Stoke show RFC how to run a Real Football Club

[SouthDownsRoyal]

love how many RFC fans are jealous of stoke but cant admit it

[Royal Rother]

FanTASTIC contribution as always.

[zummerset]

Without stealing Hirams thunder - I agree

[Sir Dodger Royal]

But Stoke are running their business in more or less exactly the same way that Reading are - by looking at income and spending accordingly.

Let's look at the income figures :

Stoke City
PL Prize money : £6.048M
TV income (including facility fees) : £43,620M
Total : £49.668M (excluding gate income and FA Cup money)

Reading
PL "Solidarity Payment" : £2.2M
TV income (to drop 23% next season!) : £2.9M
Total : £5.1M (excluding gate income and play-off money)

So I think it's perfectly justified for Stoke to spend more than Reading do, as they have an assured income stream at least 9.7 times greater.

But the key point re your argument is that our sad old TWAT of a Chairman didn't spend when we were in Stokes position i.e. in the Premiership. Whilst Stoke now show real ambition and investment we fart about spending £350K on a 2nd Division striker; buy a fourth choice Left back from a team who have just been promoted from Division One and buy a centre half from QPR who is deemed not good enough for a Premiership team.

Now that approach clearly inspires the RTGs but doesn't those people who understand motivation and ambition. Why the hell are we struggling to even keep some of our so called stars. Surely even the RTGs have the brain power to work that one out. Emm maybe that's asking too much!

However the Madman true to form turns up on BBC Berks spouting his usual bo**ocks. Play it again Sammmm

Your know it makes no sense. Real Facts. Get a Life.

[Royal Rother]

For the 563rd time (you thick IDIOT) money was available but Coppell chose not to spend it. How the fcuk can you blame SJM for that?

SJM then supported the manager and the players by paying over the odds to get straight back up after relegation, thus making a significant loss in that season. Coppell and the players failed him.

[Royal With Cheese]

For the 563rd time (you thick IDIOT) money was available but Coppell chose not to spend it. How the fcuk can you blame SJM for that?

SJM then supported the manager and the players by paying over the odds to get straight back up after relegation, thus making a significant loss in that season. Coppell and the players failed him.

TBF we don't know that. Managers don't always tell the truth. Look at McDemott's protestations that we weren't in the maket for ALF.

[Hoop Blah]

It could be that Spurs are still picking up a proportion of Crouch and Palacios' wages still.

I'm sure that Stoke and Pulis are well in control of what their spending and how it effects the team ethic in the squad. As much as some players might covet others salaries there are always disparity amongst team mates pay and it doesn't usually cause issues (Pardew used to refer to Ian Wright and Mark Brights big paychecks at Palace which were accepted by the likes of him and Eric Young because of the job they did for the team).

[Royal Rother]

For the 563rd time (you thick IDIOT) money was available but Coppell chose not to spend it. How the fcuk can you blame SJM for that?

SJM then supported the manager and the players by paying over the odds to get straight back up after relegation, thus making a significant loss in that season. Coppell and the players failed him.

TBF we don't know that. Managers don't always tell the truth. Look at McDemott's protestations that we weren't in the maket for ALF.

What? Not even remotely comparable situations.

[FiNeRaIn]

The point he is making is don't believe everything the manager tells you. Its doesn't need to be a comparable situation. Whether its about transfers, team selection, relationship with the chairman, fans,etc they simply try everything in their power not to offend their employer in nearly all scenario's.
I can't imagine coppell coming out and saying " no money was available as a result we suffered relegation" whether that was the case or not.

[Royal Rother]

It could be that Spurs are still picking up a proportion of Crouch and Palacios' wages still.

What an odd suggestion.

Why on Earth would they do that?

[RoyalBlue]

For the 563rd time (you thick IDIOT) money was available but Coppell chose not to spend it. How the fcuk can you blame SJM for that?

SJM then supported the manager and the players by paying over the odds to get straight back up after relegation, thus making a significant loss in that season. Coppell and the players failed him.

I would suggest the thick idiots are those who assume that when money was supposedly available it was sufficient for Coppell to be able to afford to buy players better than those he already have.

Yes money probabably was available but it was probably 'Reading money' as opposed to Premier League level money. Does anyone seriously think Madejski would have made available anything like the type of money Pulis had at his disposal (even scaling it back to the equivalent in those days)?

If sufficient money wasn't made available for Coppell to feel he could make a difference then Madejski can the fcuk be blamed for that.

As for managers not moaning - a) whilst employed they are extremely likely (unless Davies or McClaren) to want to offend their employer for risk of job security. b) post employment there are such things as confidentiality agreements that some employers like to utilise in order to protect their secrets.

[Hoop Blah]

It could be that Spurs are still picking up a proportion of Crouch and Palacios' wages still.

What an odd suggestion.

Why on Earth would they do that?

To clear the rest of the wages off their tab for a player they aren't going to use.

Reports suggest Crouch wasn't going to be in their 25 man squad (no idea if thats true) and so it's unlikely he was going to get much of a game. Better to pay £10/15k a week for a player you can't use because you've sold hi
than £60k a week for one to sit moping around your own club.

It's been done before.

[Royal Rother]

The point he is making is don't believe everything the manager tells you. Its doesn't need to be a comparable situation. Whether its about transfers, team selection, relationship with the chairman, fans,etc they simply try everything in their power not to offend their employer in nearly all scenario's.
I can't imagine coppell coming out and saying " no money was available as a result we suffered relegation" whether that was the case or not.

Hmm, have I been living in a parallel universe or something?

I have never seen / heard Coppell's statement about money being available in that (last fateful) transfer window prior to relegation challenged before.

Not in his nature but anyway I see no reason for him to have fibbed on that one at all.

[Hoop Blah]

For the 563rd time (you thick IDIOT) money was available but Coppell chose not to spend it. How the fcuk can you blame SJM for that?

SJM then supported the manager and the players by paying over the odds to get straight back up after relegation, thus making a significant loss in that season. Coppell and the players failed him.

I would suggest the thick idiots are those who assume that when money was supposedly available it was sufficient for Coppell to be able to afford to buy players better than those he already have.

Yes money probabably was available but it was probably 'Reading money' as opposed to Premier League level money. Does anyone seriously think Madejski would have made available anything like the type of money Pulis had at his disposal (even scaling it back to the equivalent in those days)?

If sufficient money wasn't made available for Coppell to feel he could make a difference then Madejski can the fcuk be blamed for that.

As for managers not moaning - a) whilst employed they are extremely likely (unless Davies or McClaren) to want to offend their employer for risk of job security. b) post employment there are such things as confidentiality agreements that some employers like to utilise in order to protect their secrets.

Coppell wasn't specifically saying he had an amount of money as such, he's on record as saying he chose not to sign a couple of established and proven Premier League players (both of O'Neil and Taylor from Pompey IIRC) even though it was all in place to do so.

He had resources but decided to stick with what he had.

[FiNeRaIn]

I have never seen / heard Coppell's statement about money being available in that (last fateful) transfer window prior to relegation challenged before.

We are possibly confusing each other here, coppell didn't say that quote - I am saying that I can never imagine him saying it even if it WAS exactly how he felt that there wasn't enough financial support.
Coppell is not the sort of personality to be truthful at the cost of offending unsettling other people. He would say nothing.

[Hoop Blah]

The point he is making is don't believe everything the manager tells you. Its doesn't need to be a comparable situation. Whether its about transfers, team selection, relationship with the chairman, fans,etc they simply try everything in their power not to offend their employer in nearly all scenario's.
I can't imagine coppell coming out and saying " no money was available as a result we suffered relegation" whether that was the case or not.

Hmm, have I been living in a parallel universe or something?

I have never seen / heard Coppell's statement about money being available in that (last fateful) transfer window prior to relegation challenged before.

Not in his nature but anyway I see no reason for him to have fibbed on that one at all.

I think it was at a fans forum but I'm sure he also had quotes in the press alluding to it at the time (although not naming individuals in the public domain).

[Royal Rother]

It could be that Spurs are still picking up a proportion of Crouch and Palacios' wages still.

What an odd suggestion.

Why on Earth would they do that?

To clear the rest of the wages off their tab for a player they aren't going to use.

Reports suggest Crouch wasn't going to be in their 25 man squad (no idea if thats true) and so it's unlikely he was going to get much of a game. Better to pay £10/15k a week for a player you can't use because you've sold hi
than £60k a week for one to sit moping around your own club.

It's been done before.

What, seriously - a club sells a player (not loans) so he is no longer in their employ, and they continue to pay a proportion of his wages? I've never heard of that before.

[FiNeRaIn]

Wouldn't that breach some kind of regulation? Wouldn't they just implement that into a signing on fee and take it off the transfer fee or something?

[Hoop Blah]

I'm sure Leeds did it when things went tits up for them and continued paying some of the wages for the like of Fowler just to shift the rest.

I might be mistaken but I'm sure there are ways of doing it if needs be.

[Royal Rother]

I have never seen / heard Coppell's statement about money being available in that (last fateful) transfer window prior to relegation challenged before.

We are possibly confusing each other here, coppell didn't say that quote - I am saying that I can never imagine him saying it even if it WAS exactly how he felt that there wasn't enough financial support.
Coppell is not the sort of personality to be truthful at the cost of offending unsettling other people. He would say nothing.

Still confused... Who might he have offended going public with that? He was simply going on record that, although the players let him down, he was the one who cocked up. IIRC it was very much a cathartic statement and as such, I'm sure would have been truthful in the extreme for such an honourable man.