According to the Telegraph round-up of each club's transfer intentions in January, we will only be allowed loans. Indeed our budget is 'Loans only'.
Have a read yourself:
http://fw.to/SFIbyLV (http://fw.to/SFIbyLV)
If this is true then I fear we're doomed for the drop. I have never been convinced by Khan that he isn't here just to get the NFL London Franchise. If we fail to invest next month then I think we'll have real cause for concern about Khan's stewardship, intentions and motivations.
Also, what is the latest on the Riverside Stand? Anyone heard ANYTHING at all?
As much as we all love the man, MAF may have sold us down the river.
Rubbish assessment of Fulham whoever wrote this.
Much needed, midfield? They look fine recently, when the right players are out there. A whole new back 4 is needed. Goals against confirm this.
Load of Cock :028:
I personally think we need an overhaul of the entire squad frankly.
Very few are worth keeping right now. Maybe I am being overly pessimistic I dunno.
Quote from: JBH on December 30, 2013, 12:06:53 PM
Load of Cock :028:
Maybe so but if loans are ALL we are allowed to get by Khan then I believe we should all be worried about the future of the club under him. I fear we're going to starve under him.
Fulham
Budget
Loans only.
Who's in charge of signings?
The timing of Alan Curbishley's surprise appointment as technical director suggests he will be heavily involved in any recruitment next month. But chief executive Alistair Mackintosh will have already identified targets and made initial contact with clubs and agents.
What's their priority?
Central midfield. Fulham need to find some youth and energy in the centre of the park, where they have looked pedestrian at times this season. Clint Dempsey, a former favourite, has already returned to the club on a two-month loan from Seattle Sounders in the MLS. Meulensteen is a big fan of Ravel Morrison, but it is unlikely he will join Fulham.
Who could arrive
Jack Cork (Southampton, left)
Who could leave
Bryan Ruiz.
Where has this information come from? What are the sources? Khan is the 4th wealthiest owner in the EPL, and has yet to spend a penny. I'm sure given our current situation he won't restrict us to more loan deals, none of which have worked for us so far. Mindnumbingly frustrating if this is true.
According to this article, the budgets are as follows:
- Arsenal: £50m
- Aston Villa: £3m
- Cardiff: £10m
- Chelsea: £50m
- Crystal Palace: £8m
- Everton: £10m
- Fulham: loans only
- Hull: £3m
- Liverpool: £30m
- Man City: £50m
- Man U: £100m
- Newcastle: £20m
- Norwich: £5m
- Southampton: £20m
- Stoke: £10m
- Sunderland: £10m
- Swansea: £10m
- Tottenham: £30m
- WBA: £0
- WHU: £5m
Lets be honest, we are in the bottom 3, so until we win our next two home games, noone particularly good is likely to join us, and if they do it will be for QPR reasons.
Have faith people..... things will be OK.
We'll have to hope they're wrong.
Now everyone is allowed their own two cents and being that it is about to be the window again, journos quite simply have to fill the pages and or get page views from their website.
This simply sounds of lazy journalism, and if it is the case that we only will deal in loans, then I will be the first to admit that I am wrong. To me, we already have two, and unless we are going to go to multiple leagues and get a player from each, then I just cant see it. My view is that a journalist saw that we have been loaning a fairly large number of players (to me 2-3 players to play FOR a top flight club is alot) and just assumed that would be the case. It surely wont be likely we will get another English based player as their are stipulations and rules that govern this.
It is my personal belief that given the high amount of player contract ending and age, the next two years we will see a high amount of turn over in playing staff, with some of our promising youngsters coming up and getting blooded and newer players being brought in.
As for Mr. Khan, I am yet to judge. Yes, he does own a NFL team and they do play in London every so often. However, until I see a statement from the club I wont believe it. For me, I cant see MAF selling to a man whose sole intent is to use Fulham for the ground works of a London based NFL team. Khan has enough money to do that WITHOUT Fulham, and if you think about it, if this were his sole intention, why would he spend 200 million when he could place these monies elsewhere. Once again my opinions.
This window will be huge to see what direction Khan wants Fulham to go, moderate to heavy investment means he wants Fulham to be sucessful this season. Loans to small investment, maybe he is waiting for the summer window. No investment, I may start biting at the " only NFL" stuff.
As an aside, its rubbish to think that Khan doesnt know about relegation, it takes five minutes to explain this concept to a new student of the English game. I wasnt aiming that at anyone in particular.
Yes the point is this window will tell us what are new owner is all about. Our MD tooks too long to move Jol out. But we will see how much we want to to stay in the Prem by our business in this window. Nobody is talking about a January overhaul but we need investment. My only hope that the article in the Telegraph has no foundation is that midfielders will be third on the list of priority behind defenders and forwards.
We shall see if the club and the fans have been sold down the river.
It won't surprise me at all if we get minimal investment this window and the same in the summer if we stay up.
As I said I reckon Khan will want us to feed off scraps only. After all, "sustainability" is the order of the day.
I don't trust the man as far as I can throw him.
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 12:08:32 PM
Quote from: JBH on December 30, 2013, 12:06:53 PM
Load of Cock :028:
Maybe so but if loans are ALL we are allowed to get by Khan then I believe we should all be worried about the future of the club under him. I fear we're going to starve under him.
In thats all we are allowed then only one more player can come in and Khan has lied to Rene who said that he will be backed by the owner in the window,
Oh but sorry it must be true because its in the Press!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 12:39:06 PM
It won't surprise me at all if we get minimal investment this window and the same in the summer if we stay up.
As I said I reckon Khan will want us to feed off scraps only. After all, "sustainability" is the order of the day.
I don't trust the man as far as I can throw him.
Have you met him and discussed his plans for the club then??
I can't see Rene getting our hopes up by regularly talking about signings, knowing there won't be any..
I don't trust this assessment, and can't see a new owner in Kahn throwing our chances of survival (and the prem money!) by not spending a penny. £10-15m HAS to be spent.
I know West Brom have mentioned not getting any money though, so there's a real opportunity to improve and drag them deeper into the mess..
Maybe it's loans only until we sell some current Fulham players or off load them from the wage bill...
We'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully business will be done in early January.
Quote from: JBH on December 30, 2013, 12:46:49 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 12:39:06 PM
It won't surprise me at all if we get minimal investment this window and the same in the summer if we stay up.
As I said I reckon Khan will want us to feed off scraps only. After all, "sustainability" is the order of the day.
I don't trust the man as far as I can throw him.
Have you met him and discussed his plans for the club then??
No, smart arse, of course not.
I am just expressing my concerns. I don't buy into him at all.
Quote from: MOR : on December 30, 2013, 01:03:15 PM
Maybe it's loans only until we sell some current Fulham players or off load them from the wage bill...
We'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully business will be done in early January.
Agreed, getting it done ASAP is important.
Ultimately we can only wait and see can't we. None of us know what Khan's intentions are, that goes for the optimists as well as the pessimists. I'm sure he's not happy with losing 6-0 to Hull City, he will have been told they aren't a big club, and I hope aware of the financial risk of getting relegated. The hope would be that he's also aware that the only way to rectify the situation is to improve the squad with quality players and that could mean spending big money.
I would prefer to believe RM's quotes than a journalist filling column inches with,obviously,little research.
Love em or hate them action has been taken on the coaching side of things,Dempsey signed up-have no reason to damn Khan on a hunch or"not buying into him"??But bringing in quality easier said than done and wouldn't blame Khan for not paying silly money.
I will judge Khan after January, not before.
So far he has had one decision to make, replacing a poor manager. He has done this within a reasonable time frame. Lets wait until after jan to judge him, don't know where the times gets its info from. Do we honestly think that all clubs will reveal their transfer hand to the media in december?
Jury out then,just thought mild vitriol somewhat premature.will be difficult whatever money is available,but will be impossible to please some.
The evidence is there for the optimist(I am positive re Wilkins rather than Phelan...is he assistant manager or just part time coach??..can't see anything on the official)
Expressing concerns whilst condemning the person without evidence is I suppose ...will say no more.
Quote from: jarv on December 30, 2013, 12:04:06 PM
Rubbish assessment of Fulham whoever wrote this.
Much needed, midfield? They look fine recently, when the right players are out there. A whole new back 4 is needed. Goals against confirm this.
Spot on. Sort the defence out and I'm sure we'll be ok. That's where our priorities lie
Quote from: Burt on December 30, 2013, 12:16:08 PM
According to this article, the budgets are as follows:
- Arsenal: £50m
- Aston Villa: £3m
- Cardiff: £10m
- Chelsea: £50m
- Crystal Palace: £8m
- Everton: £10m
- Fulham: loans only
- Hull: £3m
- Liverpool: £30m
- Man City: £50m
- Man U: £100m
- Newcastle: £20m
- Norwich: £5m
- Southampton: £20m
- Stoke: £10m
- Sunderland: £10m
- Swansea: £10m
- Tottenham: £30m
- WBA: £0
- WHU: £5m
I thought Tan told McKay there is no money to spend in the Jan window, so how comes Cardiff shows 10 mill. It is madness to say how much you are willing to spend as it gives the selling club a price to charge.
Khan, who paid an estimated $770 million to buy the Jaguars less than two years ago, says that the annual threat of demotion makes it cheaper to buy a Premier League club than to acquire an equivalent NFL franchise.
"The risk of relegation prices teams less than they would be in a closed league," he said. Chicago Tribune 15/08/13
"We certainly know the risks of relegation," said Mark Lamping to the Daily Mail, Khan's trusted right-hand man, president of the Jaguars and a director at Fulham. 'We've spent a lot of time talking about it, and it certainly makes everything more tense. It's not an option or a possibility anyone likes to think or talk about. Tribal football 14/10/13
Fulham owner Shahid Khan reckons his club need "paranoia" to avoid relegation and remain in the Premier League.
The American billionaire said of the Cottagers: "I think a little bit of paranoia comes with the Premier League because of relegation and promotion. Mirror 23/10/13
Obviously knows nothing about relegation and bought the club with his eyes closed :)
Paranoia ,so he actually understands it 100 per cent actually.
No one said he doesn't know we can get relegated. Or at least I certainly didn't say that.
I cast doubt on his intentions not his knowledge.
Cancel an actually..."
Our loans last january (Enoh and Emanuelson) worked well enough (except for Jol's incompetencies). .....
And his intentions are what and the evidence is what...the window isn't open yet and we have one possibly useful addition.Don't say you have not said something,provide substantiation for something you have said.
"Sustainability" - Khan's favourite word.
No purchases beyond the 'bargain basement' in the summer.
Stek=free
Amorebieta=free
Parker=£bargain basement
Boateng=free (and before Khan anyway so irrelevant)
Bent=loan
Taarabt=loan
So net spend thus far is negligible.
He endlessly talks about sustainability which, reading between the lines, means very little spending on players.
Added to this all the NFL Jacksonville bullsh1t we've had to endure both online and at matches (cheerleaders and their Mascot Jaguar thing) the signs might suggest that we.'re not his priority.
I'll never forget the email I got REMINDING me to go to the Cottage Cafe for a showing of the Jacksonville Jaguars love match at Wembley.
I may have no proper evidence but I genuinely believe I will be proved right in all of this. Khan is pulling the wool over our eyes.
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 02:52:49 PM
"Sustainability" - Khan's favourite word.
No purchases beyond the 'bargain basement' in the summer.
Stek=free
Amorebieta=free
Parker=£bargain basement
Boateng=free (and before Khan anyway so irrelevant)
Bent=loan
Taarabt=loan
So net spend thus far is negligible.
He endlessly talks about sustainability which, reading between the lines, means very little spending on players.
Added to this all the NFL Jacksonville bullsh1t we've had to endure both online and at matches (cheerleaders and their Mascot Jaguar thing) the signs might suggest that we.'re not his priority.
I'll never forget the email I got REMINDING me to go to the Cottage Cafe for a showing of the Jacksonville Jaguars love match at Wembley.
I may have no proper evidence but I genuinely believe I will be proved right in all of this. Khan is pulling the wool over our eyes.
And what of Khan's actions will prove you to be right? The fact he doesn't make a big name signing or something more substantial like ground sharing with the Fruit L'Hoops down the road? In what way can he pull the wool over our eyes?
Okay fine - whatever. I have no right to be worried. How very dare I?
God forbid I criticise or show a lack of faith in our fearless Chairman.
All I am saying is that I am concerned his reasoning for buying FFC does not have the success of FFC at it's core.
How can this be proved? Well I would suggest letting us go down due to a lack of investment might be one sign.
So let's see how this all pans out.
I think this forum is full of a bunch of sheep! Blind sheep!
Substainability referred to staying in the Premier League but has led to led to assumptions of frugality whilst not expecting mega priced signings.His summer spend way too early to pass judgement on as had little time at the the reins and would wager some of those salaries are from negligible.As for the Jaguars get mail reminding me of everything.
Fail to see why he would get involved and be pulling wool over eyes but cheerleaders at NFL matches really weird ......
Baaaah
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 03:09:48 PM
Okay fine - whatever. I have no right to be worried. How very dare I?
God forbid I criticise or show a lack of faith in our fearless Chairman.
All I am saying is that I am concerned his reasoning for buying FFC does not have the success of FFC at it's core.
How can this be proved? Well I would suggest letting us go down due to a lack of investment might be one sign.
So let's see how this all pans out.
fcuk me this forum is full of a bunch of sheep! Blind sheep!
Hahaha. What, because we don't share your opinion? Yes we're all worried but a lot of us are not quite as pessimistic or Dr Dooms like yourself. You, I or possibly no one else on here knows his true reason for buying our club, but I believe it's to earn money out of it and enjoy watching us improve as a club under his ownership. If I'm wrong then that's my Baaaa'd.
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 03:09:48 PM
Okay fine - whatever. I have no right to be worried. How very dare I?
God forbid I criticise or show a lack of faith in our fearless Chairman.
All I am saying is that I am concerned his reasoning for buying FFC does not have the success of FFC at it's core.
How can this be proved? Well I would suggest letting us go down due to a lack of investment might be one sign.
So let's see how this all pans out.
fcuk me this forum is full of a bunch of sheep! Blind sheep!
The downside in your argument, is why invest $200m in a prem team to let them go down? What value would Fulham be then? Lower attendances less revenue in. Why would you not protect your investment? Besides a championship team will not get the US coverage that an EPL team will get. So will not help in promoting the Jag's in the UK and Fulham in the US. 051
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 02:52:49 PM
"Sustainability" - Khan's favourite word.
No purchases beyond the 'bargain basement' in the summer.
Stek=free
Amorebieta=free
Parker=£bargain basement
Boateng=free (and before Khan anyway so irrelevant)
Bent=loan
Taarabt=loan
So net spend thus far is negligible.
He endlessly talks about sustainability which, reading between the lines, means very little spending on players.
Added to this all the NFL Jacksonville bullsh1t we've had to endure both online and at matches (cheerleaders and their Mascot Jaguar thing) the signs might suggest that we.'re not his priority.
I'll never forget the email I got REMINDING me to go to the Cottage Cafe for a showing of the Jacksonville Jaguars love match at Wembley.
I may have no proper evidence but I genuinely believe I will be proved right in all of this. Khan is pulling the wool over our eyes.
You maybe right ww. However it does not make sense for someone to buy a business and run it into the ground through lack of investment. Moustache is a businessman, he knows if we get relegated then the value of his investment will halve overnight.
If it is true and only loans are available then we are getting relegated. Simple as that.
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 03:09:48 PM
Okay fine - whatever. I have no right to be worried. How very dare I?
God forbid I criticise or show a lack of faith in our fearless Chairman.
All I am saying is that I am concerned his reasoning for buying FFC does not have the success of FFC at it's core.
How can this be proved? Well I would suggest letting us go down due to a lack of investment might be one sign.
So let's see how this all pans out.
I think this forum is full of a bunch of sheep! Blind sheep!
WW, you have every right to be worried, as do the rest of us. I think we are all very concerned about survival. Some feel we need to give the new Chairman a chance to show his cards. Our previous Chairman essentially starved us over the past 3 seasons and we survived so let's give this a guy a window to do it.
He has recently hired 3 top coaches to run his team on the pitch, and to help bring in talent, and fired another (along with his coaches which cost some dose to do). That is costing him more than was planned at the seasons start I'm sure, and we have added Dempsey, so it's not like the man is standing still.
Even if we only do loans in the window, it will depend on what we get, to see if it's ambitious or workable. Next summer is the best time to turnover the squad but I surely hope we can add some REAL quality in January and the Chairman will prove to us he is will taking "paranoid" action in keeping us in this league.
Indeed; it makes no sense to let us go down. His investment would be worthless effectively.
However look at it this way; what do 'businessmen' do?
They maximise profits/minimise losses by cutting the cloth accordingly.
Is it really that stupid to think that Khan might believe we can exist and be "sustainable" on a shoe-string? On a budget of loans and aged Prem players?
MAF was doing it to make the club's books look more attractive to buyers. Khan might be doing it to keep costs low to maximise potential profits/minimise losses. After all, we are only a little side-show to the Jacksonville main event.
Cynical? Pessimistic?
Guilty as charged.
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 12:39:06 PM
It won't surprise me at all if we get minimal investment this window and the same in the summer if we stay up.
As I said I reckon Khan will want us to feed off scraps only. After all, "sustainability" is the order of the day.
I don't trust the man as far as I can throw him.
Evidence the owner is cheap: He hasn't spent a penny in the zero full transfer windows under his ownership. In other words, no evidence.
Evidence the owner is not cheap: He authorized the sacking of a manager and hired two additional staffers to help out his new head coach.
It's fun to come up with wild conspiracy theories, or we can just wait for facts. And even if the club doesn't invest in this window to the satisfaction of many, that's still not evidence of ulterior motive. He may just believe, on the advice of his operations team, that we have enough to survive, and they want to wait until the summer to thoroughly overhaul the roster.
You may not like it, but that may happen. It's fun to lob baseless assertions out, but right now the fault lies with MAF and the transfer policy of the last three windows, not with Mr. Khan.
Quote from: jarv on December 30, 2013, 12:04:06 PM
Rubbish assessment of Fulham whoever wrote this.
Much needed, midfield? They look fine recently, when the right players are out there. A whole new back 4 is needed. Goals against confirm this.
Without Parker, we were hopeless. We are in dire need of quality central midfield help. Same with central defense.
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 02:52:49 PM
"Sustainability" - Khan's favourite word.
No purchases beyond the 'bargain basement' in the summer.
Stek=free
Amorebieta=free
Parker=£bargain basement
Boateng=free (and before Khan anyway so irrelevant)
Bent=loan
Taarabt=loan
Stek cost north of 4m pounds. Parker was like 3.5m. Bent and Taarabt have hefty paychecks that have pushed our wage bill to the allowed limit, per FFP. We had a net spend of probably 10m or more this summer.
At least get facts correct while you express concern? We're all concerned, and that concern will build if we don't get 3 points on Wednesday. That said, Wednesday's lineup will (likely) include Berbatov, Parker, Riether, maybe Taarabt, maybe Dempsey, etc. And then we have a month to get in better bodies in key places elsewhere. You can't believe management doesn't realize we need a center back and a center mid, at minimum? How they acquire those players is up to them and their expertise, not ours.
Quote from: Denver Fulham on December 30, 2013, 03:44:15 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 12:39:06 PM
It won't surprise me at all if we get minimal investment this window and the same in the summer if we stay up.
As I said I reckon Khan will want us to feed off scraps only. After all, "sustainability" is the order of the day.
I don't trust the man as far as I can throw him.
Evidence the owner is cheap: He hasn't spent a penny in the zero full transfer windows under his ownership. In other words, no evidence.
Evidence the owner is not cheap: He authorized the sacking of a manager and hired two additional staffers to help out his new head coach.
It's fun to come up with wild conspiracy theories, or we can just wait for facts. And even if the club doesn't invest in this window to the satisfaction of many, that's still not evidence of ulterior motive. He may just believe, on the advice of his operations team, that we have enough to survive, and they want to wait until the summer to thoroughly overhaul the roster.
You may not like it, but that may happen. It's fun to lob baseless assertions out, but right now the fault lies with MAF and the transfer policy of the last three windows, not with Mr. Khan.
Correction: He has hired two 'staffers' who have been out of work for significant periods of time, probably on low wages.
Let's see what signings he authorises this January and next summer. I won't hold my breath, we'll be feeding on scraps again no doubt.
Incidentally I agree re MAF; he was starving us to make the books look more attractive to potential buyers.
Quote from: Denver Fulham on December 30, 2013, 03:49:25 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 02:52:49 PM
"Sustainability" - Khan's favourite word.
No purchases beyond the 'bargain basement' in the summer.
Stek=free
Amorebieta=free
Parker=£bargain basement
Boateng=free (and before Khan anyway so irrelevant)
Bent=loan
Taarabt=loan
Stek cost north of 4m pounds. Parker was like 3.5m. Bent and Taarabt have hefty paychecks that have pushed our wage bill to the allowed limit, per FFP. We had a net spend of probably 10m or more this summer.
At least get facts correct while you express concern? We're all concerned, and that concern will build if we don't get 3 points on Wednesday. That said, Wednesday's lineup will (likely) include Berbatov, Parker, Riether, maybe Taarabt, maybe Dempsey, etc. And then we have a month to get in better bodies in key places elsewhere. You can't believe management doesn't realize we need a center back and a center mid, at minimum? How they acquire those players is up to them and their expertise, not ours.
Apologies re Stek; I honestly thought it was a free.
My point remains though, we fed from scraps last summer.
:blow candles:
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on December 30, 2013, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: jarv on December 30, 2013, 12:04:06 PM
Rubbish assessment of Fulham whoever wrote this.
Much needed, midfield? They look fine recently, when the right players are out there. A whole new back 4 is needed. Goals against confirm this.
Without Parker, we were hopeless. We are in dire need of quality central midfield help. Same with central defense.
Yep, we must strengthen the spine of the team - CB, CM, ST. Add to this a full-back and possibly a winger. It will be a busy month.
WW, I just don't see what Mr. Khan was supposed to do yet to show ambition. He tried to stick with a manager, and finally sacked him. Performances have been way better under Rene, the second half at Hull notwithstanding. He's added staff to help Rene.
"Loans only" can mean a lot of things. If we canceled Bent's loan and took on Ashley Young for five months, would that be bad? What about a loan for Alexander Buttner? Or loaning a center mid who wants first-team starts ahead of the World Cup?
People get too caught up in transfer fees. I'm not saying we don't need new players, nor that we don't need to buy a good number of players to help transition the roster. But in the January window, with the way prices are for transfers, a couple of strong 5-month loans may be the better path to the only goal at this point: 17th place or better.
Survive, and then you have four months over the summer to implement a much more drastic overhaul.
Whatever the method, I'd be stunned if we don't add a center back and a deep-lying midfielder. It's painfully obvious we are very short in both areas. If we can add a winger, too, great. We already have two months of Dempsey in hand.
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 02:52:49 PM
"Sustainability" - Khan's favourite word.
No purchases beyond the 'bargain basement' in the summer.
Stek=free
Amorebieta=free
Parker=£bargain basement
Boateng=free (and before Khan anyway so irrelevant)
Bent=loan
Taarabt=loan
So net spend thus far is negligible.
He endlessly talks about sustainability which, reading between the lines, means very little spending on players.
Added to this all the NFL Jacksonville bullsh1t we've had to endure both online and at matches (cheerleaders and their Mascot Jaguar thing) the signs might suggest that we.'re not his priority.
I'll never forget the email I got REMINDING me to go to the Cottage Cafe for a showing of the Jacksonville Jaguars love match at Wembley.
I may have no proper evidence but I genuinely believe I will be proved right in all of this. Khan is pulling the wool over our eyes.
Well, if one must pit the NFL franchise against the EPL club for "daddy's" attention, then why wouldn't the NFL franchise get more attention. It was a far greater financial investment. And, it has far greater potential for generating revenue.
But pitting one against the other isn't a necessity for Khan. He has people he trusts to run both and will invest what is prudent and allowable into both more than likely. The man knows how to make money and likely takes pleasure in the making of it. He didn't invest in Fulham to see his 150 million investment decrease or to see that 60 or so million pound annual payday from the league disappear.
I wish someone would show me the logic that explains how watching one of those investments go down the drain provides Mr Khan with some sort of net gain.
I dont think this window signifies Khans intentions at all. Everyone knows that January is a bad time to do business. There are at least 10 mid table prem teams on the hunt for a striker for example, price will go up. Khan knows the man in charge currently is only until the end of the season so loans would make sense. Listen loans are good short term. Short term is what we as a club have to look at. The club can't afford to splash the cash until the summer with the threat of relegation. Should we stay up, which I believe we will if we continue to play like we have recently (Hull the exeption) I think khan will get the checkbook out in the summer. God knows we need it! But in all seriousness loans can be very good business! Look at Reither great business. Think of it as a try before you buy! For instance everyone was moaning we didn't just sign Bent, I think 99% of us agree now that we are glad we didn't shell out for him. I'm sure if the right player comes up at a price that is good we will go in. Trust the club as in the past we have done well in the window! Stay positive guys!
Quote from: supersimmo123 on December 30, 2013, 04:07:36 PM
For instance everyone was moaning we didn't just sign Bent, I think 99% of us agree now that we are glad we didn't shell out for him.
Very good point.
Two other notes: Zverotic was bought under Khan. Not expensive of course, but should be counted regardless. Also, NFL does twice the business as the next closest global pro league, the PL. So of course the Jaguars are the main area of his concern. Sad but true.
Source: http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html (http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html)
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: supersimmo123 on December 30, 2013, 04:07:36 PM
For instance everyone was moaning we didn't just sign Bent, I think 99% of us agree now that we are glad we didn't shell out for him.
Very good point.
Two other notes: Zverotic was bought under Khan. Not expensive of course, but should be counted regardless. Also, NFL does twice the business as the next closest global pro league, the PL. So of course the Jaguars are the main area of his concern. Sad but true.
Source: http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html (http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html)
And is that acceptable for us?
Do we not want to be the priority to our owner?
Why are we making do?!
The lassitude of this journalism is evident by the comment that Cardiff have £10mm to spend, Tan has stated clearly that not a penny will be spent; this article is total crap. We have just seen Khan commit to Wilkins and Curbs so I expect him to make funds available for the right player and Saturday's performance just demonstrated in spades how thin the squad is. Loans are good if makes sense but we are so desperate for new blood in certain key positions CB, CM, LB etc that I have to believe we will see thoughtful purchases. Apart from anything else we are maxed out on domestic loans anyway.
Quote from: jarv on December 30, 2013, 12:04:06 PM
Rubbish assessment of Fulham whoever wrote this.
Much needed, midfield? They look fine recently, when the right players are out there. A whole new back 4 is needed. Goals against confirm this.
Remember when Hodgson was manager and Fulham conceded very few goals? That was because the midfield helped out the defenders instead of running around all over the place and leaving the defenders exposed like the guys we have now.
Anyway, there's no basis for the original article's assertion that our budget is "loans only" so I wouldn't make too much of it.
Where would we be without speculation? That, and all those who have solid, factual comments. For that matter, without speculation we wouldn't need any forums even one as good as this one.
Chicken Little comes to mind. 051
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: supersimmo123 on December 30, 2013, 04:07:36 PM
For instance everyone was moaning we didn't just sign Bent, I think 99% of us agree now that we are glad we didn't shell out for him.
Very good point.
Two other notes: Zverotic was bought under Khan. Not expensive of course, but should be counted regardless. Also, NFL does twice the business as the next closest global pro league, the PL. So of course the Jaguars are the main area of his concern. Sad but true.
Source: http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html (http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html)
And is that acceptable for us?
Do we not want to be the priority to our owner?
Why are we making do?!
You should put a bid in.
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: supersimmo123 on December 30, 2013, 04:07:36 PM
For instance everyone was moaning we didn't just sign Bent, I think 99% of us agree now that we are glad we didn't shell out for him.
Very good point.
Two other notes: Zverotic was bought under Khan. Not expensive of course, but should be counted regardless. Also, NFL does twice the business as the next closest global pro league, the PL. So of course the Jaguars are the main area of his concern. Sad but true.
Source: http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html (http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html)
And is that acceptable for us?
Do we not want to be the priority to our owner?
Why are we making do?!
The point wasn't the amount spent on Zverotic. It's that you're misrepresenting your arguments with incorrect and omitted evidence.
We can be a priority of the owner without being the top and only priority. In layman's terms, it's called "a self-made billionaire being able to do more than one thing effectively". Your conspiracy theory is based on ZERO full transfer windows, a press report and a hunch. And then we, of course, become sheep.
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 08:18:33 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: supersimmo123 on December 30, 2013, 04:07:36 PM
For instance everyone was moaning we didn't just sign Bent, I think 99% of us agree now that we are glad we didn't shell out for him.
Very good point.
Two other notes: Zverotic was bought under Khan. Not expensive of course, but should be counted regardless. Also, NFL does twice the business as the next closest global pro league, the PL. So of course the Jaguars are the main area of his concern. Sad but true.
Source: http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html (http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html)
And is that acceptable for us?
Do we not want to be the priority to our owner?
Why are we making do?!
The point wasn't the amount spent on Zverotic. It's that you're misrepresenting your arguments with incorrect and omitted evidence.
We can be a priority of the owner without being the top and only priority. In layman's terms, it's called "a self-made billionaire being able to do more than one thing effectively". Your conspiracy theory is based on ZERO full transfer windows, a press report and a hunch. And then we, of course, become sheep.
We'll just have to wait and see won't we?
He talks a good game does Khan but he has shown nothing to make us think he will invest properly in playing staff; indeed even the backroom staff he has brought in are all out-of-work has beens.
I truly believe we're feeding off scraps, loans and cheap old players for the foreseeable future.
At least we'll be sustainable...in the Championship / League One.
Quote from: jmh on December 30, 2013, 07:15:49 PM
Quote from: jarv on December 30, 2013, 12:04:06 PM
Rubbish assessment of Fulham whoever wrote this.
Much needed, midfield? They look fine recently, when the right players are out there. A whole new back 4 is needed. Goals against confirm this.
Remember when Hodgson was manager and Fulham conceded very few goals? That was because the midfield helped out the defenders instead of running around all over the place and leaving the defenders exposed like the guys we have now.
Anyway, there's no basis for the original article's assertion that our budget is "loans only" so I wouldn't make too much of it.
Thank god that someone else realises that the defence isn't wholly to blame for leaking so many goals! This season our midfield have given away the ball almost as often as they given away free kicks!
Not to say the defence is blameless, but the midfield have created nothing going forward and offer no protection at the back either.
Just had to get that off my chest!
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 08:42:27 PM
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 08:18:33 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: supersimmo123 on December 30, 2013, 04:07:36 PM
For instance everyone was moaning we didn't just sign Bent, I think 99% of us agree now that we are glad we didn't shell out for him.
Very good point.
Two other notes: Zverotic was bought under Khan. Not expensive of course, but should be counted regardless. Also, NFL does twice the business as the next closest global pro league, the PL. So of course the Jaguars are the main area of his concern. Sad but true.
Source: http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html (http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html)
And is that acceptable for us?
Do we not want to be the priority to our owner?
Why are we making do?!
The point wasn't the amount spent on Zverotic. It's that you're misrepresenting your arguments with incorrect and omitted evidence.
We can be a priority of the owner without being the top and only priority. In layman's terms, it's called "a self-made billionaire being able to do more than one thing effectively". Your conspiracy theory is based on ZERO full transfer windows, a press report and a hunch. And then we, of course, become sheep.
We'll just have to wait and see won't we?
He talks a good game does Khan but he has shown nothing to make us think he will invest properly in playing staff; indeed even the backroom staff he has brought in are all out-of-work has beens.
I truly believe we're feeding off scraps, loans and cheap old players for the foreseeable future.
At least we'll be sustainable...in the Championship / League One.
Have you met Victor?
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 30, 2013, 10:09:32 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 08:42:27 PM
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 08:18:33 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: supersimmo123 on December 30, 2013, 04:07:36 PM
For instance everyone was moaning we didn't just sign Bent, I think 99% of us agree now that we are glad we didn't shell out for him.
Very good point.
Two other notes: Zverotic was bought under Khan. Not expensive of course, but should be counted regardless. Also, NFL does twice the business as the next closest global pro league, the PL. So of course the Jaguars are the main area of his concern. Sad but true.
Source: http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html (http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html)
And is that acceptable for us?
Do we not want to be the priority to our owner?
Why are we making do?!
The point wasn't the amount spent on Zverotic. It's that you're misrepresenting your arguments with incorrect and omitted evidence.
We can be a priority of the owner without being the top and only priority. In layman's terms, it's called "a self-made billionaire being able to do more than one thing effectively". Your conspiracy theory is based on ZERO full transfer windows, a press report and a hunch. And then we, of course, become sheep.
We'll just have to wait and see won't we?
He talks a good game does Khan but he has shown nothing to make us think he will invest properly in playing staff; indeed even the backroom staff he has brought in are all out-of-work has beens.
I truly believe we're feeding off scraps, loans and cheap old players for the foreseeable future.
At least we'll be sustainable...in the Championship / League One.
Have you met Victor?
Victor?
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 10:11:49 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 30, 2013, 10:09:32 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 08:42:27 PM
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 08:18:33 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on December 30, 2013, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: bmasar on December 30, 2013, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: supersimmo123 on December 30, 2013, 04:07:36 PM
For instance everyone was moaning we didn't just sign Bent, I think 99% of us agree now that we are glad we didn't shell out for him.
Very good point.
Two other notes: Zverotic was bought under Khan. Not expensive of course, but should be counted regardless. Also, NFL does twice the business as the next closest global pro league, the PL. So of course the Jaguars are the main area of his concern. Sad but true.
Source: http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html (http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/218b_sports_business.html)
And is that acceptable for us?
Do we not want to be the priority to our owner?
Why are we making do?!
The point wasn't the amount spent on Zverotic. It's that you're misrepresenting your arguments with incorrect and omitted evidence.
We can be a priority of the owner without being the top and only priority. In layman's terms, it's called "a self-made billionaire being able to do more than one thing effectively". Your conspiracy theory is based on ZERO full transfer windows, a press report and a hunch. And then we, of course, become sheep.
We'll just have to wait and see won't we?
He talks a good game does Khan but he has shown nothing to make us think he will invest properly in playing staff; indeed even the backroom staff he has brought in are all out-of-work has beens.
I truly believe we're feeding off scraps, loans and cheap old players for the foreseeable future.
At least we'll be sustainable...in the Championship / League One.
Have you met Victor?
Victor?
Victor Meldrew. He posts on here and is full of doom & gloom as well. Smile my friend. Life is good and Fulham will stay up. :Happy New Year:
So far all is as expected.
Dempsey aside there are no signings and seemingly nothing in the pipeline. All rumoured loans have been denied.
Don't worry though, we're being sustainable.
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on January 13, 2014, 06:27:25 PM
So far all is as expected.
Dempsey aside there are no signings and seemingly nothing in the pipeline. All rumoured loans have been denied.
Don't worry though, we're being sustainable.
I sure would like to hear Mr. Khan's thoughts about what on the field he is seeing that demonstrates PL sustainability.
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on January 13, 2014, 06:32:09 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on January 13, 2014, 06:27:25 PM
So far all is as expected.
Dempsey aside there are no signings and seemingly nothing in the pipeline. All rumoured loans have been denied.
Don't worry though, we're being sustainable.
I sure would like to hear Mr. Khan's thoughts about what on the field he is seeing that demonstrates PL sustainability.
he isn't seeing anything though is he. he doesn't come often to games because lets be honest he hasn't bought us because he likes football. he has bought us for god only knows what, but playing good football and winning games isn't one of them
Quote from: fulhamben on January 13, 2014, 06:42:01 PM
Quote from: ToodlesMcToot on January 13, 2014, 06:32:09 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on January 13, 2014, 06:27:25 PM
So far all is as expected.
Dempsey aside there are no signings and seemingly nothing in the pipeline. All rumoured loans have been denied.
Don't worry though, we're being sustainable.
I sure would like to hear Mr. Khan's thoughts about what on the field he is seeing that demonstrates PL sustainability.
he isn't seeing anything though is he. he doesn't come often to games because lets be honest he hasn't bought us because he likes football. he has bought us for god only knows what, but playing good football and winning games isn't one of them
Well, he's not the businessman he's been purported to be if you're correct. Playing poor football and losing games is going to eliminate all his t.v. money. He certainly knows that.
I don't think it's khans fault I think it's Ali macs fault he's the one that's been bluffing mo and khan that we can get away with loans and old players and yet we have huw Jennings, Steve wigley and kit symons trying there hardest getting these promising youngsters in. Ali Mac sort it out
