Do we have a "Warchest" or is Ali Mack playing silly 'games' again??

[Nick Bateman]

With the wholly unfair restrictions of the so-called Financial Fair Play rules being relaxed, Fulham being owned by a multi-billionaire American owner should have substantial 'muscle' to bring in many of the best players one can attract to an aspiring Championship side, yet all I see so far are two players brought in on a "free".

Some of the names mentioned on this forum sounded very promising (I can't remember the thread was a few weeks ago), including some highly rated central defenders which, after watching last season's defending, we badly are in need of.  According to the remarks, Fulham approached the clubs with offers in the region of £2.5million only to be rebuffed - again I have no knowledge whether these reports were true.  But if true, surely we have got to improve our offers and the man in charge of the negotiating is Alistair Mackintosh as he admitted in his last press conference.

Yet to date Fulham have only acquired two "freebies", hardly the sort of statement made of an incredibly wealthy club.  In fact, it reminds me of last season when every fan was calling out for transfer activity in the January window, and Ali Mack did NOTHING (Rigg, upon his appointment, brought in a few out-of-contract signings after the window had closed).

So I ask the question again; does Fulham have a WARCHEST, if so, is it enough to take us back into the Premier League?  If so, is Ali Mack ruining the club again with his penny-pinching to justify his already besmirched position?   I do not wish to further vilify the man if the fault is not with him.

If we do not have what one would call a warchest, why not Chairman Khan???   051  

[Roberty]

They're being relaxed - marginally - not done away with.

So SK will still not be able to overspend

[Wearethewhites]

I believe the sale of Roberts will fund this summers transfer activity. Not that I'm surprised though, Khan said we'll be self sufficient moving forward.

[Roberty]

I believe the sale of Roberts will fund this summers transfer activity. Not that I'm surprised though, Khan said we'll be self sufficient moving forward.

It is a balancing act between fees paid for players and salaries.

So getting rid of the high earners and selling high value none-productive players will give more space for manoeuvre

The reality is that if we are going to get out of the Championship we need players who can make a difference now and it makes no sense to keep all of the "family silver" if it means staying in the Championship

[Nick Bateman]

They're being relaxed - marginally - not done away with.

So SK will still not be able to overspend

Yet Manchester City can spend £50million on one overrated Raheem Sterling, and that would be one of many signings, _Chelsea can buy every teenager for millions to prevent any other club from having them, but Fulham cannot?? 

I do not believe that for one second.

[SKSW6]

Cairney at £2.3m-£3.5m is actually a relatively expensive signing in this league.

[Nick Bateman]

Cairney at £2.3m-£3.5m is actually a relatively expensive signing in this league.

I missed that one, the only Cairney I've heard of runs the Bank of England.  Who is he?

Just Googled it.  Not bad, but we need more of that please.

[Twig]

Cairney at £2.3m-£3.5m is actually a relatively expensive signing in this league.

I missed that one, the only Cairney I've heard of runs the Bank of England.  Who is he?

Just Googled it.  Not bad, but we need more of that please.

So you posted without knowledge of the full facts?  Par for the course I guess.

[Roberty]

They're being relaxed - marginally - not done away with.

So SK will still not be able to overspend

Yet Manchester City can spend £50million on one overrated Raheem Sterling, and that would be one of many signings, _Chelsea can buy every teenager for millions to prevent any other club from having them, but Fulham cannot?? 

I do not believe that for one second.

You might "know your footy" but you obviously have not read the Championship Financial Fair Play rules

Regrettably we were relegated, so were not in the Premier League any more and the Premier League FFP rules do not apply to us

Maybe you should read the rules before you slag off the owner and the club?

[MJG]

Oh here we go again.

A fan who slags off the CEO and owner about not spending money but then misses the fact that we spent over £3m last week on a player.

And also forgets there are restrictions to what we can spend, so it matter not a jot that the owner is rich.

[Peabody]

This is a typical Bateman thread. Lack of research and insufficient knowledge of The beautiful game. However, he knows his footie.

[cmg]

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0<

[Roberty]

Association Football? Are you sure?

I always thought we were playing "blow football" - being "long-winded" I was always good at that

[McBride78]

I would say 3 million for Cairney is a show that we will spend and have funds.  For a squad that needs to bring in 6-10 players, 3 million on one player is ambitious in my opinion.  I think we will bring in two more or so in the 2-4 million area, giving us three marquee signings for 6-11 million.  Coupled with the free transfers of Pringle and the keeper and likely another one or two freebies that will be our window.  I have no issue with a window that brings us:
Cairney
Pringle
Lonergan
CB to be named
LB to be named
Jazz
Resign Pat or a new RM to be named
Creative Attacker to be named
possible additionals depending on Ruiz, Mitro, Amorbe departures and what revenue that brings

[Logicalman]

From what I understand in my (very restricted) knowledge of FFP, the basis appears to be that you can spend as much as you like, just as long as the books balance within the FFP framework.

Ergo, you sell a player for 50 Mill, you can buy 5 at 10 Mill apiece and that provides a zero sum balance. Thus, if there is a debit limit of, perhaps, 8Mill on the balance sheet, then if you sell a player for 50 Mill, you can but 5 players at 10 Mill apiece and another at 8 Mill. Is that (ignoring the matchday income, etc) about the long and short of it all then?

[MJG]

From what I understand in my (very restricted) knowledge of FFP, the basis appears to be that you can spend as much as you like, just as long as the books balance within the FFP framework.

Ergo, you sell a player for 50 Mill, you can buy 5 at 10 Mill apiece and that provides a zero sum balance. Thus, if there is a debit limit of, perhaps, 8Mill on the balance sheet, then if you sell a player for 50 Mill, you can but 5 players at 10 Mill apiece and another at 8 Mill. Is that (ignoring the matchday income, etc) about the long and short of it all then?

At a very basic level yes. but like anything its not quite that simple, because you have to take wages into account as well and other running costs.

We could, as the rules stand today, show a loss of £13m for the 2015/16 season and be within FFP

[NogoodBoyo]

I have a new philosophy regarding FFC.  If I really want to know what's going on, I should ignore wind-bagging and pontiuspilatificating and just follow MJG's posts.  His thumb and forefinger seem to be well and truly connected.  Plus he seems quite economical with words.
Nogood "less verballacking, isit" Boyo

[Nick Bateman]

I would say 3 million for Cairney is a show that we will spend and have funds.  For a squad that needs to bring in 6-10 players, 3 million on one player is ambitious in my opinion.  I think we will bring in two more or so in the 2-4 million area, giving us three marquee signings for 6-11 million.  Coupled with the free transfers of Pringle and the keeper and likely another one or two freebies that will be our window.  I have no issue with a window that brings us:
Cairney
Pringle
Lonergan
CB to be named
LB to be named
Jazz
Resign Pat or a new RM to be named
Creative Attacker to be named
possible additionals depending on Ruiz, Mitro, Amorbe departures and what revenue that brings

Andy Lonegan?  Wasn't he the chap who sung "My Old Man's A Dustman!"?  Peabody would know that one.

[Peabody]

I would say 3 million for Cairney is a show that we will spend and have funds.  For a squad that needs to bring in 6-10 players, 3 million on one player is ambitious in my opinion.  I think we will bring in two more or so in the 2-4 million area, giving us three marquee signings for 6-11 million.  Coupled with the free transfers of Pringle and the keeper and likely another one or two freebies that will be our window.  I have no issue with a window that brings us:
Cairney
Pringle
Lonergan
CB to be named
LB to be named
Jazz
Resign Pat or a new RM to be named
Creative Attacker to be named
possible additionals depending on Ruiz, Mitro, Amorbe departures and what revenue that brings

Andy Lonegan?  Wasn't he the chap who sung "My Old Man's A Dustman!"?  Peabody would know that one.


Unlike you Nick, yes I do.

[Nick Bateman]

And furthermore, the reason why the FFP is being relaxed right across UEFA is because Manchester City and Paris St.Germain were about to challenge it under European law, on which basis UEFA would have LOST.

Fulham can equally challenge any such bastardized mutation imposed by Gordon Taylor under EU law and get this monstrosity masquerading as equitable regulation when in fact it is unjustifiable bureaucracy, completely thrown out!!