Stoke show RFC how to run a Real Football Club

[rhroyal]

My point was that there are not, as of now, ready to step up to the mark and replace the likes of Mills and Long.

A point you seem to accept.

In my earlier posts, I did say they may well have the potential but that does not equate to being able here and now.

Thankfully there are 3 weeks of the transfer window left and we just cashed in on Long. Don't jump to conclusions that nobody is coming in. I expect to see some strengthening before the end of the window.

History would suggest you will be dissapointed.

I would be happy with £3-4 million being spent, I expect less than £1m.

No it doesn't. At worst, we will give people a chance to step up and make loan improvements in October/January if necessary. Whenever there has been an obvious weakness in the team in McDermott's era, it has been addressed. Harte for left back. Griffin at right back. Leigertwood as a defensive midfielder. He was critical in bringing in Thorvaldsson, but saw it wasn't necessary when Long stepped up that January. Perhaps that signing was important in making Long up his game.

I doubt £3-4million will be spent, but I imagine we will see more cover at CB brought in and a LB to provide competition for Harte. We may possibly even see a new striker, although I wouldn't call that a weak spot tbh.

[friday fan]

I was scouting the list of players without clubs and there are many and some good quality players such as Mark Van Brommelm from Bayern Munich, Mikeal Forssell from Hamburg,David Suazo Inter Malan,Del Piero from Juventus,Fillippo Inzaghi from Milan, Hernan Crespo from Parma,Kewell and Neil from Fenerbache all free agents, short term contracts or play as you play no transfer fees. If they are not playing then they are not in the window. Sounds like a good plan to get some of these type of short term contracts with no major outlays just wages

[PieEater]

I agree with Schards main point that selling your best players makes you weaker, whatever you decide to do with the funds you get.

I guess I'm worried that it hasn't worked out very well for the side that started this talent developement pipeline as a means of running the club (Crewe). Sooner or later what you bring in doesn't gel and you end up getting relegated. Presumably it will be better for us as we have a comparitively better infrastructure and can attract better talent.

[Snowball]

Someone on the list mentioned a book called "Moneyball" a little while ago.

It's about buying-selling wheeling/dealing in baseball but is a near-exact
analogy to RFC's dealings.


1. Search for players who are under-rated and thus under-priced.

2. Look for players with an asset and a weakness and ask can you remove the weakness (eg by changing position)

3. When bought players become subjectively "worth big bucks" sell them while their value is high.

4. Go to 1.



Oakland have done this successfully now for many years.


Interestingly, they base everything they do on quality statistics, even developing
better statistical analyses.

They also make the point that the stats-effect only works in the long-term (they play over 100 matches a year)

AND STATS GO OUT THE WINDOW IN PLAY-OFFS.

eg: there is a 20% chance that the lowest club can beat the highest in a one off game

[Snowball]

I will never cease to be amazed by those who criticise the RFC model.

The club's success (based on its history) has been fantastic.

[rhroyal]

I agree with Schards main point that selling your best players makes you weaker, whatever you decide to do with the funds you get.

I guess I'm worried that it hasn't worked out very well for the side that started this talent developement pipeline as a means of running the club (Crewe). Sooner or later what you bring in doesn't gel and you end up getting relegated. Presumably it will be better for us as we have a comparitively better infrastructure and can attract better talent.

Crewe have a stadium that fits just over 10,000. I couldn't tell you their average attendance. They could be compared with us in our Elm Park days. I've seen plenty of people on this board say "We are historically a third/fourth tier club". They mixed it in the Championship for a decent while. That would be the equivalent of us having a Premiership stint or being a yo-yo club for 10 years or so.

Crewe punched above their weight for ages through their development system and are currently going through a lull in which they are looking competitive in League 2, around their original level. I wouldn't regard that as a failure, just a bump back to reality after years of success.

[Vision]

I agree with Schards main point that selling your best players makes you weaker, whatever you decide to do with the funds you get.

I guess I'm worried that it hasn't worked out very well for the side that started this talent developement pipeline as a means of running the club (Crewe). Sooner or later what you bring in doesn't gel and you end up getting relegated. Presumably it will be better for us as we have a comparitively better infrastructure and can attract better talent.

I think the infrastucture and our natural income level is the main difference with regard to Crewe. Once the production line dried up for Crewe they couldnt attract anyone of basic championship standard from outside. Basically we're an average championship side in size and income I'd say, so midtable championship is about our level naturally at the moment. Crewe were fighting way above their station in the Championship anyway much like we were in the Premiership.Without going way outside our comfort zone we cant really compete with Premierhip sides with bigger infrastructure,owners with deeper pockets, or who are prepared to run up massive debt to stay there.

I think the main bone of contention seems to be whether we have enough to compete with bigger spending Championship clubs the way we go about things. The honest answer would have to be "no" but then with 4 years of parachute payments and other clubs really having a "gamble" on promotion to the Premiership I'm not sure its a particularly wise contest to be entering into.

Our way there will be times when players simply wont be able to step up as we hope and we will be flirting with the bottom but equally as with last season there will be seasons when we will despite selling our best player actually finish higher than the previous year and flirt with promotion.

[Wimb]

Someone on the list mentioned a book called "Moneyball" a little while ago.

It's about buying-selling wheeling/dealing in baseball but is a near-exact
analogy to RFC's dealings.


1. Search for players who are under-rated and thus under-priced.

2. Look for players with an asset and a weakness and ask can you remove the weakness (eg by changing position)

3. When bought players become subjectively "worth big bucks" sell them while their value is high.

4. Go to 1.



Oakland have done this successfully now for many years.


Interestingly, they base everything they do on quality statistics, even developing
better statistical analyses.

They also make the point that the stats-effect only works in the long-term (they play over 100 matches a year)

AND STATS GO OUT THE WINDOW IN PLAY-OFFS.

eg: there is a 20% chance that the lowest club can beat the highest in a one off game

One problem with that Snowball is that Oakland have been struggling for the past few seasons as clubs have caught up and lifted many of those methods. The A's haven't made the post season for a few years and haven't been above .500 in the last 5.

Still the theory is sound, there's also a movie version of the book coming out soon which should be a good watch

[Royal Rother]

Here's a thought....

Maybe BM and Co are so impressed with the potential of Obita, D'Ath, Taylor, McCarthy/Andersen, Ugwu, Walcott and Arnold that, planning for the long-term, they have suggested to SJM that we'd be better off NOT buying anyone now, instead accumulating some funds so that we can afford to keep these youngsters for a year or 2 longer than might otherwise be the case.

[Yorkshire Royal]

Stoke City gambled in 2008 when their wages to turnover ration was 106%. If they hadn't gone up they would have been in big trouble. In the 1st season in the PL it fell to a very commendable 56%.

But when all's said and done the Coates family have put £40m into the club, most of which has been converted into Share Capital so they are no longer showing as loans. Madejski did exactly the same thing but for a smaller amount of a total loan that was very similar to the Coates' injections. But Coates' fortune is / was somewhat bigger than Madejski's.

“Going forward it must be our aim to make Stoke City football club self-financing, so that it is not overly reliant on new funds being continually introduced by a benefactor.”

In short, the club is aiming for self-sufficiency, but still needs some help for the moment. However, if Stoke City do become a permanent fixture in the Premier League, then they should no longer have to rely on Coates to prop up transfers or the wage bill. A laudable intention, but the jury’s still out on that one, as we have seen how difficult it is for other clubs to wean themselves off their financial support.

This is where the investment in new training facilities and academy might help, as Stoke City could then start to develop its own youth policy and attract young players from other clubs. The average age of the first team is currently one of the highest in the Premier League, as grizzled old professionals battle to remain in the top tier, but that could change with a focus on in-house coaching and development.

So in some ways Stoke City are very similar to Reading, in other ways well ahead of us, and in others way behind. Whatever, the philosophy seems to be very similar. In Tony Pulis (never been relegated in 20 years as a manager) maybe they have a manager who is just that little bit better / harder nosed than Steve Coppell.

We have a massive advantage that will continue to pay dividends for many years, i.e. we already have a well functioning Academy.

If we could just go back to this point ^. Absolutely spot on. And the original poster's view couldn't be further from the truth. Stoke actually hold up Reading as the model they are trying to recreate. The only difference is the shortfall each year is covered by the Coates family, not by player sales; for 2 key reasons. The family are Stoke football fans and secondly they are bankrolled by an incredibly successful business - their online gambling firm is the single largest private employer in Stoke-On-Trent and the family will soon be billionaires... (750m in last rich list I believe).

However they have a strict wage policy (which admittedly got bent slightly with Jones' signing on fee) and genuinely do have a plan to make the club self sufficient if they can. Part of this plan is to stop spending on transfers and rely on their fledgling academy. Again, our academy is the model they are basing it on.

I don't doubt, if SJM had the level of cash and the passion for the game that the Coates' do, then he would inject some cash to cover the shortfall. Sadly, at this point he does not.

Therefore the original point of this thread is actually totally wrong. Reading FC have shown Stoke and other similar minded, responsible clubs, how to sustainably run a real football club.

[Royal Rother]

Wahey! Thank you. I thought my excellent post which was spot on topic in response to bird brain's OP had been largely overlooked!

[Schards#2]

I'm sure Stoke fans are sat in their droves right now thinking "I wish we were more like Reading".

[Tails]

Prepare for a doubLOLe dip. All these cuts are preventing potential growth.

Shit, wrong thread.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I'm sure Stoke fans are sat in their droves right now thinking "I wish we were more like Reading".

At least one of them is .....

But of course most aren't, because they're doing well on the back of debt. It's great while it lasts, just like it was for Portsmouth. It may all come crashing down one day - or it may not, only time will tell.

But the system currently allows this to happen - it won't always.

[Schards#2]

I'm sure Stoke fans are sat in their droves right now thinking "I wish we were more like Reading".

At least one of them is .....

But of course most aren't, because they're doing well on the back of debt. It's great while it lasts, just like it was for Portsmouth. It may all come crashing down one day - or it may not, only time will tell.

But the system currently allows this to happen - it won't always.

Off topic, how do Portsmouth get to keep saleable assets such as Kitson when they are unable to meet their creditors? In any other business, the business would have to sell their assets.

[Bandini]

Prepare for a doubLOLe dip. All these cuts are preventing potential growth.

Shit, wrong thread.

Although everyone has to argue the opposite on this thread as opposed to the other thread.

[winchester_royal]

Here's a thought....

Maybe BM and Co are so impressed with the potential of Obita, D'Ath, Taylor, McCarthy/Andersen, Ugwu, Walcott and Arnold that, planning for the long-term, they have suggested to SJM that we'd be better off NOT buying anyone now, instead accumulating some funds so that we can afford to keep these youngsters for a year or 2 longer than might otherwise be the case.

Bingo. The club does not run its' financial policy based on a year-by-year strategy, i.e. if we have spare funds we MUST spend it now.

If a deal is there to be done that is right for the club then we will do it. If not, then the money can be stored away for the future so that we are not under pressure to sell the next generation of stars. Rather than throwing it all away on a couple of average, short-term signings that'll make some fans feel a little better because thay get to see RFC mentioned on Sky Sports News.

[Tails]

Here's a thought....

Maybe BM and Co are so impressed with the potential of Obita, D'Ath, Taylor, McCarthy/Andersen, Ugwu, Walcott and Arnold that, planning for the long-term, they have suggested to SJM that we'd be better off NOT buying anyone now, instead accumulating some funds so that we can afford to keep these youngsters for a year or 2 longer than might otherwise be the case.

Bingo. The club does not run its' financial policy based on a year-by-year strategy, i.e. if we have spare funds we MUST spend it now.

If a deal is there to be done that is right for the club then we will do it. If not, then the money can be stored away for the future so that we are not under pressure to sell the next generation of stars. Rather than throwing it all away on a couple of average, short-term signings that'll make some fans feel a little better because thay get to see RFC mentioned on Sky Sports News.

Yes, this appears sensible. However, given the reality that businesses are now faced with, having money sat in the bank doing the square root of fck all isn't the smartest use of said money. I'm not condoning going out and speculating on players/players' wages - maybe we could establish a gold bullion reserve [well not now that the price is at an all time high] at the Mad Stad

Maybe that is what we are doing.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I'm sure Stoke fans are sat in their droves right now thinking "I wish we were more like Reading".

At least one of them is .....

But of course most aren't, because they're doing well on the back of debt. It's great while it lasts, just like it was for Portsmouth. It may all come crashing down one day - or it may not, only time will tell.

But the system currently allows this to happen - it won't always.

Off topic, how do Portsmouth get to keep saleable assets such as Kitson when they are unable to meet their creditors? In any other business, the business would have to sell their assets.

Because they're about the only saleable asset Pompey have, and the Administrator is trying to keep the business running. Selling such assets would effectively drive them out of business - same as if a manufacturing company was forced to sell its machines.

But football finance has absolutely no logic and doesn't obey any other rules of life or law.

[Wycombe Royal]

At least one of them is .....

But of course most aren't, because they're doing well on the back of debt. It's great while it lasts, just like it was for Portsmouth. It may all come crashing down one day - or it may not, only time will tell.

But the system currently allows this to happen - it won't always.

Off topic, how do Portsmouth get to keep saleable assets such as Kitson when they are unable to meet their creditors? In any other business, the business would have to sell their assets.

Because they're about the only saleable asset Pompey have, and the Administrator is trying to keep the business running. Selling such assets would effectively drive them out of business - same as if a manufacturing company was forced to sell its machines.

But football finance has absolutely no logic and doesn't obey any other rules of life or law.

I thought they had been taken over, so there is no administrator there now.......