who meet the managers needs. The manager comes out and says "I need a ball winning midfielder" and it's the job of the recruitment team including the scouts to recommend players, and to actually go out and do the work of negotiating contracts etc (there is absolutely no reason the manager should be involved in negotiating contracts, this is a business function of the club) I spoke to Cartwright a few year ago during the Hughes era, and one of his comments that struck me was that he was very worried about Hughes preference for flair players, and he thought it could eventually damage the spirit of the lockerroom (something which clearly came to pass) Take that for what you will. Thanks for the info - always nice to hear from somebody who has the inside track. I have said all along that the manager has the say on the type of players he wants and the final decision on who we bring in and Rowett said as much in one of his interviews. You only have to look at the type of player Pulis went for over the type of player Hughes acquired to see who is actually pulling the strings - and it is most definitely the manager. Could you answer the following though: Had a few debates on here about the state of the left side of our defence - as in just Pieters and no backup or competition. When asked about this our manager replied, and I quote "There is no point in buying another left-back just for them to sit on the bench for 46 games." I think most of us on here are split over those comments: Some think that is just lack of insight by the manager not to think beyond possible injury/form/competition etc. Whereas others, who also claim to have inside info, are saying that Rowett's statement was a dig at the Transfer team/Chairman that had apparently told him those very words("There is no point in buying another left-back just to sit on the bench for 46 games." ) You mention the CEO has the say financially and he must pass those restrictions down to somebody - so a few questions: 1. When the CEO wants to impose a financial restriction, does he liaise directly with the manager or the transfer team? 2. Do you think Rowett has been told we can't afford a new left-back or that they(transfer team/Coates) don't want to pay top dollar for another left-sided defender when potentially either that player or Pieters(who must be getting a fair whack) could be sat on there arse for a large part of the season - in short has he been told he can't have a bit of competition for Pieters - could that restriction have been imposed on him or at anytime when a manager requests something is that request turned down? 3. Does a manager have pressure to play a player - we are being told now that he is having his arm twisted to play Bojan and include him in the squad, not sure where this rumour is coming from, but if a big money signing is not getting game time are questions asked and pressure applied to play them
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Aug 25, 2018 19:17:46 GMT
If only Ncastle had come in with a decent bid we couldn't have rejected!
|
|
|
Post by onefatcopper on Aug 25, 2018 20:49:55 GMT
Ferfuxache.....another paid up member of the flat earth society Where in colne are you colnepotter? I'm in barrowford. Don’t bother he’s a permanent guest at Calderstones !
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Aug 25, 2018 22:55:34 GMT
[ Thanks for that. At last bit of common sense. Sadly a lot of the nutters have pissed off tonight. But one defeat and they'll be back no doubt! If Scholes is the financial guru, why have we lost a lot of our long term sponsors/partners with worldwide recognition & appeal only to be replaced by at best sponsors/partners who do not have the same Kudos or financial strength ? Errr, because we've been relegated from the most high profile league in the world?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 25, 2018 23:28:18 GMT
The gospel according to Jermaine. There’s an honest, reliable chap if ever there was one. Why would he make that up though? It’s an odd thing to put in your book if made up.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 25, 2018 23:59:58 GMT
The gospel according to Jermaine. There’s an honest, reliable chap if ever there was one. Why would he make that up though? It’s an odd thing to put in your book if made up. I’m not saying he made it up. I’m saying he likely doesn’t know one way or the other. It’s his opinion. I’m sure Scholes did do most of the groundwork. I don’t buy that Hughes didn’t want him. He was on a cheap deal and we were scratching around for creative options. I imagine he was brought to Hughes and Hughes said “fine”. If Hughes didn’t want him he had an odd way of showing his displeasure, What with the whole bringing him on at West Ham to score the winner thing.
|
|
|
Post by onefatcopper on Aug 26, 2018 1:27:29 GMT
If Scholes is the financial guru, why have we lost a lot of our long term sponsors/partners with worldwide recognition & appeal only to be replaced by at best sponsors/partners who do not have the same Kudos or financial strength ? Errr, because we've been relegated from the most high profile league in the world? And why would he not be doing his best spiel pitch to retain at least a few of these Sponsors/ Partners,knowing full well how vitally income generated is to FFP ?
|
|
|
Post by WorkingclassHero on Aug 26, 2018 7:20:46 GMT
A few brief points about how this kind of stuff works, from someone who spent a few years on the inside. A) the CEO is generally not making any decisions on player acquisitions, other than setting financial and budgetary restrictions. To paint Scholes as the boogy man in the situation is a bit naive... we are where we are through the bad player acquisition of the Hughes era. I know everyone wants someone to blame for the current state of things, but try to separate the business side of the club and the football side. Scholes is far more likely to be dealing with ticket pricing / club operational issues than he is scouting players. B) generally speaking, and I haven't spoken to anyone at Stoke in a couple of year on this, the recruitment staff (i.e. Cartwright) are tasked with finding players who meet the managers needs. The manager comes out and says "I need a ball winning midfielder" and it's the job of the recruitment team including the scouts to recommend players, and to actually go out and do the work of negotiating contracts etc (there is absolutely no reason the manager should be involved in negotiating contracts, this is a business function of the club) I spoke to Cartwright a few year ago during the Hughes era, and one of his comments that struck me was that he was very worried about Hughes preference for flair players, and he thought it could eventually damage the spirit of the lockerroom (something which clearly came to pass) Take that for what you will. This made me laugh. If true you'd have to say the scouting has been terrible. Perhaps our scouting is confusing "flair" with lazy questionable attitude and vastly overpaid. If I read this correctly Hughes asks for an Arnie replacement and is given Jese, asks for an Nzonzi replacement and given Imbula. Asks for a third centre half and is given Wimmer. If this is all true I have some sympathy for the manager. It is the scouting that is outright shocking here. Also who is determining the size if the financial outlay and length of contracts because that is also clearly awful. Also if the above is true would give some indication why we are less willing to get rid of certain players and how it reflects on people still at the club.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 26, 2018 8:32:54 GMT
Why would he make that up though? It’s an odd thing to put in your book if made up. I’m not saying he made it up. I’m saying he likely doesn’t know one way or the other. It’s his opinion. I’m sure Scholes did do most of the groundwork. I don’t buy that Hughes didn’t want him. He was on a cheap deal and we were scratching around for creative options. I imagine he was brought to Hughes and Hughes said “fine”. If Hughes didn’t want him he had an odd way of showing his displeasure, What with the whole bringing him on at West Ham to score the winner thing. How many times did he use him after that 1 sub appearance?
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Aug 26, 2018 8:41:17 GMT
So basically moan all we like, both ain't going anywhere soon!!!!
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 26, 2018 8:41:46 GMT
I’m not saying he made it up. I’m saying he likely doesn’t know one way or the other. It’s his opinion. I’m sure Scholes did do most of the groundwork. I don’t buy that Hughes didn’t want him. He was on a cheap deal and we were scratching around for creative options. I imagine he was brought to Hughes and Hughes said “fine”. If Hughes didn’t want him he had an odd way of showing his displeasure, What with the whole bringing him on at West Ham to score the winner thing. How many times did he use him after that 1 sub appearance? In total he featured 11 times that season in all competitions.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 26, 2018 8:53:48 GMT
How many times did he use him after that 1 sub appearance? In total he featured 11 times that season in all competitions. How many starts?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 26, 2018 8:56:26 GMT
If Scholes is the financial guru, why have we lost a lot of our long term sponsors/partners with worldwide recognition & appeal only to be replaced by at best sponsors/partners who do not have the same Kudos or financial strength ? Errr, because we've been relegated from the most high profile league in the world? I wonder if he should take any blame for that?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 26, 2018 8:56:40 GMT
In total he featured 11 times that season in all competitions. How many starts? One, in the league cup. But he was always going to be a squad player - he was signed on a per appearance deal, which suggests that the bloke who set the deal up, presumably one Tony Scholes, expected that to be the case himself. Nothing to see here.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 26, 2018 8:59:37 GMT
One, in the league cup. But he was always going to be a squad player - he was signed on a per appearance deal, which suggests that the bloke who set the deal up, presumably one Tony Scholes, expected that to be the case himself. Nothing to see here. Clearly a player the manager wanted then eh? Let's hope it wasn't the same appearance contract he negotiated for Woodgate and Owen or that goal at West ham would have cost us around 100k.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 26, 2018 9:06:07 GMT
One, in the league cup. But he was always going to be a squad player - he was signed on a per appearance deal, which suggests that the bloke who set the deal up, presumably one Tony Scholes, expected that to be the case himself. Nothing to see here. Clearly a player the manager wanted then eh? Let's hope it wasn't the same appearance contract he negotiated for Woodgate and Owen or that goal at West ham would have cost us around 100k. He was happy to have him as a squad player and a creative option, is my reading of the situation. That he was still using him off the bench in January would appear to suggest that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 9:09:25 GMT
Cartwright is the poison in the club. Openly sharing his views with his mates that he thinks Rowett is the wrong man for the job and won’t back him with his targets as he (Cartwright) thinks we need Premier League players and Rowett wants players he knows to get us out of the Championship.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 26, 2018 9:12:54 GMT
Clearly a player the manager wanted then eh? Let's hope it wasn't the same appearance contract he negotiated for Woodgate and Owen or that goal at West ham would have cost us around 100k. He was happy to have him as a squad player and a creative option, is my reading of the situation. That he was still using him off the bench in January would appear to suggest that. He used him 11 times in 40 odd opportunities, giving him 1 start such was the confidence he had in his ability. His 10 substitute appearances combined probably didn't add up to 180 minutes. Just like he was happy to have wimmer eh, describing his new 18m centre half as "one for the future".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 9:25:17 GMT
Errr, because we've been relegated from the most high profile league in the world? I wonder if he should take any blame for that? Why should he? He just sweeps up and makes the tea remember, whilst his mate answers the phone.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 26, 2018 9:28:38 GMT
I wonder if he should take any blame for that? Why should he? He just sweeps up and makes the tea remember, whilst his mate answers the phone. Oh yeah, I forgot. Unless yesterday's win turns into a bit of a good run, then Spinks will have to dust off his, 'how pivotal to our success they are' article!
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 26, 2018 9:29:26 GMT
He was happy to have him as a squad player and a creative option, is my reading of the situation. That he was still using him off the bench in January would appear to suggest that. He used him 11 times in 40 odd opportunities, giving him 1 start such was the confidence he had in his ability. His 10 substitute appearances combined probably didn't add up to 180 minutes. Just like he was happy to have wimmer eh, describing his new 18m centre half as "one for the future". Yes Dave. You need squad players, especially when you’re initially thin on the ground in certain areas. That’s presumably why he signed Steve Sidwell later - a player who was clearly a Hughes signing - to provide cover. Wimmer was just next on the list wasn’t he, because Maguire chose Leicester? Not sure who pushed for him but it’s the failing of the transfer team generally - including Hughes - that they saw fit to sink most of the Arnie money into a position we didn’t even need.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 9:37:13 GMT
A few brief points about how this kind of stuff works, from someone who spent a few years on the inside. A) the CEO is generally not making any decisions on player acquisitions, other than setting financial and budgetary restrictions. To paint Scholes as the boogy man in the situation is a bit naive... we are where we are through the bad player acquisition of the Hughes era. I know everyone wants someone to blame for the current state of things, but try to separate the business side of the club and the football side. Scholes is far more likely to be dealing with ticket pricing / club operational issues than he is scouting players. B) generally speaking, and I haven't spoken to anyone at Stoke in a couple of year on this, the recruitment staff (i.e. Cartwright) are tasked with finding players who meet the managers needs. The manager comes out and says "I need a ball winning midfielder" and it's the job of the recruitment team including the scouts to recommend players, and to actually go out and do the work of negotiating contracts etc (there is absolutely no reason the manager should be involved in negotiating contracts, this is a business function of the club) I spoke to Cartwright a few year ago during the Hughes era, and one of his comments that struck me was that he was very worried about Hughes preference for flair players, and he thought it could eventually damage the spirit of the lockerroom (something which clearly came to pass) Take that for what you will. This made me laugh. If true you'd have to say the scouting has been terrible. Perhaps our scouting is confusing "flair" with lazy questionable attitude and vastly overpaid. If I read this correctly Hughes asks for an Arnie replacement and is given Jese, asks for an Nzonzi replacement and given Imbula. Asks for a third centre half and is given Wimmer. If this is all true I have some sympathy for the manager. It is the scouting that is outright shocking here. Also who is determining the size if the financial outlay and length of contracts because that is also clearly awful. Also if the above is true would give some indication why we are less willing to get rid of certain players and how it reflects on people still at the club. Hughes could have said "no" to all of them though couldn't he?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 26, 2018 9:42:15 GMT
This made me laugh. If true you'd have to say the scouting has been terrible. Perhaps our scouting is confusing "flair" with lazy questionable attitude and vastly overpaid. If I read this correctly Hughes asks for an Arnie replacement and is given Jese, asks for an Nzonzi replacement and given Imbula. Asks for a third centre half and is given Wimmer. If this is all true I have some sympathy for the manager. It is the scouting that is outright shocking here. Also who is determining the size if the financial outlay and length of contracts because that is also clearly awful. Also if the above is true would give some indication why we are less willing to get rid of certain players and how it reflects on people still at the club. Hughes could have said "no" to all of them though couldn't he? It also presupposes that any good signings were down to Hughes and that any of the bad ones he was just ‘given’. My favourite part is where people say ‘if true’ when they’ve already clearly made their minds up it is, no matter how outlandish. ‘Hughes wanted Danny Ings but was offered Godzilla and Mothra instead. If true heads should roll!!!’
|
|
|
Post by WorkingclassHero on Aug 26, 2018 9:44:07 GMT
This made me laugh. If true you'd have to say the scouting has been terrible. Perhaps our scouting is confusing "flair" with lazy questionable attitude and vastly overpaid. If I read this correctly Hughes asks for an Arnie replacement and is given Jese, asks for an Nzonzi replacement and given Imbula. Asks for a third centre half and is given Wimmer. If this is all true I have some sympathy for the manager. It is the scouting that is outright shocking here. Also who is determining the size if the financial outlay and length of contracts because that is also clearly awful. Also if the above is true would give some indication why we are less willing to get rid of certain players and how it reflects on people still at the club. Hughes could have said "no" to all of them though couldn't he? I guess he could have. But If you take it at face value, essentially the scouting department provide the manager with the solution here is your Nzonzi replacement. He has a great attitude,is a great age, has agents we are happy to work with, finance have approved the deal do you want him? If you don't want him it's back to the drawing board. It kind of portrays a different story to, hughes saying get me that Imbula fellow I want to build a team around him.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Aug 26, 2018 9:46:35 GMT
He used him 11 times in 40 odd opportunities, giving him 1 start such was the confidence he had in his ability. His 10 substitute appearances combined probably didn't add up to 180 minutes. Just like he was happy to have wimmer eh, describing his new 18m centre half as "one for the future". Yes Dave. You need squad players, especially when you’re initially thin on the ground in certain areas. That’s presumably why he signed Steve Sidwell later - a player who was clearly a Hughes signing - to provide cover. Wimmer was just next on the list wasn’t he, because Maguire chose Leicester? Not sure who pushed for him but it’s the failing of the transfer team generally - including Hughes - that they saw fit to sink most of the Arnie money into a position we didn’t even need. That is some deal the transfer team presented to the manager...18m for a backup centre half. Get their contracts extended. The process is absolutely fine.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 26, 2018 9:48:17 GMT
Hughes could have said "no" to all of them though couldn't he? I guess he could have. But If you take it at face value, essentially the scouting department provide the manager with the solution here is your Nzonzi replacement. He has a great attitude,is a great age, has agents we are happy to work with, finance have approved the deal do you want him? If you don't want him it's back to the drawing board. It kind of portrays a different story to, hughes saying get me that Imbula fellow I want to build a team around him. What’s any of that based on though?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Aug 26, 2018 9:48:48 GMT
Yes Dave. You need squad players, especially when you’re initially thin on the ground in certain areas. That’s presumably why he signed Steve Sidwell later - a player who was clearly a Hughes signing - to provide cover. Wimmer was just next on the list wasn’t he, because Maguire chose Leicester? Not sure who pushed for him but it’s the failing of the transfer team generally - including Hughes - that they saw fit to sink most of the Arnie money into a position we didn’t even need. That is some deal the transfer team presented to the manager...18m for a backup centre half. Get their contracts extended. The process is absolutely fine. The manager is part of the transfer team Dave.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2018 9:49:55 GMT
Hughes could have said "no" to all of them though couldn't he? It also presupposes that any good signings were down to Hughes and that any of the bad ones he was just ‘given’. My favourite part is where people say ‘if true’ when they’ve already clearly made their minds up it is, no matter how outlandish. ‘Hughes wanted Danny Ings but was offered Godzilla and Mothra instead. If true heads should roll!!!’ To be honest I haven't got a clue who Mothra is but I reckon if Hughes had been "given" Godzilla as a target man and gone 4-4-1-1 with Godzuki buzzing around him in the number 10 role, we'd still be a premier league team. In fact if it's true that we didn't scout these options then heads should definitely roll.
|
|
|
Post by WorkingclassHero on Aug 26, 2018 9:53:34 GMT
I guess he could have. But If you take it at face value, essentially the scouting department provide the manager with the solution here is your Nzonzi replacement. He has a great attitude,is a great age, has agents we are happy to work with, finance have approved the deal do you want him? If you don't want him it's back to the drawing board. It kind of portrays a different story to, hughes saying get me that Imbula fellow I want to build a team around him. What’s any of that based on though? what the guy with inside info said above. Manager not involved in the financial negotiation or scouting of players.
|
|