Stoke show RFC how to run a Real Football Club

[PieEater]

Stoke and Wolves were doing OK financially in the prem, of the others mentioned they are basket cases.

In the OK group I'd put Stoke, Wolves, West Brom and maybe Blackburn. Of those potentially fooked if relegated there's Wigan (£73m), Bolton (£93m), and Fulham (£190m)

[SpaceCruiser]

Hull are a great example of a failure. During their 2 years in the Prem

2 years? I thought they were there for only 1 year?

[brendywendy]

It's true. Perhaps Sunderland and Bolton may be two other examples. 2nd tier sides who've gone up, slowly invested, then more then see the benefits in staying as a solid PL team

its a pretty small group of teams managing to consolidate.maybe fulham too. All spending massively more money on transfers and wages than we could have afforded.even the money that coppel refused to spend 2nd prem season wouldnt have got close.

[Hoop Blah]

Stoke and Wolves were doing OK financially in the prem, of the others mentioned they are basket cases.

In the OK group I'd put Stoke, Wolves, West Brom and maybe Blackburn. Of those potentially fooked if relegated there's Wigan (£73m), Bolton (£93m), and Fulham (£190m)

How is that debt structured? Is it just to their owners like the majority of our debt?

How much do you believe Coppell had to play with, and do you think any signings at that price might have made the difference. It has also been shown that many of the players sold after relegation were not really up to Prem standard, so why would they have continued to improve with RFC?

It was enough for him to have a couple of signings lined up (I think he even admitted it was Matt Taylor and/or Gary O'Neil, possibly even Cahil, but I think that was just my wishful thinking at the time) before he pulled the plug because he felt they wouldn't improve the squad enough. He's admitted that he probably made a mistake there and that it was a reluctance to replace his trusted players, a repeat of the same mistakes he made at Palace.

[Royal Rother]

Coppell said at the time of relegation that he had thought that 1, the squad he had was amply good enough to stay up and 2, that signing new players might just upset the applecart in the dressing room and not have an overall positive effect on the team.

And of course he might have been right.

[Terminal Boardom]

Coppell said at the time of relegation that he had thought that 1, the squad he had was amply good enough to stay up and 2, that signing new players might just upset the applecart in the dressing room and not have an overall positive effect on the team.

And of course he might have been right.

Thing is, we will never know

[brendywendy]

with hindsight,agreed. But at the time,even if you disagreed,you could probably see what he was thinking. Those three players would have probably ended up like mensah and brown,not guarantee we stay up, and would be harsh on the players who had got us to 106 points.8th place in the prem,and 20 points by jan,and just beaten liverpool 3-1.

[Friday's Legacy]

It's true. Perhaps Sunderland and Bolton may be two other examples. 2nd tier sides who've gone up, slowly invested, then more then see the benefits in staying as a solid PL team

i think you'll find sunderland splashed an awful lot of money to stay up. i do agree though that stoke who one said they followed our template are now the ones we should be trying to emulate. they were careful when they went up and have slowly upped their budgets each season they have stayed there. they have a decent squad now, european football, and possibly three very good signings to further improve what they have (upson, palacios, crouch). we had our golden chance and madejski wanted to do it cheaply. he thought that a overachieving season could be repeated with cheap additions and everyone but him knew otherwise. we will one day get another shot but i hope it's not under the current ownership as it will once again be a wasted opportunity.

[Hoop Blah]

Coppell said at the time of relegation that he had thought that 1, the squad he had was amply good enough to stay up and 2, that signing new players might just upset the applecart in the dressing room and not have an overall positive effect on the team.

And of course he might have been right.

Not that I don't believe you RR but I don't recall any of that. At least not in the cold light of day after the initial responses to relegation.

I clearly remember Coppell stating that he thought he'd got it wrong and that it was a repeat of mistakes he'd made at Palace.

[Jimmy the Tree]

I could be wrong here, but is this the same Stoke that had it's £24 Million debt written off by Peter Coates?

Is this a sustainable model?

What happens when he either :-

Gets bored,
Dies,
Had up on US gambling charges?

[Royal Rother]

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.

[Royal Rother]

Coppell said at the time of relegation that he had thought that 1, the squad he had was amply good enough to stay up and 2, that signing new players might just upset the applecart in the dressing room and not have an overall positive effect on the team.

And of course he might have been right.

Not that I don't believe you RR but I don't recall any of that. At least not in the cold light of day after the initial responses to relegation.

I clearly remember Coppell stating that he thought he'd got it wrong and that it was a repeat of mistakes he'd made at Palace.

I thought that WAS an admission that he'd got it wrong in the same way he had at Palace.

[Pseud O'Nym]

Hull are a great example of a failure. During their 2 years in the Prem

2 years? I thought they were there for only 1 year?

Nope, they finished their first season in 17th, avoided relegation by one point. Tbf, most of the losses accrued in their second season.

[Hoop Blah]

Sorry, read to me as the reasons why he didn't bring anyone in not any admission that those fears where probably wrong.

I can understand the reasoning, but just don't give any credence to them. Successful teams add and improve from a position of strength and bringing players into a good side is a lot easier than bringing them into one that's struggling.

[Royal Rother]

I think we agree but you're confusing me a bit HB.

My recollection is that Coppell made those comments after relegation in an admission of what he did wrong in the 2nd half of that season.

[Hoop Blah]

Agreed, they were part of his reasoning for not bringing people in, which he also accepted, with the benefit of hindsight, was a mistake.

The way you'd written it I just thought it was him (or you) justifying his mistake without saying it was a mistake. That wasn't how I recalled it as he clearly put his hands up and said he got it wrong.

[floyd__streete]

I'd rather keep the players we've got and win just as much as them over the next few years thanks.

Top half of the Prem and an FA Cup final? That is a world more than what we will acheieve any time soon.

[floyd__streete]

Coppell said at the time of relegation that he had thought that 1, the squad he had was amply good enough to stay up and 2, that signing new players might just upset the applecart in the dressing room and not have an overall positive effect on the team.

And of course he might have been right.

He wasn't though, was he . We went down.

And before anyone dares suggest we were unlucky - we conceded 6 points to each of the two teams who finished directly above the dotted line that season, Fulham and Bolton. Thrashed we were, done over twice by both of them. We failed to invest through Coppell's paranoia and thoroughly deserved to go down.

[Simon's Church]

I'd rather keep the players we've got and win just as much as them over the next few years thanks.

Top half of the Prem and an FA Cup final? That is a world more than what we will acheieve any time soon.

So at what point did they win more than us?

It certainly wasn't in terms of entertainment. They manage to play even shitter football than we do.

[Royal Rother]

Coppell said at the time of relegation that he had thought that 1, the squad he had was amply good enough to stay up and 2, that signing new players might just upset the applecart in the dressing room and not have an overall positive effect on the team.

And of course he might have been right.

He wasn't though, was he . We went down.

And before anyone dares suggest we were unlucky - we conceded 6 points to each of the two teams who finished directly above the dotted line that season, Fulham and Bolton. Thrashed we were, done over twice by both of them. We failed to invest through Coppell's paranoia and thoroughly deserved to go down.

I meant he might have been right about the 2nd point, (about the effect of signing new players) not the first.