Rumour: Pulis To Quit In The Summer
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 sydtheeagle  England 27 Jan 14 2.52pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jimmyc at 27 Jan 2014 2.49pm
...while implying your cynical attitude is somehow intellectually superior.
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 Bill Glazier Mitcham 27 Jan 14 3.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Ian J at 27 Jan 2014 2.44pm
Quote dpommo at 27 Jan 2014 2.24pm
Quote Ian J at 27 Jan 2014 1.53pm
Quote dpommo at 27 Jan 2014 1.04pm
When the board feel the need to reply in threads such as the one on BBS to quell rumours like this, they are in part responding to people like you and Syd. We can all still support the club whilst holding a variety of different opinions on various Palace related matters and indeed many would appreciate that we have such a diverse range of opinions. There are many that slavishly lap up every word uttered by the management and others (like myself) who are more cynical There will always be rumours as we live in an age that seemingly thrives on trivia and gossip and the internet allows those rumours and stories to spread far quicker than in the old days. The Palace senior management like to keep their cards very close to their chests and there is nothing wrong with that but they also frequent the social media sites like Twitter and internet forums where they have their chance to right some of the wrongs that are being passed around. No-one expects them to divulge who they are talking to but when rumours start that have some credibility to them like the fact that Tony Pulis has a poor working relationship with his board all it takes is two minutes of someone's time to issue an unequivocal denial on either the BBS or Twitter and that would kill the matter stone dead straight away.
The main question still remains though, how do we get around players who want more than our budget will allow, and who aren't prepared to take a wage drop in the event we get relegated? It would be interesting to take a survey of the fans advocating we spend beyond our means if we were to get relegated with a wage bill we couldn't afford. Even if we could afford the wages, some of the players in question are hardly worth it! Scott Danns/Steven Taylor as our highest earner... enough to give me nightmares. I don't know the answer but it would be useful to have a rough idea of what the budget was. It is a source of annoyance to many that we have a limited budget but so much of it was blown speculatively on Dwight Gayle when so many of us were calling for Premiership experience. If we are looking at someone who won't take a wage drop if we get relegated we need to make sure that the individual is readily saleable in the event that we do go down which is why I would be happy to pass on the likes of Peter Crouch as we may not be able to unload him if necessary but would be happy to spend a large amount together with high wages on someone who can score the goals to enable us to win games but would be saleable if the worst was to happen. Jordan Rhodes would be my suggestion
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sydtheeagle England 27 Jan 14 3.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Bill Glazier at 27 Jan 2014 3.03pm
Dwight could do the business Tuesday. As long as Pulis has an alternative, I can't see Gayle playing. Even when Jerome was missing last time out, Gayle didn't come in. I don't think TP rates him, though that may be coloured by the fact that I don't rate him either. Still, his very limited use in recent months speaks volumes. Even the freak goal against Villa didn't really buy him much trust. If we do bring in a forward or two before Friday, I would not be surprised if Gayle heads in the other direction.
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dpommo Croydon 27 Jan 14 3.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 27 Jan 2014 2.36pm
Quote dpommo at 27 Jan 2014 2.29pm
Out of the players we have been linked with recently, who would you have been happy for us to take a risk on? Off the top of my head I can think of Crouch, Jelavic, Long, Danns, Taylor, Sissoko.
I think there is a balance between the board giving the manager their support and giving him free reign over transfers; any board is going to have final say over transfers. TP may think giving Crouch 50k per week for 2 years is a wise move for our club but he won't be looking at that from a business perspective; like every manager who has managed a club which has gone on to financial ruin, he's not going to have to clean up the mess should it all go wrong. My own opinion is that TP should work within the budgets that have been set and get on with the (very good) job he is doing. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the board's business acumen, they have access to the financial data they would need to work out what is going beyond a manageable risk. I may be wrong but I'm assuming you might think the board are against any type of financial risk so that they can now come out of this ownership with some sort of profit? Given that they came in at a time when not many would have given them a chance of coming out of this in profit, I would have to disagree if that is the case. I think they are just being sensible when it comes to the future of our club, something which makes us a somewhat unique group of supporters. Edited by dpommo (27 Jan 2014 3.13pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dpommo Croydon 27 Jan 14 3.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Also Ian, regarding Jordan Rhodes, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Pulis himself say he was way out of our league financially? Infact I've even found the quote, thanks to the Daily Mirror again If supporters are calling for us to sign Rhodes and even our supposedly hamstrung manager is saying he is out of our price range, that probably explains a lot of the problems in this thread. Edited by dpommo (27 Jan 2014 3.19pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sydtheeagle England 27 Jan 14 3.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dpommo at 27 Jan 2014 3.12pm
I think there is a balance between the board giving the manager their support and giving him free reign over transfers; any board is going to have final say over transfers. TP may think giving Crouch 50k per week for 2 years is a wise move for our club but he won't be looking at that from a business perspective; like every manager who has managed a club which has gone on to financial ruin, he's not going to have to clean up the mess should it all go wrong. My own opinion is that TP should work within the budgets that have been set and get on with the (very good) job he is doing. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the board's business acumen, they have access to the financial data they would need to work out what is going beyond a manageable risk. I may be wrong but I'm assuming you might think the board are against any type of financial risk so that they can now come out of this ownership with some sort of profit? Given that they came in at a time when not many would have given them a chance of coming out of this in profit, I would have to disagree if that is the case. I think they are just being sensible when it comes to the future of our club, something which makes us a somewhat unique group of supporters. Edited by dpommo (27 Jan 2014 3.13pm) The first paragraph really points to a quandary. Your view is wrong. But so is mine. Your view is right. But so is mine. The truth is, players (like stocks and shares) are investments; some pay off and some don't...who knows which. But the issue is that just as people go to investment experts for guidance on where to put their money, so they go to football experts for the same reason. I'm sure Steve Parish and the board listen to a lot of proven, high net worth financiers before they decide which funds to put their cash in; why, then, would they not listen to TP when it comes to football investments. With all that said, though, I do totally 100% agree with you that TP should be given a strict budget but then left alone to make decisions within that budget. With regard to risk and profit, I would have absolutely no problem if the board's ownership ends in selling the club for a massive profit. I do not expect them to bankrupt themselves to sate the supporters' lust for transfers. On the contrary, I am happy for them to fatten the calf and sell. I simply think they are going about fattening the calf the wrong way. You have to take some risk. Not reckless risk, but you cannot sit on your hands, either.
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sydtheeagle England 27 Jan 14 3.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
By the way, pure speculation, but I will tell you where this week will end up. We will bring in one or two players in the last 48 hours. One half here will say "I told you so. The board always had a plan and you were too impatient to see it." Another half will say "we ended up with dross. If the board had a plan and had moved earlier in the window, we would have got a much better quality of player." The third half will say "the board only moved in the market because they were motivated by supporter unrest. Therefore, our negativity was a contribution to shifting things in the right direction." Yes, I know there aren't three halves of anything, but we all know this is how it will play out. It always does. And in the end, we will all believe we were right.
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dpommo Croydon 27 Jan 14 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 27 Jan 2014 3.21pm
Quote dpommo at 27 Jan 2014 3.12pm
I think there is a balance between the board giving the manager their support and giving him free reign over transfers; any board is going to have final say over transfers. TP may think giving Crouch 50k per week for 2 years is a wise move for our club but he won't be looking at that from a business perspective; like every manager who has managed a club which has gone on to financial ruin, he's not going to have to clean up the mess should it all go wrong. My own opinion is that TP should work within the budgets that have been set and get on with the (very good) job he is doing. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the board's business acumen, they have access to the financial data they would need to work out what is going beyond a manageable risk. I may be wrong but I'm assuming you might think the board are against any type of financial risk so that they can now come out of this ownership with some sort of profit? Given that they came in at a time when not many would have given them a chance of coming out of this in profit, I would have to disagree if that is the case. I think they are just being sensible when it comes to the future of our club, something which makes us a somewhat unique group of supporters. Edited by dpommo (27 Jan 2014 3.13pm) The first paragraph really points to a quandary. Your view is wrong. But so is mine. Your view is right. But so is mine. The truth is, players (like stocks and shares) are investments; some pay off and some don't...who knows which. But the issue is that just as people go to investment experts for guidance on where to put their money, so they go to football experts for the same reason. I'm sure Steve Parish and the board listen to a lot of proven, high net worth financiers before they decide which funds to put their cash in; why, then, would they not listen to TP when it comes to football investments. With all that said, though, I do totally 100% agree with you that TP should be given a strict budget but then left alone to make decisions within that budget. With regard to risk and profit, I would have absolutely no problem if the board's ownership ends in selling the club for a massive profit. I do not expect them to bankrupt themselves to sate the supporters' lust for transfers. On the contrary, I am happy for them to fatten the calf and sell. I simply think they are going about fattening the calf the wrong way. You have to take some risk. Not reckless risk, but you cannot sit on your hands, either. And I agree, I would like to see some risk taken. I'll be very surprised if we don't sign anyone in the window, and if we don't then I will have to revise my view. However, I do agree with the board if their aim is to wait until nearer the end of the window in order to get a better deal. As a fan I would have been disappointed had we panicked and got into a bidding war for players like Jelavic and Long, two players who I think we can do a lot better than for the transfer fees and wages talked about (and I was a huge fan of Jelavic before he went to Everton).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dpommo Croydon 27 Jan 14 3.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Also in light of TP's press conference today... TP mentioned that Long and Jelavic were never on his radar (and I suspect a decent amount of the other names we were linked to weren't either). Our failure to bid for either of these two players was taken by many here as a reason to criticise the board for not backing TP in the transfer market. So again it all comes back to the fact that we don't really know what is going on and as many have said here before, make your minds up on Feb 1st. Edited by dpommo (27 Jan 2014 3.36pm) Edited by dpommo (27 Jan 2014 3.37pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| beer man Kent 27 Jan 14 3.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote cornwalls palace at 27 Jan 2014 2.50pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 27 Jan 2014 2.36pm
Quote dpommo at 27 Jan 2014 2.29pm
Out of the players we have been linked with recently, who would you have been happy for us to take a risk on? Off the top of my head I can think of Crouch, Jelavic, Long, Danns, Taylor, Sissoko.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 27 Jan 14 3.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 27 Jan 2014 3.21pm
Quote dpommo at 27 Jan 2014 3.12pm
I think there is a balance between the board giving the manager their support and giving him free reign over transfers; any board is going to have final say over transfers. TP may think giving Crouch 50k per week for 2 years is a wise move for our club but he won't be looking at that from a business perspective; like every manager who has managed a club which has gone on to financial ruin, he's not going to have to clean up the mess should it all go wrong. My own opinion is that TP should work within the budgets that have been set and get on with the (very good) job he is doing. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the board's business acumen, they have access to the financial data they would need to work out what is going beyond a manageable risk. I may be wrong but I'm assuming you might think the board are against any type of financial risk so that they can now come out of this ownership with some sort of profit? Given that they came in at a time when not many would have given them a chance of coming out of this in profit, I would have to disagree if that is the case. I think they are just being sensible when it comes to the future of our club, something which makes us a somewhat unique group of supporters. Edited by dpommo (27 Jan 2014 3.13pm) The first paragraph really points to a quandary. Your view is wrong. But so is mine. Your view is right. But so is mine. The truth is, players (like stocks and shares) are investments; some pay off and some don't...who knows which. But the issue is that just as people go to investment experts for guidance on where to put their money, so they go to football experts for the same reason. I'm sure Steve Parish and the board listen to a lot of proven, high net worth financiers before they decide which funds to put their cash in; why, then, would they not listen to TP when it comes to football investments. With all that said, though, I do totally 100% agree with you that TP should be given a strict budget but then left alone to make decisions within that budget. With regard to risk and profit, I would have absolutely no problem if the board's ownership ends in selling the club for a massive profit. I do not expect them to bankrupt themselves to sate the supporters' lust for transfers. On the contrary, I am happy for them to fatten the calf and sell. I simply think they are going about fattening the calf the wrong way. You have to take some risk. Not reckless risk, but you cannot sit on your hands, either.
With risk you can, as you say, avoid it, mitigate it, embrace it, or not have the slightest clue or plan as to how or what you're going to do if it doesn't come off. With Jerome, Puncheon and Chamakh, they minimised the risk. Now they're faced with situation of how much risk exposure they want. It won't be none, but it also won't be £7mil for 3 players for 3/4 seasons, with 2 of them probably over 30. To use your analogy, in stocks, shares and futures, there's 3 stages of a bull market. The smart money from the bottom, the followers, and the people buying at the top from the sellers, only in football you can lose every pound. 2010 need to and are thinking a bit smarter and hedging themselves.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 27 Jan 14 3.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dpommo at 27 Jan 2014 3.19pm
Also Ian, regarding Jordan Rhodes, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Pulis himself say he was way out of our league financially? Infact I've even found the quote, thanks to the Daily Mirror again If supporters are calling for us to sign Rhodes and even our supposedly hamstrung manager is saying he is out of our price range, that probably explains a lot of the problems in this thread. Edited by dpommo (27 Jan 2014 3.19pm) But is he out of price range though? If we put a record breaking (for us) bid for him and pay him loads of wages and he bags loads of goals ending us up in mid table it will have been a worthwhile investment. If we put in the same record breaking bid for him and pay him loads of wages and he bags loads of goals but we are relegated we could probably get our money back by selling him but the gamble would have been worth while. The potential downside is if we do the above and he is a complete and utter failure and can't score so that we end up relegated but no-one wants to buy him or if he suffers a serious injury
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.