View Single Post
  #86  
Old 07-09-2014, 03:55 PM
BW_Palace's Avatar
BW_Palace BW_Palace is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 7,416
Rep Power: 4549605
BW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietBW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietBW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietBW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietBW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietBW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietBW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietBW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietBW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietBW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietBW_Palace came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy diet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Palace View Post
Genuine question but did the money Pulis spent on players at Stoke outweigh the money they earned year in, year out from securing strong finishes in the PL?
They were making losses, though iirc pretty much all clubs do anyway.

A relevant question is whether if they were to go down, whether they'd be financially stable. You can say 'well, under Pulis, they would never go down' but this is untrue. Anyone from outside the 'big 7' (Everton, Spurs + the obvious 5) has a chance, of varying degree, of going down. For us, that chance this season was fairly significant (around 25% give or take). I believe the betting markets were putting Stoke at around 15% in his last couple of seasons. Things can go unexpectedly badly for all sorts of reasons. Let's not forget we were in the battle till fairly late when we strung together five wins. Given we don't have billionaire owners willing to pump multimillions into the club, we would be in big financial trouble upon relegation.

Also worth asking is if, given their spending, they were achieving better or worse than they should have been. Given their net spend was around Top 4 levels during his last few years there, it's hard to say he was overachieving. If Stoke could achieve the same as they were under big-spending Pulis with a different manager then his spending/management was inefficient - they did.
Reply With Quote