Really disappointed at this one not coming off.
Would have been only the second genuine youngster/prospect we've signed (after Muniz) since the Magath season, at a time when we've an exceptionally old squad and a dearth of players in the 17-21 age bracket.
Would also have been someone who could play both on the wing and up front, which most agreed we should go for this window as a high priority.
Deal was there for the taking, and it sounds like the only reason we didn't go for it is we couldn't offload the ageing Wilson, and the club wanted to persist with its shoestring budget with no new investment from the owners.
Again one of those that really was mentioned if the other two wide players didn't come off. Very expensive for a player not likely to have a first team spot.
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 01, 2025, 10:46:58 PMReally disappointed at this one not coming off.
Would have been only the second genuine youngster/prospect we've signed (after Muniz) since the Magath season, at a time when we've an exceptionally old squad and a dearth of players in the 17-21 age bracket.
Would also have been someone who could play both on the wing and up front, which most agreed we should go for this window as a high priority.
Deal was there for the taking, and it sounds like the only reason we didn't go for it is we couldn't offload the ageing Wilson, and the club wanted to persist with its shoestring budget with no new investment from the owners.
I'd say Kevin counts as a huge prospect, the fact he's 22 rather than 21 is pretty arbitrary.
George also is pure prospect, no numbers or experience to back it up meaningfully.
Kevin is young and has a POTS award and a stack of goals / assists in Europe under his belt.
Also hearing 28 described as "ageing" is depressing
It seems the general consensus is that people are happy that it got pulled because we're keeping Wilson, but tbh I think I'd rather have gone with the wildcard of George over Wilson. With Wilson, we know what we've got; a PL winger who is really good maybe 3-5 games a season, and then bang average for the rest. He's probably hit his peak and he's closing in on 30; we either give him a new contract (and a payrise makes PSR worse), or he leaves on a free next summer. At least George would've been locked in for 5 seasons, and at worst would've been a rotation player for Chuku with the upside of him turning into a really good PL level winger and we sell him for a tidy profit. As it stands we're stuffed with boht Wilson and Adama walking away for free next summer and then we've got to spend something like £40m to replace them which is just shite business sense once again.
£20m for a third choice forward is pretty expensive. Then again I presume this might be Raul's last season so maybe that was in the thought process somewhere
Selling wilson would be selling one of our biggest goal threats TBF. I would have been ok with making profit there but can also see why Silva might want to keep him.
I agree I like the idea of young prospects and George looks decent, but in Kevin we have a brilliant one and chuk is hardly old either....might yet get this loanee from Bayern too although not getting too attached there 🤞
Agree that citing 21 as a cut off when we've signed someone who is 22 is a bit arbitrary.
I'm conflicted on the George / Wilson thing. Wilson has shown he's a good goal threat for us, George is more a punt for the long term who seems a good player. But integrating three new wingers is quite a big turnover.
Hopefully we can revisit the deal.
Not seen much of him at all.
Quote from: Bal_13 on September 01, 2025, 10:53:01 PMI'd say Kevin counts as a huge prospect, the fact he's 22 rather than 21 is pretty arbitrary.
Quote from: hopper on September 01, 2025, 11:53:22 PMAgree that citing 21 as a cut off when we've signed someone who is 22 is a bit arbitrary.
I mean, we've an exceptionally old squad, that's the point. You could make the cut-off 25 - only three players below that age in the squad is extraordinarily low. Only two below 24, only one below 22. No one below 20 signed in a decade. George at 19 is 1, 3, 5 or 6 years below those benchmarks depending which one you use to make the point. So it's not an arbitrary distinction between 21 and 22. It's about us having a massive lack of young players, irrespective of perhaps adding one in Kevin, and George actually being a young player, younger than we've recruited for a long, long time now. And we're as much a radical outlier in this way as we are for the lateness of our business.
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 02, 2025, 12:29:16 AMQuote from: Bal_13 on September 01, 2025, 10:53:01 PMI'd say Kevin counts as a huge prospect, the fact he's 22 rather than 21 is pretty arbitrary.
Quote from: hopper on September 01, 2025, 11:53:22 PMAgree that citing 21 as a cut off when we've signed someone who is 22 is a bit arbitrary.
I mean, we've an exceptionally old squad, that's the point. You could make the cut-off 25 - only three players below that age in the squad is extraordinarily low. Only two below 24, only one below 22. No one below 20 signed in a decade. George at 19 is 1, 3, 5 or 6 years below those benchmarks depending which one you use to make the point. So it's not an arbitrary distinction between 21 and 22. It's about us having a massive lack of young players, irrespective of perhaps adding one in Kevin, and George actually being a young player, younger than we've recruited for a long, long time now. And we're as much a radical outlier in this way as we are for the lateness of our business.
Well, argued another way, over the first 3 games of the season our starting CAM has the second highest number of minutes of any teenager in the premier league (212 mins, after Leny Yoro at Man U with 260) and has started every game for the club in the league.
That's more minutes than such exciting names as Dowman, Estevao, Bergvall, Gray and Guiu.
Names like Rico Lewis, Morgan Rogers, Lewis-Skelly, Oscar Bobb and Harvey Elliott are not only not teenagers they're not even 18-21 and so are rattling along towards being ageing players.
We've also had x2 Academy players in our starting 11 for 2 of 3 games (with injury being the only reason that isn't 3 from 3).
We all know stats can be used and abused to suit an agenda. So yes, I'll double down and call your 18-21 cut off and disregard of Kevin as something arbitrary to suit your point.
We've debated the age of the squad endlessly on this forum and I agree the age should come down. The signings we've made / the emergence of King as a proper starter have done that to a degree.
Were it not for some undeniably average-looking last minute dealing we may have had another two teenagers added to the squad. We don't but we do have some serious talent in that first team who are very young and very exciting in King and Kevin.
It's a start and I agree with others that £22 million for a kid who has 10 senior starts to his name doesn't exactly represent value.
Wilson is a better player. Good business by the club to keep our existing player and save 20m.
With Asarei now confirmed by Peter Rutzler as having gone through it is a really strong window by the club. The Khan's again putting their hands in their pockets for my enjoyment. Given the quality of what we have brought in, what odds on Europe?
Quote from: Hugh Janus on September 02, 2025, 07:27:19 AMWith Asari now confirmed by Peter Rutzler as having gone through it is a really strong window by the club. The Khan's again putting their hands in their pockets for my enjoyment. Given the quality of what we have brought in, what odds on Europe?
I'm not sure they've changed much because many of our rivals strengthened as well. But I agree that we've signed some exciting players, and I can't wait to see how they slot in.
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 02, 2025, 12:29:16 AMQuote from: Bal_13 on September 01, 2025, 10:53:01 PMI'd say Kevin counts as a huge prospect, the fact he's 22 rather than 21 is pretty arbitrary.
Quote from: hopper on September 01, 2025, 11:53:22 PMAgree that citing 21 as a cut off when we've signed someone who is 22 is a bit arbitrary.
I mean, we've an exceptionally old squad, that's the point. You could make the cut-off 25 - only three players below that age in the squad is extraordinarily low. Only two below 24, only one below 22. No one below 20 signed in a decade. George at 19 is 1, 3, 5 or 6 years below those benchmarks depending which one you use to make the point. So it's not an arbitrary distinction between 21 and 22. It's about us having a massive lack of young players, irrespective of perhaps adding one in Kevin, and George actually being a young player, younger than we've recruited for a long, long time now. And we're as much a radical outlier in this way as we are for the lateness of our business.
I assume you mean players that are signed specifically to slot straight into the first team? Because I'm not sure that's as common amongst other teams as you are making out.
We do of course sign players under 21 nearly every year but most do not make the grade - Sekularac, McFarlane, Donnell, Larkeche. Godo we've managed to make a bit of money on, he was signed under 21 also.
Quote from: Bal_13 on September 02, 2025, 07:22:49 AMWe all know stats can be used and abused to suit an agenda. So yes, I'll double down and call your 18-21 cut off and disregard of Kevin as something arbitrary to suit your point.
I'm not being arbitrary or selective with stats. You are, when the bigger picture we both know is we've still the oldest squad in the league. Kevin, in my own words a "great signing", lowers the average age by about 0.2, but doesn't change that. We remain about 2 years above the division average and 4 years above the younger squads we should aspire to emulate.
So your position is somewhat like a 27 stone man claiming he's not obese because he lost 2 lbs in the last year and the 16st threshold for obesity at his height is "arbitrary" anyway.
If we've signed JKA with an option that mitigates things a lot so let's see what happens there. But ultimately I'd like us to have about 5-10 first team players in that bracket so George still would have been nice, not to mention IMO a quality player.
Normally I tend to agree with Angus on things. But for me, Wilson is too proven and George too unproven to be worth the risk on the price. If it was Traore they were after, I would have taken a net 10m or so gamble. But Wilson is one of our greatest goal threats and goals are ultimately what win you points, not vice versa
My question to all Fulham fans is simply:
Would you rather have Josh King playing in the 10 position regularly of see him benched for someone like George?
I know where I stand so happy the deal didn't get done at this time
I don't really agree with the ageist alarm so much but I do think George was potentially a missed opportunity leaving us exposed up top but since we're now bringing seemingly bringing in an 18 year old from Bayern with an option to buy, I'm more delighted with that deal than evil Saka.
Quote from: KJS on September 02, 2025, 08:33:27 AMMy question to all Fulham fans is simply:
Would you rather have Josh King playing in the 10 position regularly of see him benched for someone like George?
I know where I stand so happy the deal didn't get done at this time
George is more of a winger predominantly who can play across other positions, so it's more would you have preferred to see him play or sign over - Iwobi, wilson, Adama getting sold
The answer is for me. Maybe it would have been worth cashing in on Adama or Wilson if we got the right bid, but Marco will have had the option you'd think as we had both situations in hand. Wilson is a proven scorer and we already brought in 2 new wing options + managed a young striker so it wasn't deemed necessary or worth the risk it seems.
If George was coming through our system we would be very happy but £20 million to replace Wilson was bonkers.
IMO considering what we paid for him and his salary, (unlike say Raul or Adama) Wilson is the type of player you keep because of his goal threat throughout the season even if you get nothing for him at the end of his contract.
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 01, 2025, 10:46:58 PMReally disappointed at this one not coming off.
Would have been only the second genuine youngster/prospect we've signed (after Muniz) since the Magath season, at a time when we've an exceptionally old squad and a dearth of players in the 17-21 age bracket.
Would also have been someone who could play both on the wing and up front, which most agreed we should go for this window as a high priority.
Deal was there for the taking, and it sounds like the only reason we didn't go for it is we couldn't offload the ageing Wilson, and the club wanted to persist with its shoestring budget with no new investment from the owners.
We and particularly the owners, would love to see a younger vibrant squad. However Managers are assessed on results. Roy kept us in the Premiership and got us to a European final with an old squad. We know the Chairman wants the club to be sustainable. Marco wants success, his future relies on it. The two wants don't sit easily together. We also have the problem of Marco not committing to a longer contract (so why should the players?).
All of this is my take on things. I could be well wide of the mark. For what it's worth I think Shahid Khan's team have managed a pretty good balance in this window of satisfying Marco's immediate wants whilst bringing in players whose future value brings his long term plans closer to reality.
I agree with others on this, Chelsea letting an emerging talent leave for £22 million was an incredible opportunity I'm my opinion,
He's already been added to their Champions League squad, if he plays 10 times this season his price will double,
Regardless of Wilson and Leeds I would have continued with George and worried about Wilson and Traore further down the line,
King, Kevin and George could have led us forward for the next 4 or 5 years, real shame I think.
Quote from: Deeping_white on September 01, 2025, 10:56:14 PMa PL winger who is really good maybe 3-5 games a season, and then bang average for the rest.
Pretty disparaging summary of a player that has won us plenty of games (63 goal contributions in 150 games which was 90 odd ninety minutes).
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 02, 2025, 08:14:44 AMQuote from: Bal_13 on September 02, 2025, 07:22:49 AMWe all know stats can be used and abused to suit an agenda. So yes, I'll double down and call your 18-21 cut off and disregard of Kevin as something arbitrary to suit your point.
I'm not being arbitrary or selective with stats. You are, when the bigger picture we both know is we've still the oldest squad in the league. Kevin, in my own words a "great signing", lowers the average age by about 0.2, but doesn't change that. We remain about 2 years above the division average and 4 years above the younger squads we should aspire to emulate.
So your position is somewhat like a 27 stone man claiming he's not obese because he lost 2 lbs in the last year and the 16st threshold for obesity at his height is "arbitrary" anyway.
If we've signed JKA with an option that mitigates things a lot so let's see what happens there. But ultimately I'd like us to have about 5-10 first team players in that bracket so George still would have been nice, not to mention IMO a quality player.
Agreed, I was absolutely being selective with my stats - that was the point I was making! However, I do agree with you that the squad age is an ongoing thing to be managed (even if my position isn't nearly so strong)
I maintain 5-10 18-21 year olds is youth for youth's sake - we're a professional team (even if we do our best to look otherwise at times) not a crèche.
We've had this discussion before, but last time we had that many youth players was 2014-15 and that was our lowest league position this millennium.
Quote from: Jim© on September 02, 2025, 10:04:59 AMQuote from: Deeping_white on September 01, 2025, 10:56:14 PMa PL winger who is really good maybe 3-5 games a season, and then bang average for the rest.
Pretty disparaging summary of a player that has won us plenty of games (63 goal contributions in 150 games which was 90 odd ninety minutes).
Almost half of which came in the Championship. He's a very average Premier League player.
I don't know if George is a better player yet, but selling Wilson for 10 and buying George for 22 is almost certainly better business than keeping Wilson.
I think direction of travel is encouraging with securing Ridgeon, King, Kevin and Asare seemingly. George being targeted as replacement for Wilson shows focus is on bringing younger players in.
Definitely signs of looking towards the future now, so feel this is alarmist. I feel people get worried with age to an extent that obscures the reality of the numbers. 'Old' seems to be getting younger all the time to an almost comical extent that people worry about signing 26 year olds rather than someone who is 24.
Think we have a good balance of ages in the squad which should give Kevin and King a license to play with freedom amongst a settled squad.
I'm definitely quite concerned about the middle of the park with Reed and TC being backups to Lukic and Berge. We all wanted a goalscoring midfielder or enforcer to give us some more options there. Feels we're still kicking the can down the road a bit with that area of the pitch, and it becomes even more important in upcoming windows.
Quote from: Jim© on September 02, 2025, 10:04:59 AMQuote from: Deeping_white on September 01, 2025, 10:56:14 PMa PL winger who is really good maybe 3-5 games a season, and then bang average for the rest.
Pretty disparaging summary of a player that has won us plenty of games (63 goal contributions in 150 games which was 90 odd ninety minutes).
But your comment doesn't rebuke what I say? You can pick out his match winning performances which are the good ones, and then the next 4-5 games he'll start and won't do very much. It's not an insult but it's a statement of fact of his ability and the fact that he's probably reached his ceiling; over half his goal contributions came in his first season in the championship (32)
Personally - I'm thrilled we didn't sign George for the following reasons:
1. We won't be handing Chelsea £22m
2. He is a totally unproven player
3. We've purchased 2 starting wingers in Kevin and Chuk - don't need another winger coming to sit on the bench
4. I prefer to keep Wilson (and hope he extends his contract). He is at his peak and still has at least three years left a the top level
5. The money saved can be spent next season on a position that needs filling (probably a midfielder or two with Cairney and Reed leaving)
Quote from: jayffc on September 01, 2025, 11:24:16 PMSelling wilson would be selling one of our biggest goal threats TBF. I would have been ok with making profit there but can also see why Silva might want to keep him.
I agree I like the idea of young prospects and George looks decent, but in Kevin we have a brilliant one and chuk is hardly old either....might yet get this loanee from Bayern too although not getting too attached there 🤞
It's interesting that it appears Wilson wanted to go and the deal sheet was signed by him and Leeds, so will we now have a disgruntled player on our hands ?
"They note that Roma spoke with Chelsea this week about signing the player and decided demands from the Blues were unreasonable. According to Gazzetta, Chelsea were asking for a 30% sell-on fee.
This prompted the Roma ownership to inform Chelsea that 'nothing will happen', handing Fulham a chance to sign the 19-year-old winger.
It is unclear whether there were similar doubts at Craven Cottage about the 30% resale fee demand but reports in England claimed that the Blues were keen on inserting a clause in the deal."
Centre midfield is the only spot that needs attention.
I'm sure Wilson just wants to play, at Leeds he'd probably be starting each week. I don't blame him if he wanted to go elsewhere for game time.
He comes across professional so i doubt he'd cause a fuss....
Food for thought.
Roma also enquired about George & pulled out when Chelsea insisted on a 30% cut on future sales.
I assume the same applied to FFC.
Is a player with I believe only 10 EPL appearances, not a regular starter worth £22 million?
Undoubtedly a good player, but that good?
Heard from an MU friend that Chelsea were keen to palm off George to MU as makeweight in Garnacho deal.
As been said, came very close to sign for Roma.
£22m huge gamble for 18 year old. Yes I know he was used as leverage to force Kevin's camp to sign (and backup if he didn't), but I'm mightily relieved we eventually got our original target - Kevin 😌
The fact that Chelsea were extremely willing to ship out a 19 year old when they were desperately short on the LW for only £22 million which in normal money is like a £10 million valuation since they overvalue everyone is a HUGE red flag.
The kid isn't that good and he isn't a superior athlete.
That said, selling Wilson was definitely the correct decision. Giving him a new contract would be dumb. Wingers peak and decline earlier. It would be another Reed situation where everyone was overjoyed at him signing an extension only to see him play about 1500 minutes in the last 2 seasons since that signing and now he is complete and utter deadweight. Marco was openly calling for his replacement because he is just not at the level. Not to mention Wilson is certainly going to want big wages on any new deal.
TLDR Wilson should have been sold but George was a bad replacement
Quote from: btffc on September 03, 2025, 12:49:02 AMThe fact that Chelsea were extremely willing to ship out a 19 year old when they were desperately short on the LW for only £22 million which in normal money is like a £10 million valuation since they overvalue everyone is a HUGE red flag.
The kid isn't that good and he isn't a superior athlete.
That said, selling Wilson was definitely the correct decision. Giving him a new contract would be dumb. Wingers peak and decline earlier. It would be another Reed situation where everyone was overjoyed at him signing an extension only to see him play about 1500 minutes in the last 2 seasons since that signing and now he is complete and utter deadweight. Marco was openly calling for his replacement because he is just not at the level. Not to mention Wilson is certainly going to want big wages on any new deal.
TLDR Wilson should have been sold but George was a bad replacement
Two observations not additive to the conversion:
Why put TLDR at the end? If it was too long to put off finishing, the summary at the end would be missed...
On the George/Wilson topic, has it gone unnoticed that they both have first names as last names?
Quote from: akf on September 03, 2025, 01:08:06 AMQuote from: btffc on September 03, 2025, 12:49:02 AMThe fact that Chelsea were extremely willing to ship out a 19 year old when they were desperately short on the LW for only £22 million which in normal money is like a £10 million valuation since they overvalue everyone is a HUGE red flag.
The kid isn't that good and he isn't a superior athlete.
That said, selling Wilson was definitely the correct decision. Giving him a new contract would be dumb. Wingers peak and decline earlier. It would be another Reed situation where everyone was overjoyed at him signing an extension only to see him play about 1500 minutes in the last 2 seasons since that signing and now he is complete and utter deadweight. Marco was openly calling for his replacement because he is just not at the level. Not to mention Wilson is certainly going to want big wages on any new deal.
TLDR Wilson should have been sold but George was a bad replacement
Two observations not additive to the conversion:
Why put TLDR at the end? If it was too long to put off finishing, the summary at the end would be missed...
On the George/Wilson topic, has it gone unnoticed that they both have first names as last names?
Wilson is definitively a last name as it is derived from Will's son.
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 01, 2025, 10:46:58 PMReally disappointed at this one not coming off.
Would have been only the second genuine youngster/prospect we've signed (after Muniz) since the Magath season, at a time when we've an exceptionally old squad and a dearth of players in the 17-21 age bracket.
Would also have been someone who could play both on the wing and up front, which most agreed we should go for this window as a high priority.
Deal was there for the taking, and it sounds like the only reason we didn't go for it is we couldn't offload the ageing Wilson, and the club wanted to persist with its shoestring budget with no new investment from the owners.
You are so salty
You can't resist a cheap shot
There is zero evidence that SK is not investing in our club. Have you sampled the Riverside?
Not off loading Wilson was said to be the cause and was widely reported.
Quote from: akf on September 03, 2025, 01:08:06 AMQuote from: btffc on September 03, 2025, 12:49:02 AMThe fact that Chelsea were extremely willing to ship out a 19 year old when they were desperately short on the LW for only £22 million which in normal money is like a £10 million valuation since they overvalue everyone is a HUGE red flag.
The kid isn't that good and he isn't a superior athlete.
That said, selling Wilson was definitely the correct decision. Giving him a new contract would be dumb. Wingers peak and decline earlier. It would be another Reed situation where everyone was overjoyed at him signing an extension only to see him play about 1500 minutes in the last 2 seasons since that signing and now he is complete and utter deadweight. Marco was openly calling for his replacement because he is just not at the level. Not to mention Wilson is certainly going to want big wages on any new deal.
TLDR Wilson should have been sold but George was a bad replacement
Two observations not additive to the conversion:
Why put TLDR at the end? If it was too long to put off finishing, the summary at the end would be missed...
On the George/Wilson topic, has it gone unnoticed that they both have first names as last names?
Who's George Wilson and what position does he play. ?
Quote from: Roberty on September 03, 2025, 02:37:17 AMQuote from: Angus Telford on September 01, 2025, 10:46:58 PMReally disappointed at this one not coming off.
Would have been only the second genuine youngster/prospect we've signed (after Muniz) since the Magath season, at a time when we've an exceptionally old squad and a dearth of players in the 17-21 age bracket.
Would also have been someone who could play both on the wing and up front, which most agreed we should go for this window as a high priority.
Deal was there for the taking, and it sounds like the only reason we didn't go for it is we couldn't offload the ageing Wilson, and the club wanted to persist with its shoestring budget with no new investment from the owners.
You are so salty
You can't resist a cheap shot
There is zero evidence that SK is not investing in our club. Have you sampled the Riverside?
Not off loading Wilson was said to be the cause and was widely reported.
I really do wonder about the motivation or mindset of posters who continually take pot-shots at the Khans. They've invested £863 million in the club. To call this a "shoestring budget" is either wilful ignorance or deliberate mischief making.
Quote from: Snibbo on September 03, 2025, 07:33:18 AMI really do wonder about the motivation or mindset of posters who continually take pot-shots at the Khans. They've invested £863 million in the club. To call this a "shoestring budget" is either wilful ignorance or deliberate mischief making.
They deserve the utmost gratitude for funding a huge infrastructure project around 2019.
But in the context of the present day and transfer spending, the reality is we've consistently seen, for several years now, below-average spending, at a level that matches the club's own revenue surplus after the payment of wages.
So they're not, nowadays, investing in the team. This is empirical data, not a mindset.
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 03, 2025, 08:34:09 AMQuote from: Snibbo on September 03, 2025, 07:33:18 AMI really do wonder about the motivation or mindset of posters who continually take pot-shots at the Khans. They've invested £863 million in the club. To call this a "shoestring budget" is either wilful ignorance or deliberate mischief making.
They deserve the utmost gratitude for funding a huge infrastructure project around 2019.
But in the context of the present day and transfer spending, the reality is we've consistently seen, for several years now, below-average spending, at a level that matches the club's own revenue surplus after the payment of wages.
So they're not, nowadays, investing in the team. This is empirical data, not a mindset.
And yet we're always at or very close to the maximum allowable spend under PSR. I'm happy we're not under the threat of points deductions such as Forest, Leicester etc. And our transfers have generally been good to excellent in the last 5 years or so.
Quote from: Snibbo on September 03, 2025, 09:54:07 AMAnd yet we're always at or very close to the maximum allowable spend under PSR.
You speculate.
I don't believe that's the case now.
Quote from: Snibbo on September 03, 2025, 09:54:07 AMAnd our transfers have generally been good to excellent in the last 5 years or so.
I'd query that too. We've one of the oldest and least valuable squads in the league, on relatively high wages, hovering around lower mid-table. Could be worse, but far from excellent.
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 03, 2025, 08:34:09 AMQuote from: Snibbo on September 03, 2025, 07:33:18 AMI really do wonder about the motivation or mindset of posters who continually take pot-shots at the Khans. They've invested £863 million in the club. To call this a "shoestring budget" is either wilful ignorance or deliberate mischief making.
They deserve the utmost gratitude for funding a huge infrastructure project around 2019.
.
It's exactly a phrase like this why you get called out for wilful ignorance / deliberate mischief making.
If you think they paid once back in 2019 then you don't really understand how financing a large scale construction project works.
But I think you do understand - yet choose to phrase it inaccurately to enforce your opinion about the SK/TK.
They are probably still paying for the Riverside, and as per many large scale construction projects which kicked off in 2019 (pre-COVID and global economic down turns), costs for this redevelopment have increased by multiple millions of pounds since then - which put the Buckingham group out of business. The Khans didn't decide to pay in 2019 and not invest in FFC since then - they've committed to a significant an ongoing 6 year investment that has increased in cost and complexity considerably since 2019.
FWIW I agree with you that it's a huge shame we didn't sign George and I have some sympathy and agree with some of your complaints about how we conducted our business this summer (we simply should not leave all of our main business to the last minute - missing out on a CM a result of this and I have concerns the way we conduct transfers may be a large driving factor in Silva deciding not to renew his contract) - however your takes are often so endlessly reductive and disrespectful due to your own frustrations that you tank your own arguments.
I can get on board with having issues with how we conducted our transfer business overall, but to extrapolate that into the Khans no longer continuing to have a vested interest in the future of this club (as you have said on many occasions) is a bit of a leap at best, and IMO just overly disrespectful.
Also, you do some back-of-***-packet calculations about net transfer spends and opine that the Khans spend "below average" and are not investing in the team, then present these statements are empirical data.
What does "below average" mean when all PL clubs can spend only based on revenues and size? We are a "below average" sized PL club with according revenues so we are able to invest and spend accordingly.
Isn't empirical data not that we spent 117% of our revenue of the last accounted season on player wages, transfer/agents fees and amortisation costs? How's 117% an underinvestment?
Quote from: Count Flapula on September 03, 2025, 10:43:53 AMWhat does "below average" mean when all PL clubs can spend only based on revenues and size? We are a "below average" sized PL club with according revenues so we are able to invest and spend accordingly.
Isn't empirical data not that we spent 117% of our revenue of the last accounted season on player wages, transfer/agents fees and amortisation costs? How's 117% an underinvestment?
You'll have to forgive me not replying to all of this which, whilst well-balanced in some places, reads largely like an opinion-based rant at me.
On the questions of fact -
By "below average" I meant the amount of our aggregate net spend over the last three years is lower than the average for the PL. I should have added that it's also below the average for the residual 14 clubs after removing the top 6.
The 117% figure is somewhat a red herring in this context. The accounts will include spending on infrastructure, and the amortisation of transfer fees spent 4-5 years ago. As I said, I don't dispute that the Khans have invested in these items/periods, and I've repeatedly and explicitly said they deserve our utmost gratitude for this. My point is that no one should be under the misapprehension that they're presently (ie, in the last few years) funding the improvement of the team - the evidence very strongly indicates that they aren't.
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 03, 2025, 12:28:01 PMQuote from: Count Flapula on September 03, 2025, 10:43:53 AMWhat does "below average" mean when all PL clubs can spend only based on revenues and size? We are a "below average" sized PL club with according revenues so we are able to invest and spend accordingly.
Isn't empirical data not that we spent 117% of our revenue of the last accounted season on player wages, transfer/agents fees and amortisation costs? How's 117% an underinvestment?
You'll have to forgive me not replying to all of this which, whilst well-balanced in some places, reads largely like an opinion-based rant at me.
On the questions of fact -
By "below average" I meant the amount of our aggregate net spend over the last three years is lower than the average for the PL. I should have added that it's also below the average for the residual 14 clubs after removing the top 6.
The 117% figure is somewhat a red herring in this context. The accounts will include spending on infrastructure, and the amortisation of transfer fees spent 4-5 years ago. As I said, I don't dispute that the Khans have invested in these items/periods, and I've repeatedly and explicitly said they deserve our utmost gratitude for this. My point is that no one should be under the misapprehension that they're presently (ie, in the last few years) funding the improvement of the team - the evidence very strongly indicates that they aren't.
The 117% quoted was from Kieran McGuire and is solely related to transfer fees, salaries, agent fees and amortised transfers i.e. totally to do with investing in the squad, so how can that be a red herring when talking directly about whether the Khans are under-investing in the squad (i.e. transfers and wages)? Any spend on infrastructure such as the Riverside isn't included in that figure as far as I'm aware.
Salaries, agent fees and transfer fees are current spends (or, at least the last accounting year). We are also paying off amortised fees from previous seasons but whatever way you try to slant it to suit your opinion, 117% is inarguable empirical data to show they are investing 117% of our revenue into player and transfer related costs. Your opinion they are not investing based on your own wet finger calculations isn't empirical data.
Granted, I do agree this summer I suspect we do have funds left over due to our transfer "strategy" of gambling everything on getting all our business done on knock down deadline day deals this season. Which, in the context of the CM role, we failed at.
When it comes to PSR, salaries are such a huge part of it - but we often focus only on transfer fees and net spend.
Supposedly 85% of our revenue is currently being spent on salaries, so we must have a high wage bill. The price of experience. What we are saving in transfer fees is going on wages. I imagine Iwobi, Leno, Andersen, Raul, Adama, ESR, Tete, Robinson are all on pretty high wages.
Quote from: Count Flapula on September 03, 2025, 02:20:27 PMThe 117% quoted was from Kieran McGuire and is solely related to transfer fees, salaries, agent fees and amortised transfers i.e. totally to do with investing in the squad, so how can that be a red herring when talking directly about whether the Khans are under-investing in the squad (i.e. transfers and wages)? Any spend on infrastructure such as the Riverside isn't included in that figure as far as I'm aware.
That KM 117% figure references our 2024 accounts, which in turn cover the 22/23 accounting period, which in turn, given we've players on 4-5 year contracts, references amortisation from fees paid as far back as the 18/19 season. My own calculation is absolutely "empirical data", it's just a different calculation referencing partially different datasets (revenue and wages from the 2025 accounts, transfer fees paid from Transfermarkt). I've already explained why I don't think amortisation of fees from up to seven seasons ago is relevant to a discussion about our current/recent spending policy - seems we disagree on that particular point, so happy to leave it there.
Having broken our transfer fee twice now. My feeling is as it isn't my money and without actually having any idea what the fees really were or the wages actually are. That the investment in the team has been pretty good. While keeping within the laws of the league who don't want anybody outside to top teams to compete anyway.
Opinions are interesting but we do have this theme of attacking the owners for making the side compete in the top half without doing what many teams do and spend the sort of money that will come back to haunt them in the future.
So we have the situation where we come away with a transfer window and squad far superior to the one we had before. Obviously injury and evidence of actually how players play in the Prem will be the deciding factor. But there is simply no argument that this is the best squad we have had since we have been in the Prem. Yes I know people don't like it and want more and want bigger. But for now it will interesting how we get on.
Needless to say we still have to compete in a corrupt system run by officials on the pitch who are at best ignorant or corrupt. But we didn't need George, speculation about expenditure and wages are just that. So never really know what the point of debating figures when you don't know what they are until the up to date accounts are released.
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 03, 2025, 03:58:13 PMThat KM 117% figure references our 2024 accounts, which in turn cover the 22/23 accounting period, which in turn, given we've players on 4-5 year contracts, references amortisation from fees paid as far back as the 18/19 season. My own calculation is absolutely "empirical data", it's just a different calculation referencing partially different datasets (revenue and wages from the 2025 accounts, transfer fees paid from Transfermarkt). I've already explained why I don't think amortisation of fees from up to seven seasons ago is relevant to a discussion about our current/recent spending policy - seems we disagree on that particular point, so happy to leave it there.
I'm pretty sure we're spending a considerably higher amount on wages since 2023 for our players across the board (and if you're using Transfermarkt for your info on wages then that tells me all I need to know on how accurate and all encompassing those calcs will be: not even factoring in signing on fees/goal/assist/performance/win/other bonuses).
Also, our amortised transfer fees will have gone up considerably since 2023 with more Premier League and less Championship transfer windows to factor in, so cant really see that supporting your view that the Khans are no longer investing close to PSR limits / no longer interested (which you did say on a few occasions).
This summer we may not have made a Joao/Mitro type sale to balance to books but we did have an additional £35m PSR allowable losses headroom due to being in the Prem for 3 years so balances that out somewhat. Also seems we have some funds we failed to spend on a CM in time but that was due to leaving our business too late (judging by the Danilo rumours) as opposed to your perceived lack of appetite to spend money / Khans not investing.
So you're right, seems we do disagree on that point at least. Agree with you on George though as I say.
Quote from: Count Flapula on September 03, 2025, 06:27:10 PMI'm pretty sure we're spending a considerably higher amount on wages since 2023 for our players across the board
So just to clarify, it was your/KM's 117% figure that was based on the 22/23 season accounts - odd that you're now challenging their validity as a data source. In any case, where I've referred to the accounts, I've used the more recent 23/24 season numbers. I doubt wages have substantially increased significantly (say, more than 5-10%) year-on-year since then - why would they?
Not even sure why we're arguing about numbers now anyway, since you seem to fundamentally agree we had space for more investment in recent years, just based on different reasoning. So somewhat wondering why I got "called out for wilful ignorance / deliberate mischief making", "back-of-***-packet calculations" and being "endlessly reductive". But hey ho.
Quote from: ffcthereligion on September 02, 2025, 08:32:31 AMNormally I tend to agree with Angus on things. But for me, Wilson is too proven and George too unproven to be worth the risk on the price. If it was Traore they were after, I would have taken a net 10m or so gamble. But Wilson is one of our greatest goal threats and goals are ultimately what win you points, not vice versa
So you're the one? 🤣
Quote from: Angus Telford on September 03, 2025, 10:19:13 PMSo just to clarify, it was your/KM's 117% figure that was based on the 22/23 season accounts - odd that you're now challenging their validity as a data source. In any case, where I've referred to the accounts, I've used the more recent 23/24 season numbers. I doubt wages have substantially increased significantly (say, more than 5-10%) year-on-year since then - why would they?
Not even sure why we're arguing about numbers now anyway, since you seem to fundamentally agree we had space for more investment in recent years, just based on different reasoning. So somewhat wondering why I got "called out for wilful ignorance / deliberate mischief making", "back-of-***-packet calculations" and being "endlessly reductive". But hey ho.
Interesting take on what I said. Where am I challenging the validity of the KM figures? Get the feeling at this stage you are just making up points to argue against.
KM says we spent 117% of revenue in 2023, I'm saying we're spending more on wages across the board since then so how is that the Khans not investing even in the last few years, compared to a few years ago when you seem to suggest they started to under invest? How in any way does that suggest I'm now challenging those figures?
Wages will have increased across the board as the squad moved on players we had in the Championship on Championship wages / increased a lot of that group we've kept's wages significantly upon contract renewals / brought in better calibre players on higher wages. The floor will have been raised significantly.
The only exception where we have not spent close to PSR limits will most likely being this summer but that is down to (IMO) leaving all their transfer business too late - the latter part of this point we both agree on.
I've said the same thing on each post - it wasn't that hard to misinterpret, yet you've somehow managed to glean a different meaning. Your debating style reminds me a lot of Statto who used to post on here.
FWIW it wasn't me who called you out for wilful ignorance originally - it was another poster that you then responded to with the comment about the Riverside, which I also believe was you being wilfully ignorant.
Anyway, my point hasn't changed and we disagree. Think I'm going to bail on this rather than continue to go in circles.
Quote from: Lighthouse on September 03, 2025, 04:53:26 PMHaving broken our transfer fee twice now. My feeling is as it isn't my money and without actually having any idea what the fees really were or the wages actually are. That the investment in the team has been pretty good. While keeping within the laws of the league who don't want anybody outside to top teams to compete anyway.
Opinions are interesting but we do have this theme of attacking the owners for making the side compete in the top half without doing what many teams do and spend the sort of money that will come back to haunt them in the future.
So we have the situation where we come away with a transfer window and squad far superior to the one we had before. Obviously injury and evidence of actually how players play in the Prem will be the deciding factor. But there is simply no argument that this is the best squad we have had since we have been in the Prem. Yes I know people don't like it and want more and want bigger. But for now it will interesting how we get on.
Needless to say we still have to compete in a corrupt system run by officials on the pitch who are at best ignorant or corrupt. But we didn't need George, speculation about expenditure and wages are just that. So never really know what the point of debating figures when you don't know what they are until the up to date accounts are released.
I'm in full agreement with the above and I'll repeat something I posted last week. Our team was better in all areas in the first half and equal in the second, last week against Chelsea. Shocking decisions robbed us again for the second week in a row of winning games against far more expensive opposition. The three additions have arrived in my opinion just at the right time. Not affected by those decisions and joining a squad who must be itching to get back on the field to put matters right and beyond the reach of further crap from officialdom.