Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Canaries north

Stoke a model

Recommended Posts

Do you really need that statement explaining to you?

Its very simple. Stoke are a similar sized club to us, who have stayed in the PL for a few years now, they have plenty of transfer money to spend, but don''t have much/any debt as far as i''m aware. And despite everyone hating their football (which is way way way over the top, some people go on about it as if they literally just hoof and head and then break the oppositions legs. When they do actually play football far more frequently than they are given credit for.) they stay up, and until this season stayed up pretty easily.

Hughton didn''t say we''re going to copy Stoke''s football. The Stoke model does not mean their tactics. Shame that needed explaining to you really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Gingerpele"]Do you really need that statement explaining to you?

Its very simple. Stoke are a similar sized club to us, who have stayed in the PL for a few years now, they have plenty of transfer money to spend, but don''t have much/any debt as far as i''m aware. And despite everyone hating their football (which is way way way over the top, some people go on about it as if they literally just hoof and head and then break the oppositions legs. When they do actually play football far more frequently than they are given credit for.) they stay up, and until this season stayed up pretty easily.

Hughton didn''t say we''re going to copy Stoke''s football. The Stoke model does not mean their tactics. Shame that needed explaining to you really...[/quote]Agreed - and well put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your view all I am saying is I would look to other teams for inspiration. If I was a stoke fan I think I would be very depressed. If all football at Norwich is going to be about is staying up no mater what we have to watch I will not be looking forward to it. I still believe I pay my money to be entertained. I have watched stoke enough to know that to me is not entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would add that Stoke are a great model in the transfer market. They upgrade every window.

Promoted with Fuller, they bought Kenwyne Jones and upgraded again with Crouch. We too need to constantly upgrade our players and Van Wolfswinkel is the next step after Bassong and Whittaker last summer.

Before anyone else points out how poor Stoke''s football has been, that is also true. The fault lies in Pulis'' s failure to move the tactics and his use of players forward as they''ve upgraded. I believe Hughton will use his quality additions to much better effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canaries north"]I understand your view all I am saying is I would look to other teams for inspiration. If I was a stoke fan I think I would be very depressed. If all football at Norwich is going to be about is staying up no mater what we have to watch I will not be looking forward to it. I still believe I pay my money to be entertained. I have watched stoke enough to know that to me is not entertaining.[/quote]You still don''t get it do you?You are missing the point completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Canaries north, if you can give some examples of similar sized clubs, who have retained PL status for a number of years, mostly with relative ease. While remaining (probably) debt free, and doing well in the transfer market then please do.

You seem to have completely missed the point anyway. At no point does Hughton say we will play like Stoke. He says the Stoke model, he''s talking about their ''success'' not style. As the next poster said, Pulis has failed to update Stoke''s style of football when he''s upgraded the players. Crouch and Jones are actually better with the ball at their feet. Charlie Adams can be a great play maker, as he was at Blackpool. Etherington and Pennant are very dangerous wingers. Yet they revert to long balls to the head far to often just by passing those players. They do use them, they don''t just hoof it (which some people would lead you to believe) but they don''t play as well as they could with the players at their disposal.

Which is only relevant, because until he does otherwise, we can expect Hughton to update the way we play when we upgrade the players. RVW won''t be happy if we continue to play how we do. We will have better attacking players, and presumably better attacking play.

The Stoke model, is not their playing style. Its everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are also a heavily community based club with a passionate local following - they transfer policy is right and that is the key difference;   I don''t see hughton looking to follow pulis successful but dull tactics - the successful bit yes - I am expecting him to develop and be more expansive  next season.

 

For all the pulis knockers so far he has yet to be relegated from any league - and bearing in mind stoke is his largest club that is an astonishing achievement for a journey man manager that deserves so respect,  even if his style of play does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as we wanted to be the new Charlton the last time we went up and they came all the way down to league one with us. I am sure teams coming up next year will have hopes of being the new swansea ect. For me I just wish we would be happy at being Norwich not trying to be the new anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People seem to forget Stoke have been bankrolled by the owner of bet365 and have net spent more than anyone outside of Man City and Chelsea if I remember correctly. So I''d argue the "Stoke way" is not to be followed, only similarities are that we''re both provincial clubs with similar size fan base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

They are also a heavily community based club with a passionate local following - they transfer policy is right and that is the key difference;   I don''t see hughton looking to follow pulis successful but dull tactics - the successful bit yes - I am expecting him to develop and be more expansive  next season.

 

For all the pulis knockers so far he has yet to be relegated from any league - and bearing in mind stoke is his largest club that is an astonishing achievement for a journey man manager that deserves so respect,  even if his style of play does not.

[/quote]Their transfer policy? They''ve spend quite a lot of money while being in the Premiership, which has actually cost them dearly by taking money away from internal investment which in result has hampered their academy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have to be our own model.    We can set the standard for a club achieving a good premiership status with no outside "h''investment". The Norwich model is no debt - going back into debt just isn''t an option.  We have a healthy income from TV and a full CR every home game in the league.   So we live within our means - I know, living within your means is unfashionable - everyone wants us to spend big and buy the best.    But  we have no debt whatsoever, or won''t by the end of the season and we can spend more on wages next season and attract better players without going back into debt.  That is a sustainable future.  

With good management in place and a strong board,  a good manager and a developing team - and no debt - that is the future.   Whether it is good enough to sustain us in the top league year after year remains to be seen,   but even if we ever went back into the championship, that model would stands firm and allow us to sustain a challenge to get back.   

Anything else is cloud cuckoo land - QPR, Portsmouth,  Leeds etc etc.   Those clubs are welcome to their false wealth - or the results of  their folly.   Portsmouth will build again, hopefully on a sustainable future.  At Norwich we surely have to stay true to our ideals - anything else is gambling with the future of the club.   We all like a flutter now and then but gambling with a whole club is just what some club owners have done.  Not us - and I hope we never do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norwich are just humoring Stoke, little snippets like these are said before you play sides. It''s kind of saying we don''t think your bigger than us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ncfcstar"]People seem to forget Stoke have been bankrolled by the owner of bet365 and have net spent more than anyone outside of Man City and Chelsea if I remember correctly. So I''d argue the "Stoke way" is not to be followed, only similarities are that we''re both provincial clubs with similar size fan base.[/quote]

 

Quite true. It has made losses totalling £16m over the last two seasons (I can''t be bothered to look further) and owes the Bet365 chap around £24m, according to The Guardian. If there is a financial role model it is more WBA, which isn''t in debt and doesn''t make losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before we all go batsh@t crazy about Hughton wanting us to be like stoke, did anyone actually read the article?

The full quote that line was taken from was this:

“For us as a club if we are in a position that Stoke have been in the last six, seven years we would be delighted,” he said. “They continue to make progress. It is a model for teams like ourselves who have got promotion. What you desperately want is that type of stability where you can become a mainstay in the Premier League, because you know how difficult it is to become a top 10 team with the finances involved.”

As far as I can tell the only way Hughton wants us to use Stoke as a model is to continually progress and remain a PL team. I honestly can''t read any more into his words than that, and agree with both points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
''Before we all go batsh@t crazy about Hughton wanting us to be like stoke, did anyone actually read the article? ''

I also suggest you read the posts... Because its only one poster who has a problem with what Hughton has said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you''d actually read mine I was pointing out that Hughton doesn''t seem to be suggesting we follow Stokes transfer policy as has been heavily discussed, purely that we want to stay in the league and progress, nothing deeper than that.

But thanks for the rebriefing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apart from you don''t actually mention transfer policy...

Even so, no one is getting upset over the suggestion we copy their transfer policy. Because we can''t. Because we don''t get money from a very rich person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh.

I didn''t mention transfer policy, tactics or anything else in my original post. My point was everyone was running off talking about how we don''t want to play like that, or we can''t afford their transfer policy and not actually taking his words in context.

He mentions nothing about this in his quote. He only says "They continue to make progress. It is a model for teams like ourselves who have got promotion. What you desperately want is that type of stability where you can become a mainstay in the Premier League".

So he wants us to make progress and stay in the PL. No mention of playing like them, no mention of their transfer policy or anything else, so why is it being discussed like he has?

"The Stoke model, is not their playing style. Its everything else." - Really, you got that from this off the cuff comment? That Hughton sees the Stoke model as everything other than their playing style? If your going to look at that quote and read that much into it than I would argue there is nothing there that says he doesn''t mean their tactics either?

Oh and why do you assume every post is directed at you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn''t assume your post was directed at me. I never mentioned me. I in no way what so ever thought your post, or every post is directed at me.

Stoke''s progress. Isn''t just staying in the PL is it. Thats not progress, thats staying still. Of course he''s meaning something more than that. And no manager in their right mind would claim they want their side to play like Stoke in the media, even if behind closed doors they do.

Stoke''s progress is staying in the PL, and before this season generally improving, in terms of position, european qualification. And players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GP wrote

Hughton didn''t say we''re going to copy Stoke''s football.

But he has, the stats do not lie. Hughton''s tactics today are WORSE than Pullus.

Quite simply it is NOT football as the layman knows it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Stoke''s progress Isn''t just staying in the PL is it"

"Stoke''s progress is staying in the PL"

 

Your really winning me over. Do you not do media studies? Tell me how in any way shape or form you can look at that quote and read that he wants to follow Stoke in every way bar on the pitch?

The op is wrong in my opinion, but you are also drawing conclusions that aren''t apparent from the words he has used.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did you leave the second half on the sentence off that second quote? Completely taking it out of context. I probably used the comma incorrectly but the second half of that sentence is pretty important...

Ok, maybe I am drawing conclusions that aren''t apparent in the quote. Thats what we do. You''ve done it yourself.

When I made that first post, I also had forgotten Stoke had a rich guy bankrolling the club. Which changes what I originally said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You understand what a statement is presumably? It doesn''t really matter what evidence you use with it, that doesn''t change the context of your statement.

 

You have just contradicted yourself with two opposing statements, what evidence you provide for either is kind of irrelevant.

 

And no I haven''t that''s the point. Progress is just a word to move forward, you have made conclusions from that word, I haven''t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?

I have not contradicted myself.

In the first I used the word JUST. In the second I said staying up AND improving. BIG BIG BIG difference. Why do you fail to understand that?

And yes, you have come to your own conclusions. Otherwise there is no need for you to comment on it, because all you can say is exactly what he said. And you haven''t done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes because with the comma (or even without it) it makes it a statement in its own right and "and improving" is totally subjective, is that a fact? You make your reasonings but they have gone from 11th to 13th to 14th in the previous 3 seasons. They qualified for europe through losing a cup final not through any league improvement and personnel improvement is totally subjective, its resulted in worse league position for starters.

You also said staying in the PL "Thats not progress, thats staying still" yet its the main point of your argument for how they have progressed with "and improving" as I have said questionable and subjective. So that is a huge contradiction, staying in the PL can''t be an argument for standing still and progress?

and once again No I haven''t:

Hughton:“They continue to make progress. It is a model for teams like ourselves who have got promotion. What you desperately want is that type of stability where you can become a mainstay in the Premier League"

Me: "only way Hughton wants us to use Stoke as a model is to continually progress and remain a PL team"

What conclusion have I drawn? I''ve just paraphrased him.

You have decided that this includes all the aspects of Stoke bar their tactics and the OP is an idiot. How have you drawn that conclusion from what Hughton said? And how is it implicit he means everything but tactics? theres nothing to suggest that but your personal views and interpretation. You have no more justification for your conclusion than the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×