|
Gregory
Feb 10, 2021 11:25:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by chiswickpotter on Feb 10, 2021 11:25:02 GMT
contract length & salary agreed is entirely down to Scholes each & every time But surely if he doesn’t offer the amount and length of contract the agent wants the player walks and the manager is frustrated and this board goes into meltdown about how we never back the manager. We don’t complain when the contracts are lengthy when the players turn out to be good. In both cases the CEO is entirely dependent on the judgement of the manager ! If anything we need a Director of Football to give a second opinion to the board but that’s fraught with difficulties too. Exactly. All the power is with the player and agent once it is clear the manager wants a player.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 10, 2021 11:25:58 GMT
it is massively simplistic, & simply incorrect, to says it's all Scholes fault none the less even allowing for his many failings away from transfers he is culpable re too many transfers re dallying/dithering & then negotiating OTT fee's & salaries in too many cases It is not all his fault this is down to the BOD of which he is one. he's the only one we could get rid of though
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Feb 10, 2021 11:26:00 GMT
I honestly disagree - there isn’t a single person root cause of our problems. I see it more as road to hell paved with some really good intentions on behalf of the senior management. There have been some catastrophic and pivotal ‘group’ misjudgements along the way. it is massively simplistic, & simply incorrect, to says it's all Scholes fault none the less even allowing for his many failings away from transfers he is culpable re too many transfers re dallying/dithering & then negotiating OTT fee's & salaries in too many cases He may well be guilty of those charges but to make them implies a level of back ground knowledge that I’m not sure any of us are privy to. With regard the business aspect of the deals I have a reasonable confidence that an organisation with the ‘savvy’ of Bet365 have enough experts milling around to ensure that nothing outrageously incorrect was being done.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Feb 10, 2021 11:29:24 GMT
I think this is accurate - ish now? At least we know the scale of the contract mess - which keeps getting worse with the news that Woods has an extra year (although hopefully Rowett will take him again) And we've gone from thinking Afobe may be gone this summer to the revelation that he probably has until 2023! 21: Shawcross, Chester, Mikel (but may be some clauses with Mikel and Chester to get another year?) 22: Davies, Smith, Tymon, Lindsay, Batth, BMI, Wimmer, Woods, Allen, Thompson, Ndiaye, Clucas, Powell, Ince, McClean, Gregory, Vokes 23: Bursik, Bauer, Fox, Etebo, TOB, Afobe 24: Edwards, Collins, Campbell 25: Souttar UnknownsFletcher 21 or 22 - probably 22 Sorensen "long-term" deal signed in 2018 Cousins (22?), Brown (24?), Doughty (25/26?) Clear from that we will have to sell a youngster or get a few high earners off the wage bill next season with no parachute payments - I doubt we can afford Allen and Clucas if we are paying wages if some of the others
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2021 11:33:21 GMT
The simple truth is that yes you tie down your up and coming prospects in order to maximise their potential re sale value, you have to have someone or a team of people working for the club who are able to identify those players scouts who are able to spot young talent from elsewhere, it is not sensible to give long contracts to players who don't have the desire to play for the club, are injury prone or over the hill. It's a calculated risk with young players with potential however they will not demand the salary of players like Gregory, Vokes, Ince, Wimmer, Badou, Etebo, Berahino, Afobe and probably Fletcher, none of these players will have or have had no or little re sale value, the situation we find ourselves in is down to managerial incompetence from the board imo it's that simple. I'd take Fletcher out of that argument free transfer, two year deal & he's shown plenty of desire, he's a good player at this level, agree re his injury record but still think he's a good signing (& can't affix 'good signing' to many over the last 5 years) Gregory again free transfer isn't going to be on a fortune either (unlike others on the list & others not on that list) & again has shown plenty of desire but 3 year deal at his age, that wasn't smart Mikel, not on list, 1 or 2 year deal, good signing on the right deal Brown, ok he's been rubbish but cheap & young & shows lots of desire Doughty, young, cheap highly rated, we will see Fox, free, good attitude, solid signing Chester, divides opinion but for me good signing, free & sensible contract length no expensive loans either, Matondo loan looks like Schalke have agreed to everything we asked, no loan fee, majority wages paid by them (it's usually the other way round) O'Neill signings so far are all sensible are they not? they won't all come off, no club achieves that, but most have & costing buttons with no stupid contracts I was not really on about the signings under MON apart from Fletcher who will not be on a low wage, Mikel due to his age is short term I understand that, Chester is short term and not a massive success , Brown £2m is terrible especially as we seem to have spunked away whatever leeway we had due to FFP, the problem lies with the BOD which includes Teflon Tony do you believe he still deserves to be in the position he is in ?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2021 11:35:23 GMT
It is not all his fault this is down to the BOD of which he is one. he's the only one we could get rid of though Yep I know.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2021 11:37:56 GMT
it is massively simplistic, & simply incorrect, to says it's all Scholes fault none the less even allowing for his many failings away from transfers he is culpable re too many transfers re dallying/dithering & then negotiating OTT fee's & salaries in too many cases He may well be guilty of those charges but to make them implies a level of back ground knowledge that I’m not sure any of us are privy to. With regard the business aspect of the deals I have a reasonable confidence that an organisation with the ‘savvy’ of Bet365 have enough experts milling around to ensure that nothing outrageously incorrect was being done. Denise Coates owns Bet 365 she has no interest in Stoke City FC as a business ! if she did I am convinced we would be in a better place.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Feb 10, 2021 11:44:22 GMT
He may well be guilty of those charges but to make them implies a level of back ground knowledge that I’m not sure any of us are privy to. With regard the business aspect of the deals I have a reasonable confidence that an organisation with the ‘savvy’ of Bet365 have enough experts milling around to ensure that nothing outrageously incorrect was being done. Denise Coates owns Bet 365 she has no interest in Stoke City FC as a business ! if she did I am convinced we would be in a better place. I definitely agree with that (although we would have all been probably stamping our feet as to why we weren’t spending more) but nonetheless the point remains the club isn’t allowed to be a complete maverick within the organisation. I’m sure she has the odd quiet word.
|
|
jnb14
Youth Player
Posts: 270
|
Post by jnb14 on Feb 10, 2021 11:46:57 GMT
That's how it used to work before FFP FFP means that any given point in time there is a minimum amount you can accept as a transfer fee, fall below that too often you end up with -12points deduction Which is one big reason why very few transfer in the EFL are anything other than loans e.g. we can't sell Afobe for £500k without causing an FFP problem If we purchase a player for £10m (them were the days) and the player is signed on a 4 year contract the transfer fee depreciated by an equal share in each of the 4 years of the contract - so £2.5m each year. Therefore, the said player flops and we are offered £5m after one year. In reality a great sale to remove the player BUT his book value has only reduced to £7.5 in that one year. Signed for £10m. 1 year book value = £7.5m 2 years book value = £5m. 3 year book value = £2.5m After 4 years book value = player written down to £0. Thank you. That's the clearest explanation I have ever seen. Plus you can only be down -£39m over any given 4 year period? If we were to sell rather than loan we would need to sell at or above the book value at the point in time of the players contract, if we sell below it adds FFP pressure to the club.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 10, 2021 11:53:53 GMT
it is massively simplistic, & simply incorrect, to says it's all Scholes fault none the less even allowing for his many failings away from transfers he is culpable re too many transfers re dallying/dithering & then negotiating OTT fee's & salaries in too many cases He may well be guilty of those charges but to make them implies a level of back ground knowledge that I’m not sure any of us are privy to. With regard the business aspect of the deals I have a reasonable confidence that an organisation with the ‘savvy’ of Bet365 have enough experts milling around to ensure that nothing outrageously incorrect was being done. do BET365 experts get involved with SCFC transfers? pretty confident they don't Probably be much better if they did
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 10, 2021 11:55:30 GMT
He may well be guilty of those charges but to make them implies a level of back ground knowledge that I’m not sure any of us are privy to. With regard the business aspect of the deals I have a reasonable confidence that an organisation with the ‘savvy’ of Bet365 have enough experts milling around to ensure that nothing outrageously incorrect was being done. Denise Coates owns Bet 365 she has no interest in Stoke City FC as a business ! if she did I am convinced we would be in a better place. probably only caveat is her husband is on the board & according to some he gets things done, e.g. he was responsible for getting the new corner done, which he did, on time on budget & a good job was made of it
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2021 11:57:54 GMT
Denise Coates owns Bet 365 she has no interest in Stoke City FC as a business ! if she did I am convinced we would be in a better place. I definitely agree with that (although we would have all been probably stamping our feet as to why we weren’t spending more) but nonetheless the point remains the club isn’t allowed to be a complete maverick within the organisation. I’m sure she has the odd quiet word. She needs to have more than a quiet word, I can't see her rewarding any employee with a pay rise for failure.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 10, 2021 11:58:48 GMT
I'd take Fletcher out of that argument free transfer, two year deal & he's shown plenty of desire, he's a good player at this level, agree re his injury record but still think he's a good signing (& can't affix 'good signing' to many over the last 5 years) Gregory again free transfer isn't going to be on a fortune either (unlike others on the list & others not on that list) & again has shown plenty of desire but 3 year deal at his age, that wasn't smart Mikel, not on list, 1 or 2 year deal, good signing on the right deal Brown, ok he's been rubbish but cheap & young & shows lots of desire Doughty, young, cheap highly rated, we will see Fox, free, good attitude, solid signing Chester, divides opinion but for me good signing, free & sensible contract length no expensive loans either, Matondo loan looks like Schalke have agreed to everything we asked, no loan fee, majority wages paid by them (it's usually the other way round) O'Neill signings so far are all sensible are they not? they won't all come off, no club achieves that, but most have & costing buttons with no stupid contracts I was not really on about the signings under MON apart from Fletcher who will not be on a low wage, Mikel due to his age is short term I understand that, Chester is short term and not a massive success , Brown £2m is terrible especially as we seem to have spunked away whatever leeway we had due to FFP, the problem lies with the BOD which includes Teflon Tony do you believe he still deserves to be in the position he is in ? no he doesn't & have been arguing for his removal for years now, but don't agree with your assessment there Brown is super cheap at £2m & very low wages, other than the kids who have come through he must be on the lowest wages on the books Fletcher will be on more but he's not going to be on the stupid wages the likes of Wimmer,Ince,Afobe e.t.c will be on , he's good value, all O'Neill signings are even Brown
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2021 12:02:00 GMT
Denise Coates owns Bet 365 she has no interest in Stoke City FC as a business ! if she did I am convinced we would be in a better place. probably only caveat is her husband is on the board & according to some he gets things done, e.g. he was responsible for getting the new corner done, which he did, on time on budget & a good job was made of it Maybe he should be our CEO she might take more of an interest if that was the case, her brother doesn't appear to have her business acumen after watching the video of him and Scholes explain the reasons behind hiring Nathan Jones I would not trust him to run a bath on his own.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Feb 10, 2021 12:15:27 GMT
He may well be guilty of those charges but to make them implies a level of back ground knowledge that I’m not sure any of us are privy to. With regard the business aspect of the deals I have a reasonable confidence that an organisation with the ‘savvy’ of Bet365 have enough experts milling around to ensure that nothing outrageously incorrect was being done. do BET365 experts get involved with SCFC transfers? pretty confident they don't Probably be much better if they did I’m equally confident they don’t and wouldn’t sit back and watch the club lose financial control.
|
|
|
Gregory
Feb 10, 2021 12:58:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by hardcastle on Feb 10, 2021 12:58:16 GMT
Three of the four SCFC board members - Denise's father, brother and husband work for Bet365 (the exception being TS). Two of them have business acumen.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2021 13:02:01 GMT
do BET365 experts get involved with SCFC transfers? pretty confident they don't Probably be much better if they did I’m equally confident they don’t and wouldn’t sit back and watch the club lose financial control. FFP ?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 10, 2021 13:21:02 GMT
I’m equally confident they don’t and wouldn’t sit back and watch the club lose financial control. FFP ? If you accept that we are a manager led club and that the board/owners have done everything possible to support their managers, couldn't it be argued that we are actually doing a half decent job of managing a very difficult situation whilst remaining compliant with rules around FFP?
|
|
|
Post by neckender78 on Feb 10, 2021 13:24:58 GMT
I think this is accurate - ish now? At least we know the scale of the contract mess - which keeps getting worse with the news that Woods has an extra year (although hopefully Rowett will take him again) And we've gone from thinking Afobe may be gone this summer to the revelation that he probably has until 2023! 21: Shawcross, Chester, Mikel (but may be some clauses with Mikel and Chester to get another year?) 22: Davies, Smith, Tymon, Lindsay, Batth, BMI, Wimmer, Woods, Allen, Thompson, Ndiaye, Clucas, Powell, Ince, McClean, Gregory, Vokes 23: Bursik, Bauer, Fox, Etebo, TOB, Afobe 24: Edwards, Collins, Campbell 25: Souttar UnknownsFletcher 21 or 22 - probably 22 Sorensen "long-term" deal signed in 2018 Cousins (22?), Brown (24?), Doughty (25/26?) What depressing reading, The biggest thing that hits me from that what an absolute fuck up the Rowett era was. He was allowed to chuck fantasy money around in our desire to get straight back up. This moron wanted to play 433 and his idea of the front 3 who he expected to create and score the goals to fire us to promotion was Afobe, Mclean and Ince... Jesus fucking wept I could understand the Ince signing at the time, he had a good Championship pedigree and dont blame Stoke for his powder puff efforts on the pitch, but Mclean and Afobe clearly were nowhere near good enough. Who on earth sanctioned giving all 3 of them 4 or 5 year deals on big wages?? What if the plan worked and we were promoted, none of them anywhere near good enough for the Premier league even 2 years ago. Rowetts 6 month reign of terror has fucked us up for years.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Feb 10, 2021 13:30:41 GMT
probably only caveat is her husband is on the board & according to some he gets things done, e.g. he was responsible for getting the new corner done, which he did, on time on budget & a good job was made of it Maybe he should be our CEO she might take more of an interest if that was the case, her brother doesn't appear to have her business acumen after watching the video of him and Scholes explain the reasons behind hiring Nathan Jones I would not trust him to run a bath on his own. I think he's too busy building their castle in Hassall Green at the minute.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2021 13:44:00 GMT
If you accept that we are a manager led club and that the board/owners have done everything possible to support their managers, couldn't it be argued that we are actually doing a half decent job of managing a very difficult situation whilst remaining compliant with rules around FFP? Why would I accept we are a manager led club ? because you say so, the difficult situation we find ourselves in is self inflicted is that not obvious millions thrown away on poor players with poor attitudes on huge wages on long contracts with little or no resale value that is the reason we are in this mess, all overseen by our board of directors and CEO.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Feb 10, 2021 14:05:48 GMT
I’m equally confident they don’t and wouldn’t sit back and watch the club lose financial control. FFP ? That’s an external measure though. BET 365 wouldn’t probably get overly concerned about that. Mind you maybe they have had an input in terms of getting things straight on that score. I’m not saying the club has got it right in anyway shape or form but I would contend we are where we are because we gambled on the player management knowing their stuff and backed them accordingly. The contract situation is a direct result of that.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2021 14:11:43 GMT
That’s an external measure though. BET 365 wouldn’t probably get overly concerned about that. Mind you maybe they have had an input in terms of getting things straight on that score. I’m not saying the club has got it right in anyway shape or form but I would contend we are where we are because we gambled on the player management knowing their stuff and backed them accordingly. The contract situation is a direct result of that. It's an external rule that all clubs are aware of, if we break those rules it will be deemed as the fault of those responsible ie. those running the clubs finances and we will be punished accordingly, you can not delegate responsibility simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 10, 2021 14:11:50 GMT
If you accept that we are a manager led club and that the board/owners have done everything possible to support their managers, couldn't it be argued that we are actually doing a half decent job of managing a very difficult situation whilst remaining compliant with rules around FFP? Why would I accept we are a manager led club ? because you say so, the difficult situation we find ourselves in is self inflicted is that not obvious millions thrown away on poor players with poor attitudes on huge wages on long contracts with little or no resale value that is the reason we are in this mess, all overseen by our board of directors and CEO. You don't have to accept it nor was I saying you did or even that I did. However, our owners, board and CEO would all say that we are a club that let the manager manage and support him to the best of their ability. Rightly or wrongly and whether you believe that or not, you nor anyone can argue that the club/owners have not backed their manager. They have financed deals that they might not have wholeheartedly wanted to but they backed their manager at that time. Certainly in the case of Ryan Woods, Cartwright and Scholes were dead against signing him at all but the manager wanted him so the board sanctioned the deal. I know that to be true because Woods' parents told me and my pal that when we sat next to them at an away fixture soon after he joined. Every manager under Coates MkII has been backed, at various stages, significantly but each time we've spent big money, the manager of the time has got it badly wrong. Pulis spent 100m after the cup final season on 13 players and arguably only 2 contributed anything positive. He spent big money so badly that when he was replaced, Mark Hughes had to work with a lesser budget to bring players in. When we had unravelled the mess left behind by the previous manager, Hughes was then allowed to spend big and yet again, he got it badly wrong. On relegation, we get a new manager and not only do we let him spend 50m, we also let him keep hold of our "big" players and don't cash in on anyone other than Shaqiri, where we had no choice but to let him go. Rowett spent 50m again, absolutely terribly and the only player who has contributed anything meaningful from his spending spree is Clucas. When that went tits up, we then allowed Nathan Jones to spend another 20m and now Michael O'Neill is paying the price for that, hamstrung in what he can spend and who are realistic targets. We've got to be smart and to a large extent, we've got to gamble a bit. We are finding loans for our unwanted players and we are keeping FFP away from the door to such an extent that we haven't had to consider selling one of our better younger players. Interest in Campbell and Collins has been staved off with ease. Hence I say IT COULD BE ARGUED that we are actually doing a half decent job of managing the FFP situation. Unlike others in our situation, we haven't been forced to give away our crown jewels and to date, since relegation, none of our 3 managers have been forced into a situation where they've had to sell a player they weren't happy to get rid of. Whether you or I agree with that is irrelevant. There is a case to say that the powers that be let the manager manage and are actually doing a decent job of attempting to unravel the mess that the previous manager has left behind.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 10, 2021 14:12:49 GMT
That’s an external measure though. BET 365 wouldn’t probably get overly concerned about that. Mind you maybe they have had an input in terms of getting things straight on that score. I’m not saying the club has got it right in anyway shape or form but I would contend we are where we are because we gambled on the player management knowing their stuff and backed them accordingly. The contract situation is a direct result of that. It's an external rule that all clubs are aware of, if we break those rules it will be deemed as the fault of those responsible ie. those running the clubs finances and we will be punished accordingly, you can not delegate responsibility simple as that. and we aren't breaking those rules as far as anyone of us know. We are managing the situation and we aren't sailing close enough to the wind that the manager has been forced to sell players he doesn't want to let go.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Feb 10, 2021 14:19:08 GMT
That’s an external measure though. BET 365 wouldn’t probably get overly concerned about that. Mind you maybe they have had an input in terms of getting things straight on that score. I’m not saying the club has got it right in anyway shape or form but I would contend we are where we are because we gambled on the player management knowing their stuff and backed them accordingly. The contract situation is a direct result of that. It's an external rule that all clubs are aware of, if we break those rules it will be deemed as the fault of those responsible ie. those running the clubs finances and we will be punished accordingly, you can not delegate responsibility simple as that. Yes but it’s not going to impinge massively on the organisations overall finances if the club gets docked league points - it will be up to the club to sort it. It is definitely the fault of the club senior management - they gambled we would be back in the Prem and lost.... but was it wrong to do so at the time? I bet most would have said ‘go for it’ and the players we signed and paid for in terms of good contracts were a direct result.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2021 14:20:07 GMT
It's an external rule that all clubs are aware of, if we break those rules it will be deemed as the fault of those responsible ie. those running the clubs finances and we will be punished accordingly, you can not delegate responsibility simple as that. and we aren't breaking those rules as far as anyone of us know. We are managing the situation and we aren't sailing close enough to the wind that the manager has been forced to sell players he doesn't want to let go. We are sailing that close that we were prevented from bringing in a striker in January or are you saying MON didn't think we needed one ?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 10, 2021 14:22:21 GMT
and we aren't breaking those rules as far as anyone of us know. We are managing the situation and we aren't sailing close enough to the wind that the manager has been forced to sell players he doesn't want to let go. We are sailing that close that we were prevented from bringing in a striker in January or are you saying MON didn't think we needed one ? I'm not sure we were prevented from bringing in a Striker. Pretty sure in either the pre or post match press conference of our last fixture he referenced trying to get a couple of striker options in but that the clubs in question weren't prepared to let the players come. It's good that we aren't spending money on players we don't want isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2021 14:23:57 GMT
It's an external rule that all clubs are aware of, if we break those rules it will be deemed as the fault of those responsible ie. those running the clubs finances and we will be punished accordingly, you can not delegate responsibility simple as that. Yes but it’s not going to impinge massively on the organisations overall finances if the club gets docked league points - it will be up to the club to sort it. It is definitely the fault of the club senior management - they gambled we would be back in the Prem and lost.... but was it wrong to do so at the time? I bet most would have said ‘go for it’ and the players we signed and paid for in terms of good contracts were a direct result. So they are not really bothered about a points deduction, maybe you are right that would be one plausible reason. Anyone who really believed the likes of Afobe, Ince, Woods and McClean would take us back up with the dross we still had on our books is at best delusional.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Feb 10, 2021 14:27:30 GMT
Yes but it’s not going to impinge massively on the organisations overall finances if the club gets docked league points - it will be up to the club to sort it. It is definitely the fault of the club senior management - they gambled we would be back in the Prem and lost.... but was it wrong to do so at the time? I bet most would have said ‘go for it’ and the players we signed and paid for in terms of good contracts were a direct result. So they are not really bothered about a points deduction, maybe you are right that would be one plausible reason. Anyone who really believed the likes of Afobe, Ince, Woods and McClean would take us back up with the dross we still had on our books is at best delusional. Would you want the Directors and the CEO saying who is and who isn’t a good player ?
|
|