Premier League 2012/13 general thread

[Team Andromeda]

What Tony Pulis did for Stoke was and is nothing short of remarkable . Just to take a Club up from the Championship is really something , but to keep them there on a tiny budget and keep the Club there for 5 years debt free is utterly remarkable (and something that hardly any other club has done) ;Stoke fans should be very careful what they wish for has fans like Charlton found out to their cost

15m for Carroll isn't a bad deal for a player who has spent the majority of the season injured. He is also crap

He's far from crap imo

[Adrock]

Stoke don't have a tiny budget though. He spent around ?20mil in the season just gone, ?16mil the season before, ?11mil, ?17mil and ?16mil in the years before.

That definitely isn't a tiny budget and that is also net spend, so money he spent AFTER getting money back from any transfers. The club is well financed, I remember reading an article a long time ago about the bookies that owns the club and how much money they put in.

Its obviously not a budget in comparison with a number of the top clubs but its should definitely be enough to guarantee them mid table. Stoke have definitely under performed this year compared to the standard they have set in the past. Thats probably the reason the club have looked to bring a fresh face in.

As for Carroll, we'll have to disagree.

edit : I hate to say it but Everton have a tiny budget when compared with Stoke and look where they are and have been in recent years.

[EJG1980]

Ah, bugger, what Adrock Said I need to type faster!

Getting into the Premier League and keeping them there was a very good achievement, but with the money they've spent in recent seasons (?10 million on Crouch and ?8 million on Palacios spring to mind, cheers Tony!) I think they've stood still a little bit too much. A decent job, but not a miracle.

[Team Andromeda]

Stoke don't have a tiny budget though. He spent around ?20mil in the season just gone, ?16mil the season before, ?11mil, ?17mil and ?16mil in the years before

That's nothing really . I'm sure Stoke is one of the few Clubs in the Prem that are totally debt free with one of the lowest wage bills. Only the likes of Swansea come close,but they haven't been in the Prem for 5 years just yet .

I hate to say it but Everton have a tiny budget when compared with Stoke and look where they are and have been in recent years.

That's why the Club is in debt up to its eyeballs and haven't got much to spend ? . How much did the likes of Fellaini cost ? I'm sure he was ?10 million plus for starters . And in the same year Stoke bought Crouch they sold Şanlı for ?5 million

As for Carroll, we'll have to disagree

He's a good striker , not top table for sure but more that good enough for most teams mid table. He's far from Crap imo

[Kit]

He's a physical player. A dying breed if you will. Not much use for him nowadays seeing as freekicks are given for things like 'the wind blowing in the players direction.'

[Adrock]

That's nothing really . I'm sure Stoke is one of the few Clubs in the Prem that are totally debt free with one of the lowest wage bills. Only the likes of Swansea come close,but they haven't been in the Prem for 5 years just yet .



That's why the Club is in debt up to its eyeballs and haven't got much to spend ? . How much did the likes of Fellaini cost ? I'm sure he was ?10 million plus for starters . And in the same year Stoke bought Crouch they sold Şanlı for ?5 million



He's a good striker , not top table for sure but more that good enough for most teams mid table. He's far from Crap imo

Is there a point in continuing this when I've already said Stoke are funded by a betting company. That is the reason they can afford to spend the money they do. Everton have no financial backing of a decent amount and so are struggling.

You said Stoke had a tiny budget, that was wrong. I was simply pointing it out. And when you look at teams with actual 'tiny' budgets then you'll realise Stoke are pretty much mid table when it comes to transfer spending.

In the year Fellani was purchased for ?15mil they sold Andy Johnson and with all their other transfer dealings Everton ended up spending 6-7mil. They had one massive spend up the season after Rooney left for about the same amount.

That was followed by a few years of 4 or 10mil spent net. That isn't on the level we're discussing of Stoke. The Stoke budget is mostly double if not treble the usual Everton spend.

[EJG1980]

That's nothing really . I'm sure Stoke is one of the few Clubs in the Prem that are totally debt free with one of the lowest wage bills. Only the likes of Swansea come close,but they haven't been in the Prem for 5 years just yet .

That's why the Club is in debt up to its eyeballs and haven't got much to spend ? . How much did the likes of Fellaini cost ? I'm sure he was ?10 million plus for starters . And in the same year Stoke bought Crouch they sold Şanlı for ?5 million

Everton are in debt because they have to borrow money from banks, pay interest on the loans, and pay that money back.

Stoke City aren't in debt because the Coates family, who own the club, have put over ?80 million of their own money into the club as interest free loans. Half of it has been written off as a debt for equity swap and the rest is still owed to the family at the moment (as Adrock said, via Bet365, which is owned by Coates).

In other words, Stoke are debt free because they have owners who pump in their own personal fortune and don't ask for it to be paid back.

As for transfer spending, in the past three years Stoke City have spent ?46,975,000 net (that takes into account money recouped from player sales) on transfers. In the same three years Everton have "spent" minus ?16,016,000 net. In the past three years only Liverpool have a higher net spend than Stoke.

http://thinkfootball.co.uk/archives/9117

(Actually Liverpool and someone else, probably Man City or Chelsea, I misread the article )

Everton do have a higher wage bill though, ?63 million vs ?53 million per the latest figures available. Not a massive, insurmountable gap though.

[On The Edge of Insanity]

This adds some more numbers to the debate: http://jameswgrayson.wordpress.com/2...of-tony-pulis/

For the uninitiated, TSR is Total Shots Ratio, which = Shots For/(Shots For + Shots Against). It seems to be a popular calculation tool in the football analytics community. In this case, it simply illustrates what we already know - that Stoke exhibit very little control over matches.

Personally, I can't say that I'm sad to see Pulis go, as Stoke add little to the league in their current state. His approach served them well in gaining promotion and staying in the division, but despite spending a lot of money (wasted on Crouch, Palacios, etc) he has failed to move them forward from that point.

That said, they will have to be careful when choosing a replacement, because it is difficult to initiate a change in playing style overnight. Stoke have a lot of players that one would imagine are incapable of playing any other way than that prescribed by Pulis, so a dramatic change is unlikely to serve the club well.

[Anpanman]

Not 'Premier' league, he played well before but still...RIP Brian;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22631540

[Kit]

Liverpool chairman Tom Werner says the club has made "remarkable progress" under Brendan Rodgers's management

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22653681

Thoughts?

[Adrock]

I think the style of play and the signings in January have been big steps in the right direction. I'm not sure remarkable would be the correct term for it but there has been a definite progress.

The biggest positive for me is that the team are doing well whilst still relying on a couple of players who clearly dont fit into the model of play Rodgers is trying to instil into the club. That would mainly be Downing who has been crap and Henderson who has been playing everywhere. I still believe that Henderson can be a decent player, not sure if he'll be good enough to dominate in the middle for years to come so he may have to move on. Downing is just crap though, theres no getting around it.

A decent few signings in the Summer and I think the club could be pushing higher up the league, I still think top four would be a bridge too far right now but significant progress would keep me happy next year. Also, whilst Suarez would definitely be a big loss I can see there would be a future without him, if Coutinho carries on where he left off and the club used the massive fee to buy a couple of very good players then the impact of such a loss wouldn't be as big a problem as feared.

Its definitely a positive time at club, lets just home the business in the Summer is done quickly and they avoid buying Ashley Williams.

edit : Just to say, Coutinho's play has been a revelation for the team. His passing and creation in tight spaces has been a class above anyone else and he seems not to mind the physical side of the league. The goals he has laid on in the latter part of the season have seen some delightful passes that point to him becoming one of the most important players in the team if he carries on.

[EJG1980]

Coutinho had always flattered to deceive at Inter or on loan in Spain, flashes of incredible skill but a lot of anonymity too. Since coming to Liverpool it's probably been the best and most consistent form he's had. If he manages to keep it going then the ?8 million Liverpool paid for him will look like a really really good deal.

All the talk in the papers (as much as you can trust them) is that Ashley Williams will end up at Arsenal, so you might not have to worry about him turning up at Anfield.

[Nu-Eclipse]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22653681

Thoughts?

Forum Liverpool thread not being used anymore?

[Adrock]

Not really, football discussion has died on this forum pretty much. Only HE is keeping the spurs thread alive, everything else is confined to a few catch all threads. Not a bad thing.

[EJG1980]

I'm gonna be posting Spurs summer holiday updates just to make sure keeps ticking over. "Today, Gareth Bale made a sandcastle and had a lovely ice cream. With a flake!"