I'm sure many of you noticed Jol's comments to the media the other day where he talked of the tight financial constraints he has been forced to work under, and that we are "20th in the table on money spent". I'm very confused why the club is making these comments and, if true, why we are in this situation.
We have just seen an influx of TV money rumoured to total in excess of £50 million, and apparently took out a £16m loan against this so we could have some money in advance rather than in installments. Add to this the fact that we have a new owner, the 4th wealthiest in the league with a personal fortune of over $4 billion, plus the fact that the total value of players sold over the past few seasons exceeds money spent, then you have to ask the question where has all our money gone?
With teams like Cardiff and Southampton splashing out £40 million and even clubs such as Hull and Crystal Palace spending significantly more than us and beating us to targets, then we need to ask questions about why it seems to be exlcusively Fulham that is in this mess. We've seen no progress on the Riverside stand so that is not an excuse. Al Fayed wrote off all our debts before selling the club so we do not have loans to pay back. We still have the money from the Dembele and Dempsey transfers left unspent....I just don't understand it. Has someone (Al Fayed? Khan?) pocketed our money?
Of course there is the argument that a club like ours needs to be sustainable and self-sufficient, but we have higher gates and a broader international following than many clubs which have significantly outspent us. That position will change dramatically should we be relegated, and what is sustainable for us will drop. The standards required to remain in the PL are improving and clubs need to spend now to retain the PL status which affords them sustainability in the first place.
One final point- why is Khan permitting Jol to make these comments? As a multi-billionaire new owner, it's incredibly embaressing for him, on a personal level, for Jol to suggest that we don't have any money to spend. He had many weeks as Chairman before the transfer window shuts; if we needed investment then there is no excuse. Finally, its a very negative message for the club to be sending out and suggests to fans that the club is being poorly run and increases the agitation and worry about our Premier League future.
(Sorry for the long post- I'd just really like to hear some views on this!)
Quote from: Pluto on October 03, 2013, 11:17:55 AM
With teams like Cardiff and Southampton splashing out £40 million and even clubs such as Hull and Crystal Palace spending significantly more than us and beating us to targets, then we need to ask questions about why it seems to be exlcusively Fulham that is in this mess. We've seen no progress on the Riverside stand so that is not an excuse. Al Fayed wrote off all our debts before selling the club so we do not have loans to pay back. We still have the money from the Dembele and Dempsey transfers left unspent....I just don't understand it. Has someone (Al Fayed? Khan?) pocketed our money?
whilst there's been no public progress on the Riverside Stand we still need to reserve the funds for it. On Dempsey and Dembele, Daniel Levy is probably the most astute in the field and those fees are being drip fed to us, so there isn't really a lump sum laying around for us.
I will say though that Jol has ravaged our previously tight wage budget so there goes a lot of the budget (it's not like football manager where there is a separate transfer kitty and wage kitty)
...I would have thought the previous managers comments of "no ambition" might have made the current incumbent ask questions relating to financial constraints at the point of signing a contract of employment..?
The 16 million loan was re paid in full. The TV revenue for me was not 50 million for the season it was 24 last year and goes up to around 35 this. Now those are also reasonable sums of cash i grant you. But I also think that is reliant on how much you are on in live games, as i believe the deal is that everyone gets a base amount and then a fee per game you play live. Every team has to be on 3 times before the end of the calendar year, then after that Sky / BT can choose whoever they like for live games, which is why some teams get 50 million a year as they are on more often.
As for Khan my guess is he didn't want to spend to much straight away, he did say he wants us to be run as a business (which is what Mo did), so maybe we will spend in January or maybe we will just carry on as we have done every season. You also should remember that any wages over the top of our wage structure comes out of the transfer funds and is put aside to cover those.
It isn't true actually. There's a fee teams below us, not many though.
Quote from: elgreenio on October 03, 2013, 12:13:28 PM
Quote from: Pluto on October 03, 2013, 11:17:55 AM
With teams like Cardiff and Southampton splashing out £40 million and even clubs such as Hull and Crystal Palace spending significantly more than us and beating us to targets, then we need to ask questions about why it seems to be exlcusively Fulham that is in this mess. We've seen no progress on the Riverside stand so that is not an excuse. Al Fayed wrote off all our debts before selling the club so we do not have loans to pay back. We still have the money from the Dembele and Dempsey transfers left unspent....I just don't understand it. Has someone (Al Fayed? Khan?) pocketed our money?
whilst there's been no public progress on the Riverside Stand we still need to reserve the funds for it. On Dempsey and Dembele, Daniel Levy is probably the most astute in the field and those fees are being drip fed to us, so there isn't really a lump sum laying around for us.
I will say though that Jol has ravaged our previously tight wage budget so there goes a lot of the budget (it's not like football manager where there is a separate transfer kitty and wage kitty)
If Spurs can pay in installments in this fashion then why can't we? Also every teams wage budget has incresed exponentially over the past couple of seasons- the likes of Swansea and Southampton must be paying huge wages for Osvaldo and Bony and haven't suffered in the transfer market. Promoted clubs especially must be seeing huge increases and are still outspending us, so again it seems strange that we seem to be the only club suffering.....
Quote from: Pluto on October 03, 2013, 12:44:02 PM
Quote from: elgreenio on October 03, 2013, 12:13:28 PM
Quote from: Pluto on October 03, 2013, 11:17:55 AM
With teams like Cardiff and Southampton splashing out £40 million and even clubs such as Hull and Crystal Palace spending significantly more than us and beating us to targets, then we need to ask questions about why it seems to be exlcusively Fulham that is in this mess. We've seen no progress on the Riverside stand so that is not an excuse. Al Fayed wrote off all our debts before selling the club so we do not have loans to pay back. We still have the money from the Dembele and Dempsey transfers left unspent....I just don't understand it. Has someone (Al Fayed? Khan?) pocketed our money?
whilst there's been no public progress on the Riverside Stand we still need to reserve the funds for it. On Dempsey and Dembele, Daniel Levy is probably the most astute in the field and those fees are being drip fed to us, so there isn't really a lump sum laying around for us.
I will say though that Jol has ravaged our previously tight wage budget so there goes a lot of the budget (it's not like football manager where there is a separate transfer kitty and wage kitty)
If Spurs can pay in installments in this fashion then why can't we? Also every teams wage budget has incresed exponentially over the past couple of seasons- the likes of Swansea and Southampton must be paying huge wages for Osvaldo and Bony and haven't suffered in the transfer market. Promoted clubs especially must be seeing huge increases and are still outspending us, so again it seems strange that we seem to be the only club suffering.....
I dont think we are struggling i think we have a model we stick too. some of these clubs spending massive money will struggle to survive if they go down inside 3 years. look at pompey, leeds etc the history is there. its ok paying the wages while you can but if your relegated and have no reduction clause int he contract the your buggered on less income, and why would anyone moving for big bucks want to have that in their contract? I know we are all frustrated (I am too) but i see the logic in our model
But if you don't spend you may go down anyway so surely by spending and giving yourself the increased chance of staying up then it's a gamble you would want to take
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
In relation the the Dembele sale and Levy being astute, surely we have some say in how the money is paid? Just because he has met the release clause it doesn't mean he can pay a pound a week like some scroat paying a fine. I would have thought we were still in the driving seat and could demand it paid over two seasons at least (assuming none are ever paid in full)
But if you don't spend you may go down anyway so surely by spending and giving yourself the increased chance of staying up then it's a gamble you would want to take
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Khan said something along the lines of - there is already a plan in place for this season and I will not interefere with that. Assuming the plan was as always - very little for transfers, then we can only hope that Khan sets a new plan beginning in the Jan market! 051
Quote from: ollienixs on October 03, 2013, 12:58:22 PM
But if you don't spend you may go down anyway so surely by spending and giving yourself the increased chance of staying up then it's a gamble you would want to take
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
but if you dont stay up you then face administration due to the overspend, better the devil you know? or the devil you dont?
I think we fixate on transfer fees whereas they're only a part of the overall player spend figure.
Wages, agents fees and signing on fees are as important and the sort of player we've been signing won't have been cheap. Those on Bosmans no doubt expect to receive a hefty sum in lieu of the transfer fee we're not paying.
Jol is of course making excuses but we don't know how restricted he's been in player acquistion. Is it his choice to bring in players like Parker, Berbatov and Bent instead of younger foreigners who would have cost fees but received less in a contract package? There's probably more risk there but the possibility of getting a Benteke/Michu type bargain.
Above all we really don't know any part of Khan's thinking, intentions and motives. He's said the right things but they've been vague and cliched. I'm happy to give him the benefit of any doubt for now but I wish he'd be more open.
I missed these comments. Where were they?
Quote from: The Old Count on October 03, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
I missed these comments. Where were they?
Was this question to me?
If so, I really cannot remember but it may well have been on the video of him and Fayed together - you know - the one where Fayed threatened to cut his mustache off if he removed the Jackson statute! Otherwise it was proabably a writeup on the main site as I don't tend to believe anything I read in the papers.
As a club, we've been starved of investment for quite some time now. Not just now, but also the last few years of the Fayed ownership. Whilst we have remained stale, other clubs around us have improved, even those who have come up from the Championship.
We've had to survive on own own for quite a while now, and although people say why aren't we not spending 10 million on a player, well the hard truth is, we don't have it, we're actually skint as a club and have had to juggle finances. Does anyone think that Mackintosh is doing what he's doing just to pee the fans off? If anything, he's kept Fulham treading water.
We can all sit here and say where's the T.V money as well, again, Fayed may have used it to help pay off the debt, he may have also pocketed it, he was entitled to it right?
Another scenario being, is that the T.V money is currently tied up at Fulham, but Khan wants to monitor us for a year before he understands where the club needs those finances.
Either way, the take over has come just at the right time in my eyes, possibly 2 season to late, but if we had continued under the old regime for much longer, I think we'd have been relegated some time soon.
Anyway, Khan has a big task on his hands right now as we're desperate for investment. I can forgive him for not investing in the summer, but if he goes past January without another penny spent on the squad, then I will have to start questioning his intentions with Fulham.
Quote from: BestOfBrede on October 03, 2013, 01:16:47 PM
Quote from: The Old Count on October 03, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
I missed these comments. Where were they?
Was this question to me?
If so, I really cannot remember but it may well have been on the video of him and Fayed together - you know - the one where Fayed threatened to cut his mustache off if he removed the Jackson statute! Otherwise it was proabably a writeup on the main site as I don't tend to believe anything I read in the papers.
No mate. I remember the ones you mentioned. I meant, I missed 'Jol's comments to the media' mentioned in Pluto's original post.
Quote from: Pluto on October 03, 2013, 11:17:55 AM
I'm sure many of you noticed Jol's comments to the media the other day where he talked of the "tight financial constraints" he has been forced to work under, and that we are "20th in the table on money spent". I'm very confused why the club is making these comments and, if true, why we are in this situation.
We have just seen an influx of TV money rumoured to total in excess of £50 million, and apparently took out a £16m loan against this so we could have some money in advance rather than in installments. Add to this the fact that we have a new owner, the 4th wealthiest in the league with a personal fortune of over $4 billion, plus the fact that the total value of players sold over the past few seasons exceeds money spent, then you have to ask the question where has all our money gone?
With teams like Cardiff and Southampton splashing out £40 million and even clubs such as Hull and Crystal Palace spending significantly more than us and beating us to targets, then we need to ask questions about why it seems to be exlcusively Fulham that is in this mess. We've seen no progress on the Riverside stand so that is not an excuse. Al Fayed wrote off all our debts before selling the club so we do not have loans to pay back. We still have the money from the Dembele and Dempsey transfers left unspent....I just don't understand it. Has someone (Al Fayed? Khan?) pocketed our money?
Of course there is the argument that a club like ours needs to be sustainable and self-sufficient, but we have higher gates and a broader international following than many clubs which have significantly outspent us. That position will change dramatically should we be relegated, and what is sustainable for us will drop. The standards required to remain in the PL are improving and clubs need to spend now to retain the PL status which affords them sustainability in the first place.
One final point- why is Khan permitting Jol to make these comments? As a multi-billionaire new owner, it's incredibly embaressing for him, on a personal level, for Jol to suggest that we don't have any money to spend. He had many weeks as Chairman before the transfer window shuts; if we needed investment then there is no excuse. Finally, its a very negative message for the club to be sending out and suggests to fans that the club is being poorly run and increases the agitation and worry about our Premier League future.
(Sorry for the long post- I'd just really like to hear some views on this!)
Where were Jol's comments about tight financial constraints? I must have missed that interview.
For a start Jol is incorrect and we were not 20th in transfers this summer we were 18th.
I asp suspect that the two loans are not exactly cheap. Plus Boateng who was chased for 4 or 5 windows would have had a decent fee.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
The total income to spend does not take into account the 'free' transfers, or larger wages we would clearly be paying to the big name players.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
Quote from: MJG on October 03, 2013, 02:25:36 PM
For a start Jol is incorrect and we were not 20th in transfers this summer we were 18th.
I asp suspect that the two loans are not exactly cheap. Plus Boateng who was chased for 4 or 5 windows would have had a decent fee.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
Still cant get my head around this transfer. Surely if funds are so tight at the moment then we need to make every penny spent on the squad count. Therefore, Boateng is taking a chunk of wages that could have been spent elsewhere on a player we actually needed. YOu have to wonder why he was targeted in the first place by us as he has hardly played a game for us.
Its things like this that show the club for what it has clearly is and has been for the past couple of seasons. Badly run and content to just exist as a shadow of what it could and should be.
I think Jol even admitted that the Boateng transfer was a mistake as his talents arent need in this squad. We also wasted a huge chunk of wages on Taraabt (im not saying that Taraabt is a bad player) as he must be taking home a large wage but he has hardly had a look in as Kasami and Ruiz play in his position.
Therefore, if the constraints we have are so tight then the board and manager have to ask themselves why we are throwing chunks of our budget away on players we dont need and dont play.
Oh yeah.... Buying Scott Parker for £3.5m-£4m
and giving him a 3 year contract probably wasn't the best use of our limited funds either...
Madness!
Quote from: jelmo on October 03, 2013, 03:17:24 PM
Quote from: MJG on October 03, 2013, 02:25:36 PM
For a start Jol is incorrect and we were not 20th in transfers this summer we were 18th.
I asp suspect that the two loans are not exactly cheap. Plus Boateng who was chased for 4 or 5 windows would have had a decent fee.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
Still cant get my head around this transfer. Surely if funds are so tight at the moment then we need to make every penny spent on the squad count. Therefore, Boateng is taking a chunk of wages that could have been spent elsewhere on a player we actually needed. YOu have to wonder why he was targeted in the first place by us as he has hardly played a game for us.
Its things like this that show the club for what it has clearly is and has been for the past couple of seasons. Badly run and content to just exist as a shadow of what it could and should be.
I think Jol even admitted that the Boateng transfer was a mistake as his talents arent need in this squad. We also wasted a huge chunk of wages on Taraabt (im not saying that Taraabt is a bad player) as he must be taking home a large wage but he has hardly had a look in as Kasami and Ruiz play in his position.
Therefore, if the constraints we have are so tight then the board and manager have to ask themselves why we are throwing chunks of our budget away on players we dont need and dont play.
Oh yeah.... Buying Scott Parker for £3.5m-£4m
and giving him a 3 year contract probably wasn't the best use of our limited funds either...
Madness!
Exactly! It seems we've had next to no money, but wasted what we do have on loan fees for the likes of Taraabt and Bent- investments for which we'll get no return. Those two will also be taking higher wages, as well as Boateng, who Jol has admitted we didn't need, and Parker on a rumoured 50k a week 3 year deal.
Like I said, with regards to transfer fees not being the whole story, wage budgets have increased across the board over the last two seasons for every PL club. To say we're spending the money on wages is no excuse, as other clubs must have seen their wage cost increased to at least as much whilst spending £30-40million to ensure survival.
At leats other clubs are giving the highest wages to lure exciting European talent like Bony, Osvaldo and Medel- our highest wages are being paid to has beens, loanees and old players past their best- the likes of Bent, Taraabt, Parker and Berbatov will all be on 50k a week plus. Are they worth it? Results would suggest no. I wonder how much Hull are paying Huddlestone............
It all just smacks of being very poorly run. With all due respect to Khan- the current plan wasn't working as we saw at the end of last season. We don't have a season to sit around and see where we're at. It should have been a priority for him when he arrived to do some serious research as to where investment was needed- he had plenty of time.
Quote from: The Old Count on October 03, 2013, 01:43:28 PM
Quote from: BestOfBrede on October 03, 2013, 01:16:47 PM
Quote from: The Old Count on October 03, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
I missed these comments. Where were they?
Was this question to me?
If so, I really cannot remember but it may well have been on the video of him and Fayed together - you know - the one where Fayed threatened to cut his mustache off if he removed the Jackson statute! Otherwise it was proabably a writeup on the main site as I don't tend to believe anything I read in the papers.
No mate. I remember the ones you mentioned. I meant, I missed 'Jol's comments to the media' mentioned in Pluto's original post.
I just did a quick google and found some here: http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/the-devil-was-playing-with-us-but-martin-jol-maintains-he-can-turn-fulham-around-8848706.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/the-devil-was-playing-with-us-but-martin-jol-maintains-he-can-turn-fulham-around-8848706.html)
I saw the same story elsewhere too in the printed press.
Quote from: jelmo on October 03, 2013, 03:17:24 PM
Quote from: MJG on October 03, 2013, 02:25:36 PM
For a start Jol is incorrect and we were not 20th in transfers this summer we were 18th.
I asp suspect that the two loans are not exactly cheap. Plus Boateng who was chased for 4 or 5 windows would have had a decent fee.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4
Still cant get my head around this transfer. Surely if funds are so tight at the moment then we need to make every penny spent on the squad count. Therefore, Boateng is taking a chunk of wages that could have been spent elsewhere on a player we actually needed. YOu have to wonder why he was targeted in the first place by us as he has hardly played a game for us.
Its things like this that show the club for what it has clearly is and has been for the past couple of seasons. Badly run and content to just exist as a shadow of what it could and should be.
I think Jol even admitted that the Boateng transfer was a mistake as his talents arent need in this squad. We also wasted a huge chunk of wages on Taraabt (im not saying that Taraabt is a bad player) as he must be taking home a large wage but he has hardly had a look in as Kasami and Ruiz play in his position.
Therefore, if the constraints we have are so tight then the board and manager have to ask themselves why we are throwing chunks of our budget away on players we dont need and dont play.
Oh yeah.... Buying Scott Parker for £3.5m-£4m
and giving him a 3 year contract probably wasn't the best use of our limited funds either...
Madness!
not a problem with the Boateng deal. Like Petric last year it bought in an extra person early that gave the freedom to be bide our time with the marquee player (Berbatov last year, Parker this). The Duff renewal was the one that really surprised me this term.
as for the others, Taraabt you could argue gave us another creative player to deputise when Ruiz had his injury spell. Parker looks a great bit of business until you look at the length of his contract.
Wouldn't say it's been a complete flop considering the lack of money and willing. You just wish there had been a bit more creativity about it and more risk instead of Jol's apparent love of buying players when they're out of favour.
It's not that we don't have money to spend. It's that Fulham's current wages appear to be right up against the limit under the FFP regulations (which is probably why Jol was looking to offload Riise for nothing, to clear some wage room for another signing).
Khan is permitted to spend beyond that, but if his goal is to run a self-sustaining operation, then he's probably chosen not to at this point. Maybe that will change in January if relegation is looming as a significant danger.
Now, whether Jol has made proper use of the limited funds is a whole separate story. But he's had money to spend. Fulham didn't sell anyone but Frei for a fee this window, and brought in Stek, Parker, a couple of frees and a couple of (assumedly) pricey loans.
The New man Khan has spent £150m this year purchasing the cub it is doubtful that he would want to spend anymore unless he has to. However I think heads will roll if we were to lose our premier league status and that he will do everything he can to prevent that happening.
Personally I think the money spent on Parker was well spent. If we can get berba back scoring and playing like he did last year (with less gesticulating which is what happens when he is laying well) then I think we will start firing.
Over to you MJ
Quote from: Pluto on October 03, 2013, 03:35:40 PM
Quote from: The Old Count on October 03, 2013, 01:43:28 PM
Quote from: BestOfBrede on October 03, 2013, 01:16:47 PM
Quote from: The Old Count on October 03, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
I missed these comments. Where were they?
Was this question to me?
If so, I really cannot remember but it may well have been on the video of him and Fayed together - you know - the one where Fayed threatened to cut his mustache off if he removed the Jackson statute! Otherwise it was proabably a writeup on the main site as I don't tend to believe anything I read in the papers.
No mate. I remember the ones you mentioned. I meant, I missed 'Jol's comments to the media' mentioned in Pluto's original post.
I just did a quick google and found some here: http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/the-devil-was-playing-with-us-but-martin-jol-maintains-he-can-turn-fulham-around-8848706.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/the-devil-was-playing-with-us-but-martin-jol-maintains-he-can-turn-fulham-around-8848706.html)
I saw the same story elsewhere too in the printed press.
Thanks for that. I've caught up now. Doh!
Quote from: Denver Fulham on October 03, 2013, 05:14:42 PM
It's not that we don't have money to spend. It's that Fulham's current wages appear to be right up against the limit under the FFP regulations (which is probably why Jol was looking to offload Riise for nothing, to clear some wage room for another signing).
Khan is permitted to spend beyond that, but if his goal is to run a self-sustaining operation, then he's probably chosen not to at this point. Maybe that will change in January if relegation is looming as a significant danger.
Now, whether Jol has made proper use of the limited funds is a whole separate story. But he's had money to spend. Fulham didn't sell anyone but Frei for a fee this window, and brought in Stek, Parker, a couple of frees and a couple of (assumedly) pricey loans.
Still can't believe he sold Frei.
We are invested in his future, I think Jol said.
I'm assuming that'll be a Frei return on loan in his 30's and past his best.
The rumour I heard was free asked to go and wanted a move to turkey, if that's true then no point keeping a player who doesn't want to be at the club.
It is all conjecture where the money has gone, which is why it would be great if Fulham was more open and transparent with how money is being spent, and what the clubs plans and strategic priorities are. Co-opting a member of the supporters Trust (with no voting rights) on to the Board would be good.
I understand the secrecy not wanting clubs to know what we have but agree it would make things easier to understand as fans, fans who get very frustrated.
Quote from: westcliff white on October 03, 2013, 05:47:22 PM
The rumour I heard was free asked to go and wanted a move to turkey, if that's true then no point keeping a player who doesn't want to be at the club.
Lack of 1st team opportunities i guess.
Could've been homesick i suppose. He's only 19.
Shame. He had the look of another Steeeed.
Quote from: BishopsParkFantastic on October 03, 2013, 05:50:08 PM
It is all conjecture where the money has gone, which is why it would be great if Fulham was more open and transparent with how money is being spent, and what the clubs plans and strategic priorities are. Co-opting a member of the supporters Trust (with no voting rights) on to the Board would be good.
I'd love for this to happen! All the club seems to send out is negative messages (which I doubt is helping our dwindling attendances)
Quote from: BishopsParkFantastic on October 03, 2013, 05:50:08 PM
It is all conjecture where the money has gone, which is why it would be great if Fulham was more open and transparent with how money is being spent, and what the clubs plans and strategic priorities are. Co-opting a member of the supporters Trust (with no voting rights) on to the Board would be good.
That wouldn't provide much more information, I wouldn't think, because if the club doesn't want to release the figures, then the board members would have to agree not to disclose them either.
After reading the article the other week, it seems clear that the financial fair play mechanism is hitting us, (and other medium/mid table clubs) very hard. This is backed up by us trying to offload high wage earners like JAR. The small clubs who've come up have small wage bills, so are not affected. The top teams all voted for it as their huge Saturday takings (due either to exorbitant ticket prices in small stadiums or low ticket prices in large capacity stadiums) mean they are not affected by FFP. FFP protects already established rich clubs and stifles small to medium club growth. That's why all the big clubs voted for it and we were against it tooth and nail.
Come on, we have a good set of players, the best we have ever had.
The issue is that we have a number of players who are too similar and can't play together
The quality of football is well below what our players should be producing.
I think it is Jol's first salvo to save face if he is pushed. He should not be making comments like this.
Quote from: Max Headroom on October 04, 2013, 08:19:25 AM
Come on, we have a good set of players, the best we have ever had.
The issue is that we have a number of players who are too similar and can't play together
The quality of football is well below what our players should be producing.
I think it is Jol's first salvo to save face if he is pushed. He should not be making comments like this.
It appears to me that Mr Jol has been on damage limitation for some time.
Can't blame him really. Poor results for almost an entire season, poor performances, poor judgement regarding new players and a new owner. How many managers survive this.
Quote from: Skatzoffc on October 04, 2013, 08:04:48 AM
After reading the article the other week, it seems clear that the financial fair play mechanism is hitting us, (and other medium/mid table clubs) very hard. This is backed up by us trying to offload high wage earners like JAR. The small clubs who've come up have small wage bills, so are not affected. The top teams all voted for it as their huge Saturday takings (due either to exorbitant ticket prices in small stadiums or low ticket prices in large capacity stadiums) mean they are not affected by FFP. FFP protects already established rich clubs and stifles small to medium club growth. That's why all the big clubs voted for it and we were against it tooth and nail.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it only clubs playing in Europe, and therefore affilated with UEFA, that are bound by FFP?
Also there are some big clubs blatently flaunting it.....Chelsea, City etc. And as far as I can tell UEFA have no actual way of enforcing it so why would we be affected.........?
Also it doesn't seem to have stopped clubs like Cardiff from spending £40million.......
Quote from: Max Headroom on October 04, 2013, 08:19:25 AM
Come on, we have a good set of players, the best we have ever had.
The issue is that we have a number of players who are too similar and can't play together
The quality of football is well below what our players should be producing.
I think it is Jol's first salvo to save face if he is pushed. He should not be making comments like this.
Certainly ten years ago some of our players were very good.
Quote from: Fulhampete on October 04, 2013, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: Max Headroom on October 04, 2013, 08:19:25 AM
Come on, we have a good set of players, the best we have ever had.
The issue is that we have a number of players who are too similar and can't play together
The quality of football is well below what our players should be producing.
I think it is Jol's first salvo to save face if he is pushed. He should not be making comments like this.
Certainly ten years ago some of our players were very good.
We had a better midfield ten years ago I'd say- the likes of Malbranque, Legwinski, Luis Boa, John Collins and Sean Davis in his prime, were all phenomenal players for us.
Kacaniklic, Sidwell, Parker, Kasami.....how many of those would you put in over the above?
Quote from: The Old Count on October 04, 2013, 08:40:19 AM
Quote from: Max Headroom on October 04, 2013, 08:19:25 AM
Come on, we have a good set of players, the best we have ever had.
The issue is that we have a number of players who are too similar and can't play together
The quality of football is well below what our players should be producing.
I think it is Jol's first salvo to save face if he is pushed. He should not be making comments like this.
It appears to me that Mr Jol has been on damage limitation for some time.
Can't blame him really. Poor results for almost an entire season, poor performances, poor judgement regarding new players and a new owner. How many managers survive this.
This is what I believe is happening too.
I really don't believe he has had anything less than to spend than Woy did.
Quote from: Pluto on October 04, 2013, 10:43:40 AM
Quote from: Skatzoffc on October 04, 2013, 08:04:48 AM
After reading the article the other week, it seems clear that the financial fair play mechanism is hitting us, (and other medium/mid table clubs) very hard. This is backed up by us trying to offload high wage earners like JAR. The small clubs who've come up have small wage bills, so are not affected. The top teams all voted for it as their huge Saturday takings (due either to exorbitant ticket prices in small stadiums or low ticket prices in large capacity stadiums) mean they are not affected by FFP. FFP protects already established rich clubs and stifles small to medium club growth. That's why all the big clubs voted for it and we were against it tooth and nail.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it only clubs playing in Europe, and therefore affilated with UEFA, that are bound by FFP?
Also there are some big clubs blatently flaunting it.....Chelsea, City etc. And as far as I can tell UEFA have no actual way of enforcing it so why would we be affected.........?
Also it doesn't seem to have stopped clubs like Cardiff from spending £40million.......
There was an earlier thread on this, and I believe when I looked up the regulations, if my memory serves me correctly, it was balanced over a three year period, and therefore for the first two years there would be no actual difference calculated, or something to that effect.
Although it may seem that our funding is limited, if we were to know the entire season budgets to include wages, transfer fees, agent fees etc Fulham would probably be about mid table in the premier league, clubs such as Swansea and Norwich had a wage bill £20m or more lower than us last season, hence why they had more for transfer fees and wages this season, the same would go for palace, Cardiff and hull.
Newcastle and stoke, with wage bills at a similar level to us were also very restricted in the transfer market this summer, to highlight that point.
Quote from: Guinness Haze on October 03, 2013, 05:53:21 PM
Quote from: westcliff white on October 03, 2013, 05:47:22 PM
The rumour I heard was free asked to go and wanted a move to turkey, if that's true then no point keeping a player who doesn't want to be at the club.
Could've been homesick i suppose.
For where he grew up in Switzerland? Or his country of birth Austria?
I suspect it was more to do with international football prospects. And the weather :008:
and now Mancini
Quote from: Pluto on October 04, 2013, 01:30:35 PM
Quote from: Fulhampete on October 04, 2013, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: Max Headroom on October 04, 2013, 08:19:25 AM
Come on, we have a good set of players, the best we have ever had.
The issue is that we have a number of players who are too similar and can't play together
The quality of football is well below what our players should be producing.
I think it is Jol's first salvo to save face if he is pushed. He should not be making comments like this.
Certainly ten years ago some of our players were very good.
We had a better midfield ten years ago I'd say- the likes of Malbranque, Legwinski, Luis Boa, John Collins and Sean Davis in his prime, were all phenomenal players for us.
Kacaniklic, Sidwell, Parker, Kasami.....how many of those would you put in over the above?
Very good question, I was in the 'best squad we've had' group but if you extend question to the rest of that team to the current it's very difficult to argue that this is the best squad we have ever had.
