Jump to content

Gary Rowett gone to Stoke


Mckram

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ambitious said:

The reason we can't invest is nothing to do with Mel, well, in a way it is: it's because he's invested too much already. 

FFP is the reason we can't invest, not the fact we don't have any money.

I dont fully understand the ffp situation but i am prrtty sure Wolves and Aston villa spent more. I must be missing something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

I agree he has . But he does not have enough to sustain. He really needed success sooner rather than later. We are now in a clough situation all over again

There are similarities but one thing is different. We have a squad good enough to compete for top 6. When Clough arrived, the situation was worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, not a bad season in terms of position in the league etc. But I couldn’t be arsed watching another season of football like that. He came in giving it the big bollo**s about a young, energetic team and instead turned us in to a pensioners outfit. I hope he gets an absolutely vile reception when he returns btw. I don’t mind a manager going on to bigger and better things - i.e wouldn’t really have complained if he left us for Stoke 6 months ago as a Premier League team, or for instance now if he was to go to West Ham perhaps?? Or maybe even to Villa as I believe that’s who he supports. But not to a newly relegated team 6 months after signing a new deal, and just over 12 months after declaring this is his dream job.

He sounded like a cocky tw** in most of his interviews. Hope we give them a real hiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Moist One said:

I now wonder if this thread was a bit of a prophecy! 

Now you come to mention it I did see a bright light in the sky and a voice say ‘Rowett to Stoke!’.

Knew I should have stuck a fiver on it...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

I dont fully understand the ffp situation but i am prrtty sure Wolves and Aston villa spent more. I must be missing something

Me neither, well not in great detail. I know it's weighted against club income - Villa have parachute payments (for example). Wolves didn't really spend that much all things considered. 

We're so close to the line that we could spend, but then we would have to accept a transfer embargo & a big fine. Although, we could just refuse to pay it and take the football league to court, ala QPR, and it would just all be pushed under the carpet. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

I dont fully understand the ffp situation but i am prrtty sure Wolves and Aston villa spent more. I must be missing something

Wolves have spent it all in one season pretty much. Villa have prem money from being relegated - if they don’t go up this year they will be in the same situation as us, probably worse. We’ve spent money over 2-3 years alongside huge salaries for 3-4 years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dimmu said:

There are similarities but one thing is different. We have a squad good enough to compete for top 6. When Clough arrived, the situation was worse.

Ironically though, we're now worse off than when Clough left.....

Given that Steve Mac initially took us forward, just how far have we fallen since Wembley? If that Wembley squad had Carson and Davies in it, we'd have walked the Championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boss said:

Wolves have spent it all in one season pretty much. Villa have prem money from being relegated - if they don’t go up this year they will be in the same situation as us, probably worse. We’ve spent money over 2-3 years alongside huge salaries for 3-4 years now.

Does spending over a period of time v over one season make a difference? Genuine question 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

I dont fully understand the ffp situation but i am prrtty sure Wolves and Aston villa spent more. I must be missing something

Some clubs ignore the FFP and go for it. QPR, fester, Bournemouth and Newcastle all succeeded and got away with it, Notts Forest didn't and got a transfer ban. Do we want to risk going the red dog way? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BathRam72 said:

Does spending over a period of time v over one season make a difference? Genuine question 

Think it's over a rolling three year period isn't it?

In which case, Villa have parachute payments behind them, and Wolves only really spent big in the previous 12/18 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BathRam72 said:

Does spending over a period of time v over one season make a difference? Genuine question 

Don’t think so - but it has worked for Wolves in terms of getting promoted straight away. If they hadn’t of gone up, again they would be under financial strain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, curtains said:

Wouldn’t have won much mate he was odds on 

He was 7/1 early doors with Moyesy the favourite.

I guess when you look at that list of names you can understand why Stoke fans seem over the moon! They’ve avoided Moyes, Big Sam, McCarthy, Pardew, Pearson and Carvalhal - that’s some effort!

 

54E35A15-3D8B-49E7-875B-F9D11428FF3B.png.651bb451b1f0dcff47a3b40cbacf69be.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...