I'm hoping this will come across in the somewhat tongue-in-cheek way it is intended!
Has there ever been a worse signing in the history of the Premier League than Anguissa?
I'm trying to think holistically here so dropping Ali Dia into the mix doesn't count as he didn't actually cost Southampton anything (and also came closer to scoring a goal in his 11 minute Premier League career than Anguissa has in his entire professional career to date). I don't think Djemba-Djemba, Bogarde and the like can stack either as they were essentially punts from clubs who could afford to take punts.
But £30m, for a club of our stature on a midfielder who has never scored a goal is pretty astonishing when you think about it?
I know he's still in the squad and therefore theoretically could somehow still come good, but more realistically is that he's gone at the end of the year at a massive loss.
This has got to be the sort of thing that winds up on one of those Sky One clip shows in 10 years from now, no? Maybe it's worse than that? Maybe so few people even know who he is or that we spent £30m on him that there's nobody to talk about how bad a signing he was? 064.gif
Surely not even Marlet or Mitroglou can stack up against Zambo?
You could get 2 Marlets for 1 Anguissa
Yes, but how many Frank Large. The worst signing I can remember.
He shall forever be known as Languissa due to his languid performances.
Quote from: Aaron on February 15, 2019, 11:56:54 PM
I know he's still in the squad and therefore theoretically could somehow still come good, but more realistically is that he's gone at the end of the year at a massive loss.
If his contract has a clause that sees his salary reduced in the event of relegation, I'd say that it's highly probable he'll be here next season.
As you indicate, there's unlikely to be a club willing to pay the sort of sum that would see us recoup most of what we shelled out for him. Furthermore, hasn't he signed a five-year deal with us? If so, we're under no pressure to cash in on him for a token amount.
He might come good for us and become a fan favourite!
Not really a Frank Large - no one could fault Big Frank for effort and application, just lack of skill - compared to predecessor Allan Clarke
Whereas Anguissa has been criticised for perceived lack of effort, but is supposed to be a very talented player with great potential - that's what we read when he signed.
He's only 23. A season in the Championship could be exactly what he needs. Let's hope he stays and gets game time. I think he could be good with some consistency, especially at a lower quality level.
Think quality is there ,he's a young lad and needs time,if you add to that he's been injured patience is needed.
Don't quite gel with the last two comments on this topic. Especicially regarding him having time in the championship to comegood. He was bought to be a decent premlevel player which he most certainly isn't .
On top of that there's been sarcastic comments from whence he came regarding how we've been mugged off.
Sadly we've a history of buying and paying too much for not good enough players and he is one of them.
Maybe I'll have to eat my words in a couple of years but i don't think so.
Bobbo I think they new we were coming and who sanctions the money are a soft touch as not worth 30million nievety yet again by TK.
Yep hove me thinks the same
I have one player. Fotheringham.
Quote from: grandad on February 16, 2019, 08:52:54 AM
I have one player. Fotheringham.
yeh forgot about him another gem of stats man!
Quote from: JoelH5 on February 16, 2019, 04:34:33 AM
He's only 23. A season in the Championship could be exactly what he needs. Let's hope he stays and gets game time. I think he could be good with some consistency, especially at a lower quality level.
+1
If we had signed him on a free transfer, I would say yes we may have got a half decent player, who may or may not hold his own in the Championship, and has youth on his side.
But 30 million, daylight robbery, and another good reason to overhaul the Elite Stats Squad, led by you know who, dare I mention his name. No he is known world wide by every agent and club looking for a fast buck.
This is the reason why our whole recruitment team including the the scouts need replacing and now TK needs to be moved out of the firing line as it's hurting SKs efforts and his reputation.
Quote from: hovewhite on February 16, 2019, 08:17:24 AM
Think quality is there ,he's a young lad and needs time,if you add to that he's been injured patience is needed.
Introducing a player and giving him time to come good works if you already have an established squad. Anguisssa was bought to go straight into the first team of an already depleted squad.
Therein lies the problem....
I meant to add, he's no where near the worst ever signing.
He started Europa League final last year at a young age and was a regular in a successful Marseille side. He's not rubbish but it hasn't worked out for him here.
Probably is our worst signing yeah in terms of how it's panned out. I do think he can come good still though.
Quote from: hovewhite on February 16, 2019, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: grandad on February 16, 2019, 08:52:54 AM
I have one player. Fotheringham.
yeh forgot about him another gem of stats man!
Fotheringham was bought in because he was Magaths mate before we even used stats for recruitment
Quote from: JoelH5 on February 16, 2019, 04:34:33 AM
He's only 23. A season in the Championship could be exactly what he needs. Let's hope he stays and gets game time. I think he could be good with some consistency, especially at a lower quality level.
I heard people say the same about Kamara that hes only 22-23. 23 is not young in football terms, you got players that are world class in their teens. Sure players can improve with experience etc but at 23 you should be somewhere near the finished article
But who was responsible for signing him, which scout saw him play?, Jocanovic must have given his OK and young Khan must have listened to a few opinions before signing him.
Of course with our system no one will admit to their guilt ,instead they will all say "His Stats Looked Good"
Quote from: @jolslover on February 16, 2019, 10:07:20 AM
Quote from: hovewhite on February 16, 2019, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: grandad on February 16, 2019, 08:52:54 AM
I have one player. Fotheringham.
yeh forgot about him another gem of stats man!
Fotheringham was bought in because he was Magaths mate before we even used stats for recruitment
[/
Felix doesn't have any mates, Fothringham was signed on recommendation that he could do a job, problem was that job didn't involve football.
Quote from: gang on February 16, 2019, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: @jolslover on February 16, 2019, 10:07:20 AM
Quote from: hovewhite on February 16, 2019, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: grandad on February 16, 2019, 08:52:54 AM
I have one player. Fotheringham.
yeh forgot about him another gem of stats man!
Fotheringham was bought in because he was Magaths mate before we even used stats for recruitment
[/
Felix doesn't have any mates, Fothringham was signed on recommendation that he could do a job, problem was that job didn't involve football.
I think he initially applied for a job as a Turnstile Operator, and following some back scratching and observations on his stats by the dudes hanging around the Recruitment Office.
They thought gee man, I guess going by his stats, ( in very loud high pitched voices ), the computer says yes.
Thirty million pounds is a lot of money to shell out on the promise of 'what might be', especially for a club looking for players 'who will be' as they seek to consolidate a promotion. If money were no object at FFC then I can see the logic in trusting that Anguissa will be a player much sought after in the foreseeable future and he has, as his contract says, a fair time to prove he was worth every penny of that amount if he is sought after at any time whilst a member of our squad. None of us know what is to be, and I, for one, wouldn't wish to condemn the lad because he is simply another misfit in a team of misfits struggling to find an identity as a cohesive unit. His age doesn't make such difficulty easier to overcome since the adaptations required to 'fit in' have proven tricky to many others in the current squad including one of our very own. Anguissa deserves a chance in a much more balanced squad before we ultimately pass judgment upon him, and I think others in football, including the media, will save their pungent reminisces for a later date. Suffice to say he has a lot to prove but a lot of time left to prove it.
Think I will give him some more time before I would consider making an appraisal of him.Some players need time when coming from another Country.
As poor as he has been, every time this sorts of issues are brought up, remember that how much the club paid for him is not his fault! He is accountable for poor performances, but we have had plenty of those over the years. The club is accountable for the ridiculous amount of money they paid for him, not the player himself.
Players often get more abuse than a similarly underachieving player who happened to be bought for a lot less money
Quote from: Jamie88 on February 16, 2019, 10:58:51 AM
As poor as he has been, every time this sorts of issues are brought up, remember that how much the club paid for him is not his fault! He is accountable for poor performances, but we have had plenty of those over the years. The club is accountable for the ridiculous amount of money they paid for him, not the player himself.
Players often get more abuse than a similarly underachieving player who happened to be bought for a lot less money
I agree, but the higher the money, the higher the expectations.
Quote from: gang on February 16, 2019, 12:59:45 PM
Quote from: Jamie88 on February 16, 2019, 10:58:51 AM
As poor as he has been, every time this sorts of issues are brought up, remember that how much the club paid for him is not his fault! He is accountable for poor performances, but we have had plenty of those over the years. The club is accountable for the ridiculous amount of money they paid for him, not the player himself.
Players often get more abuse than a similarly underachieving player who happened to be bought for a lot less money
I agree, but the higher the money, the higher the expectations.
Still don't see how Anguissa would be accountable for that. However, the club is.
Quote from: mrmicawbers on February 16, 2019, 10:51:39 AM
Think I will give him some more time before I would consider making an appraisal of him.Some players need time when coming from another Country.
For £30 million quid, I expect him to make an immediate impact, and hit the ground running.
We are not running a holiday camp for convalescence.
If any player whoever he is, and wherever he is coming from. If there is a risk of a so called delay in settling in, then don't take that risk. How many times have we signed players from overseas who have been sent out on loan or not come up to scratch because they cannot settle or are just not good enough because of the culture of our football. There have been too many, and some of them expensive ones, too many for comfort.
Just one of a number of issues that have contributed to our demise.
If it was an isolated signing, who didn't make a lick of positive difference, then I'd agree with this notion of him being a bad signing.
However, this season is a compilation of many mistakes, and Anguissa is not the only signing to be questioned. I think it's highly unfair to single him out, even though he has not looked up to speed. If you really think about it, there have been good signings who have not looked up to speed either. Before Chambers was repositioned about 80% on here were wanting him to never wear the shirt again.
So, no, I do not agree with singling out any of our players when the season as a whole is more responsible. At the end of the day, the managers have a job to do, and need to make the best of what they're given.
Quote from: Matt10 on February 16, 2019, 03:33:52 PM
Chambers was repositioned about 80% on here were wanting him to never wear the shirt again.
Not a great example. Chambers is still a poor DM. A poor man's Steve Sidwell. If we were to get back into the PL in the near future, and needed a DM, I certainly wouldn't want it to be Chambers in a million years. He is more useful there than at CB but nonetheless, after his loan expires, I still don't want to see him in a Fulham shirt again, unless it is as a rarely used squad player.
Quote from: Statto on February 16, 2019, 03:42:31 PM
Quote from: Matt10 on February 16, 2019, 03:33:52 PM
Chambers was repositioned about 80% on here were wanting him to never wear the shirt again.
Not a great example. Chambers is still a poor DM. A poor man's Steve Sidwell. If we were to get back into the PL in the near future, and needed a DM, I certainly wouldn't want it to be Chambers in a million years. He is more useful there than at CB but nonetheless, after his loan expires, I still don't want to see him in a Fulham shirt again, unless it is as a rarely used squad player.
No, he's not an ideal choice, but if anything that is a testament to what kind of season we have had. So by default, almost every player in a Fulham shirt is questioned. Lumping in the likes of Anguissa is just an easy target.
If anyone I would have picked, it would be Fosu-Mensah. He's been poor in many respects at the RB position. However, what if he's another Chambers that should have been repositioned? Chambers isn't a poor signing or gets on a thread like this because his value was found by repositioning him.
If you consider his transfer fee and his non contribution up until now he must be up there as among the worst ever signings.
Frank large got no sympathy because he replaced Clarke and his ineptitude in front of goal coincided with our sinking through the divisions.
I liked Marlet but we thought he was going to be another T. Henry and he couldn't play up to his price tag.
Fotheringham was a joke and more a sign of the depth the club had sunk.
Mitroglou was brought in to do a job i.e. score the goals to keep us up and just never showed up. If you consider the money spent and lost due to relegation he's my No 1 Worst.
At this moment in time I'd say Anguissa's certainly a contender but there is a chance he can change that if he gets fit and sticks around.
Quote from: gang on February 16, 2019, 12:07:57 AM
Yes, but how many Frank Large. The worst signing I can remember.
And to think he was brought in to replace Allan Clarke 064.gif
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 16, 2019, 02:51:29 PM
Quote from: mrmicawbers on February 16, 2019, 10:51:39 AM
Think I will give him some more time before I would consider making an appraisal of him.Some players need time when coming from another Country.
For £30 million quid, I expect him to make an immediate impact, and hit the ground running.
We are not running a holiday camp for convalescence.
If any player whoever he is, and wherever he is coming from. If there is a risk of a so called delay in settling in, then don't take that risk. How many times have we signed players from overseas who have been sent out on loan or not come up to scratch because they cannot settle or are just not good enough because of the culture of our football. There have been too many, and some of them expensive ones, too many for comfort.
Just one of a number of issues that have contributed to our demise.
I think there is always a risk of a so called delay in settling in, in every transfer. So to categorically say "don't take that risk" doesn't work. I agree however, that with an increased risk because of factors like the ones you are mentioning (time to settle, time to adapt to football culture), an increased potential upside is needed (huge potential sell on value, filling a desperate need, regarded as a class above what we can otherwise get). But transfers are always risky business, more so with huge money involved.
Also remember that there are players like Dempsey or Dembele (the first) that started out below par/underwhelming but ended up looking like great signings in hindsight.
Quote from: HillingdonFFC on February 16, 2019, 10:11:14 AM
Quote from: JoelH5 on February 16, 2019, 04:34:33 AM
He's only 23. A season in the Championship could be exactly what he needs. Let's hope he stays and gets game time. I think he could be good with some consistency, especially at a lower quality level.
I heard people say the same about Kamara that hes only 22-23. 23 is not young in football terms, you got players that are world class in their teens. Sure players can improve with experience etc but at 23 you should be somewhere near the finished article
How many teens are playing regular first team football for big clubs? I don't have the statistics but would be surprised if they are not the exception rather than the norm. You also got lots of players not gaining star status until later (Drogba, Vardy).
Point is I think that all players are different. Anguissa has only two seasons of regular first team football, with a potential 10+ seasons left to play. In that sense he could be considered young and there is in my opinion no reason to think that he doesn't have time to develop further. It is a case of people developing at different rates and ages, because of their background and personality but also other external circumstances.
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 16, 2019, 08:58:43 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 16, 2019, 02:51:29 PM
Quote from: mrmicawbers on February 16, 2019, 10:51:39 AM
Think I will give him some more time before I would consider making an appraisal of him.Some players need time when coming from another Country.
For £30 million quid, I expect him to make an immediate impact, and hit the ground running.
We are not running a holiday camp for convalescence.
If any player whoever he is, and wherever he is coming from. If there is a risk of a so called delay in settling in, then don't take that risk. How many times have we signed players from overseas who have been sent out on loan or not come up to scratch because they cannot settle or are just not good enough because of the culture of our football. There have been too many, and some of them expensive ones, too many for comfort.
Just one of a number of issues that have contributed to our demise.
I think there is always a risk of a so called delay in settling in, in every transfer. So to categorically say "don't take that risk" doesn't work. I agree however, that with an increased risk because of factors like the ones you are mentioning (time to settle, time to adapt to football culture), an increased potential upside is needed (huge potential sell on value, filling a desperate need, regarded as a class above what we can otherwise get). But transfers are always risky business, more so with huge money involved.
Also remember that there are players like Dempsey or Dembele (the first) that started out below par/underwhelming but ended up looking like great signings in hindsight.
I cannot really agree with your conclusion. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, too many errors of judgement, blind risk taking which has contributed to where we are now.
Money irresponsibly wasted, because they never learn, the same mistakes every year, from their naive maximum age limits, to signing injured unfit players, who have to take turns to sit in the medical room, as there are not enough seats. Not forgetting lightweight unsuitable players, who selects them, the tea lady. Just don't get me on how they operate their stats system.
Poor preparation and organisation from preseason onwards.
Then there is their hiring and firing of managers and other staff, from Felix Magath to Craig Kline, and I haven't even included the innocent victims.
So many self inflicted wounds.
A classic case of the blind leading the blind.
I do not wish to divert the topic but as Fotheringham has been mentioned. He was taking some serious flak before he even kicked a ball. The P2 Enclave watched in awe as he brought the ball down, advanced a few paces and laid the ball off with a decent pass that found its target. Blimey we've cracked it we thought. Alas that was it.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 16, 2019, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 16, 2019, 08:58:43 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 16, 2019, 02:51:29 PM
Quote from: mrmicawbers on February 16, 2019, 10:51:39 AM
Think I will give him some more time before I would consider making an appraisal of him.Some players need time when coming from another Country.
For £30 million quid, I expect him to make an immediate impact, and hit the ground running.
We are not running a holiday camp for convalescence.
If any player whoever he is, and wherever he is coming from. If there is a risk of a so called delay in settling in, then don't take that risk. How many times have we signed players from overseas who have been sent out on loan or not come up to scratch because they cannot settle or are just not good enough because of the culture of our football. There have been too many, and some of them expensive ones, too many for comfort.
Just one of a number of issues that have contributed to our demise.
I think there is always a risk of a so called delay in settling in, in every transfer. So to categorically say "don't take that risk" doesn't work. I agree however, that with an increased risk because of factors like the ones you are mentioning (time to settle, time to adapt to football culture), an increased potential upside is needed (huge potential sell on value, filling a desperate need, regarded as a class above what we can otherwise get). But transfers are always risky business, more so with huge money involved.
Also remember that there are players like Dempsey or Dembele (the first) that started out below par/underwhelming but ended up looking like great signings in hindsight.
I cannot really agree with your conclusion. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, too many errors of judgement, blind risk taking which has contributed to where we are now.
Money irresponsibly wasted, because they never learn, the same mistakes every year, from their naive maximum age limits, to signing injured unfit players, who have to take turns to sit in the medical room, as there are not enough seats. Not forgetting lightweight unsuitable players, who selects them, the tea lady. Just don't get me on how they operate their stats system.
Poor preparation and organisation from preseason onwards.
Then there is their hiring and firing of managers and other staff, from Felix Magath to CK, and I haven't even included the innocent victims.
So many self inflicted wounds.
A classic case of the blind leading the blind.
I am not really sure what conclusion of mine you don't agree with? My only real conclusion was that I don't believe that it is possible to avoid risks in transfer dealings, which you of course don't have to agree with. I didn't try to disregard your concerns and my post was in no way defending our current recruitment set up, which the rest of your post seem to suggest that you believe I did. Sorry if I am misunderstanding you.
Anguissa cost around 25% of one years TV Revenue and Marlet cost around 50% of TV Revenue. I believe we paid 30% of TV Revenue too much for Marlet, so Anguissa doesn't even need to kick a ball to be less of a waste of money.
There were tonnes of other examples in Tigana era of paying huge % of TV revenue on players, our wages bill alone was 150% of TV Revenue then, if we go above 75% of tv revenue of wages we will be at risk of automatically get relegated from the EPL and some reports have FFC wages as low 50% of TV Revenue.
MAF didn't care, he thought the cheapest way to stay up was spend massive for two seasons, the promotion season and first season in the league.
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 16, 2019, 09:43:48 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 16, 2019, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 16, 2019, 08:58:43 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 16, 2019, 02:51:29 PM
Quote from: mrmicawbers on February 16, 2019, 10:51:39 AM
Think I will give him some more time before I would consider making an appraisal of him.Some players need time when coming from another Country.
For £30 million quid, I expect him to make an immediate impact, and hit the ground running.
We are not running a holiday camp for convalescence.
If any player whoever he is, and wherever he is coming from. If there is a risk of a so called delay in settling in, then don't take that risk. How many times have we signed players from overseas who have been sent out on loan or not come up to scratch because they cannot settle or are just not good enough because of the culture of our football. There have been too many, and some of them expensive ones, too many for comfort.
Just one of a number of issues that have contributed to our demise.
I think there is always a risk of a so called delay in settling in, in every transfer. So to categorically say "don't take that risk" doesn't work. I agree however, that with an increased risk because of factors like the ones you are mentioning (time to settle, time to adapt to football culture), an increased potential upside is needed (huge potential sell on value, filling a desperate need, regarded as a class above what we can otherwise get). But transfers are always risky business, more so with huge money involved.
Also remember that there are players like Dempsey or Dembele (the first) that started out below par/underwhelming but ended up looking like great signings in hindsight.
I cannot really agree with your conclusion. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, too many errors of judgement, blind risk taking which has contributed to where we are now.
Money irresponsibly wasted, because they never learn, the same mistakes every year, from their naive maximum age limits, to signing injured unfit players, who have to take turns to sit in the medical room, as there are not enough seats. Not forgetting lightweight unsuitable players, who selects them, the tea lady. Just don't get me on how they operate their stats system.
Poor preparation and organisation from preseason onwards.
Then there is their hiring and firing of managers and other staff, from Felix Magath to CK, and I haven't even included the innocent victims.
So many self inflicted wounds.
A classic case of the blind leading the blind.
I am not really sure what conclusion of mine you don't agree with? My only real conclusion was that I don't believe that it is possible to avoid risks in transfer dealings, which you of course don't have to agree with. I didn't try to disregard your concerns and my post was in no way defending our current recruitment set up, which the rest of your post seem to suggest that you believe I did. Sorry if I am misunderstanding you.
It's ok, there is nothing for you to opologise for. In our own individual ways, are all genuinely concerned in our different feelings about the club.
Especially at times like this, nobody feels that good about how this season has panned out, I just hope that from here on in it does not get any worse, and somewhere along the line we can arrest the slide and finish with a flourish.
Because hope which is an oasis of comfort in this current desert of adversity is all we currently have left.
Every silver lining has a cloud, in as much in the same way that every cloud has a silver lining.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 16, 2019, 09:56:59 PM
It's ok, there is nothing for you to opologise for. In our own individual ways, are all genuinely concerned in different ways about the club.
Especially at times like this, nobody feels that good about how this season has panned out, I just hope that from here on in it does not get any worse, and somewhere along the line we can arrest the slide and finish with a flourish.
Because hope which is an oasis of comfort in this current desert of adversity is all we currently have left.
Every silver lining has a cloud, in as much in the same way that every cloud has a silver lining.
082.gif 049:gif
Quote from: HillingdonFFC on February 16, 2019, 10:11:14 AM
Quote from: JoelH5 on February 16, 2019, 04:34:33 AM
He's only 23. A season in the Championship could be exactly what he needs. Let's hope he stays and gets game time. I think he could be good with some consistency, especially at a lower quality level.
I heard people say the same about Kamara that hes only 22-23. 23 is not young in football terms, you got players that are world class in their teens. Sure players can improve with experience etc but at 23 you should be somewhere near the finished article
Anguissa 17/18 was getting whoscored stats of 7.11 in Ligue 1, exactly the same as Mitrovoic 18/19 gets at Fulham. Anguissa is now getting whoscored stats of pathetic 6.45, exactly the same as Mitrovoic got at Newcastle. Mitrovoic was terrible in a Newcastle shirt and Anguissa is terrible in a Fulham shirt. May i suggest, FFC fans singing "Mitro on fire" maybe why he's so good here, so how do we get Anguissa getting 7.11 whoscored stats (that he got last year which would be better than Chambers 6.94).
There's a difference between being a bad signing and a bad player. I don't think Frank is a bad player. I do think the club badly needed a dominant DM for Slav's system to have a prayer of working, and Frank was nothing close to that, which is a major reason we're being insta-relegated. That's a bad signing.
Quote from: Denver Fulham on February 16, 2019, 11:35:55 PM
There's a difference between being a bad signing and a bad player. I don't think Frank is a bad player. I do think the club badly needed a dominant DM for Slav's system to have a prayer of working, and Frank was nothing close to that, which is a major reason we're being insta-relegated. That's a bad signing.
I think that's more what I was getting at.
If (some would seem to think it's a big "if") our club record signing ends up leaving as part of a fire sale at the end of the season for a fraction of what we paid, then that's got to go down as one of the biggest transfer bombs in history no matter what he might go on to do elsewhere.
I'd love the lad to do well for us, but I don't see it happening in the current setup.
Quote from: Denver Fulham on February 16, 2019, 11:35:55 PM
There's a difference between being a bad signing and a bad player. I don't think Frank is a bad player. I do think the club badly needed a dominant DM for Slav's system to have a prayer of working, and Frank was nothing close to that, which is a major reason we're being insta-relegated. That's a bad signing.
But he's very young and inexperienced, and had never played at Prem level. Surely one for he future, rather than a player who could be the dominating creative, and governing force in midfield that we needed, and still need.
In fact, he's hardly appeared in a Fulham shirt.
I still think and hope he will come good. On how much money we pay for players, Fulham dont divulge this information. Agents and selling clubs want their fans to think they have got a boat load of cash so who knows if we really paid £30M. My guess is we paid no where near £30M. We could have signed him for £10M with an extra £10M when he scores 50 goals and an extra £10M when he makes his 200th appearance.
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 17, 2019, 08:39:22 AM
I still think and hope he will come good. On how much money we pay for players, Fulham dont divulge this information. Agents and selling clubs want their fans to think they have got a boat load of cash so who knows if we really paid £30M. My guess is we paid no where near £30M. We could have signed him for £10M with an extra £10M when he scores 50 goals and an extra £10M when he makes his 200th appearance.
There are many ways to inflate the price, one classic is a "Baloon D'Or" clause, which says if a player wins "world player of the year", the club will pay full price. We could boost Cyrus Christie's price or any player to £30m with Baloon D'Or clause.
It's worth noting some owners lie to imply they are spending less than are like Tigana and MAF. The only thing that matters is whether the Khans find ways to pump more and more money into the team and managers get results.
For me the main point is this:
We knew we didn't have a team for the PL, both quantity & quality as soon as the final whistle blew at Wembley.
So paying big money for one untried prospect hoping he would contribute this season but mainly for the future was not the priority.
But now we were with the big boys maybe this was not such a bad thing as long as it was in addition to building a team that could survive the first season.
We all know who else and when the rest of the signings arrived and we can look back now and make an informed judgement on the work done to provide the HC with a squad worthy of the challenge.
So its fair comment to say he was brought in to hit the ground running and deliver PL performances as a regular player and that's where the problem lies.
All that may not be his fault but that wasn't the question!
So, what happens to Anguissa now, a season with us in the Championship or put on the transfer list in May. Bet there will not be a queue of clubs at the Cottage door wishing to pay £30m for him.
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 17, 2019, 08:39:22 AM
I still think and hope he will come good. On how much money we pay for players, Fulham dont divulge this information. Agents and selling clubs want their fans to think they have got a boat load of cash so who knows if we really paid £30M. My guess is we paid no where near £30M. We could have signed him for £10M with an extra £10M when he scores 50 goals and an extra £10M when he makes his 200th appearance.
Do you take this approach where we sell players as well, and assume we sold them for much less than the reported fees?
Personally I don't believe everything I read but it cuts both ways - there are some who'll want to make the fee seem more and some who'll want to make it seem less. If all the press reports are in the same ballpark (as they were with Anguissa) I'm highly inclined to believe that.
I seem to remember the reported fee was around £24 million and there was also mention of €30 million euros - this then somehow forgotten that they reported in euros and people began talking as if it were £30 million.
Either way it's a huge amount of money for the club to spend on a player who is far far from proven
He did ok at Liverpool and there is hope ! He's young and athletic but a tad clumsy; he'll be fine in the Championship next year
Wouldn't it be so Fulhamish if we offload him cut-price, only for him to come good being used differently for another team?
I can see it happening.... sell him for £5 mill to someone like Stoke, only for him to dominate the Championship next year and score his first ever goals against us (i'm not counting the 2 he scored for Cameroon).
Long term contract and almost a long term project now. He stays as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Jamie88 on February 17, 2019, 11:42:06 AM
I seem to remember the reported fee was around £24 million and there was also mention of €30 million euros - this then somehow forgotten that they reported in euros and people began talking as if it were £30 million.
Either way it's a huge amount of money for the club to spend on a player who is far far from proven
Agree, whether it was £24m or £30m is frankly immaterial, the point is it was bloody loads. Getting a bit like the brexit bus that should have said £250m instead of £350m.
Quote from: Statto on February 17, 2019, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 17, 2019, 08:39:22 AM
I still think and hope he will come good. On how much money we pay for players, Fulham dont divulge this information. Agents and selling clubs want their fans to think they have got a boat load of cash so who knows if we really paid £30M. My guess is we paid no where near £30M. We could have signed him for £10M with an extra £10M when he scores 50 goals and an extra £10M when he makes his 200th appearance.
Do you take this approach where we sell players as well, and assume we sold them for much less than the reported fees?
Personally I don't believe everything I read but it cuts both ways - there are some who'll want to make the fee seem more and some who'll want to make it seem less. If all the press reports are in the same ballpark (as they were with Anguissa) I'm highly inclined to believe that.
Quote from: Statto on February 17, 2019, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 17, 2019, 08:39:22 AM
I still think and hope he will come good. On how much money we pay for players, Fulham dont divulge this information. Agents and selling clubs want their fans to think they have got a boat load of cash so who knows if we really paid £30M. My guess is we paid no where near £30M. We could have signed him for £10M with an extra £10M when he scores 50 goals and an extra £10M when he makes his 200th appearance.
[/quote%s]
Do you take this approach where we sell players as well, and assume we sold them for much less than the reported fees?
Personally I don't believe everything I read but it cuts both ways - there are some who'll want to make the fee seem more and some who'll want to make it seem less. If all the press reports are in the same ballpark (as they were with Anguissa) I'm highly inclined to believe that.
I don't take any 'approach' I am mearly pointing out that we don't know what the fee was ! It could be what ever you want it to be. I am sure it was a lot of money, but suspect quite. Bit less than £30M and quite likely to depend on milestones being reached. I don't think Frank was a good buy as we needed defenders who were ready and of the required standard from day 1 and money should have been prioritised for those players. That said we were lacking so much as a squad it was a huge task to be Premiership ready but we did a poor job looking back now.
What I do know is that some players can take quite a while to get up to speed with the requirements of our football. Young foreign players in particular may take a season to be ready. Son at Spurs is a good example, this season he looks fantastic but was hardly noticed last.
I am sure we all hope Frank will come good, I do and think we should stick with him.
Quote from: MJG on February 17, 2019, 12:16:43 PM
Long term contract and almost a long term project now. He stays as far as I'm concerned.
Can we afford to keep a player who doesn't make it into the starting XI at the minute and who is on a reported £67k a week in the Championship?
Quote from: Aaron on February 17, 2019, 04:56:28 PM
Quote from: MJG on February 17, 2019, 12:16:43 PM
Long term contract and almost a long term project now. He stays as far as I'm concerned.
Can we afford to keep a player who doesn't make it into the starting XI at the minute and who is on a reported £67k a week in the Championship?
For a start been injured and just back to the squad. was sub only twice when available so hardly not in team. TC cant get in the team would you say the same?
we still dont really know what Anguissa can do ,he has played so little ,so to suggest that he is one of our worst ever signings seems a bit premature to me. He has been a disappointing signing so far but that can change ,and quickly with a few good performances.
Quote from: F(f)CUK on February 16, 2019, 12:02:33 AM
You could get 2 Marlets for 1 Anguissa
Yes but they'd both be dreadful.
Anguissa has more talent in his big toe than Marlet.
Quote from: Skatzoffc on February 17, 2019, 07:58:04 PM
Quote from: F(f)CUK on February 16, 2019, 12:02:33 AM
You could get 2 Marlets for 1 Anguissa
Yes but they'd both be dreadful.
Anguissa has more talent in his big toe than Marlet.
Perhaps a toe transplant should be considered before Anguissa leaves us.
A very expensive mistake, and he is 23 not 17, so not a youngster.
Never been match fit from his first kick of a football in England, and he is incompatible with our football.
The fact that Marseilles were dancing in the streets minutes after completing the deal to sell him to Fulham tells the real story.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 17, 2019, 10:38:26 PM
A very expensive mistake, and he is 23 not 17, so not a youngster.
Never been match fit from his first kick of a football in England, and he is incompatible with our football.
The fact that Marseilles were dancing in the streets minutes after completing the deal to sell him to Fulham tells the real story.
What a load of crap. 23 is young, of course it is, especially for a player who has never lived in this country, speaks a different language and is from a completely different culture.
Fans dancing in the streets ? Really...were you there ? A few French folk on twitter and you are totally hooked into another negative.
Your posts are becoming increasingly unbalanced and paranoid. I used to enjoy your stuff but think you are now becoming so anti club it's unhealthy. Sorry mate, by all means have a go back which I am sure you will however I really fear to many are all just pulling in the wrong direction.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 17, 2019, 10:38:26 PM
A very expensive mistake, and he is 23 not 17, so not a youngster.
Never been match fit from his first kick of a football in England, and he is incompatible with our football.
The fact that Marseilles were dancing in the streets minutes after completing the deal to sell him to Fulham tells the real story.
I agree. What the Marseilles fans said in very many posts and tweets was how talented the young man is but how lacking in his ability to blend as a team player. Their posts also made much of the over inflated price we paid and how they got the better of the deal. For me, Anguisa is a poor signing, to expensive, to unfit and to lacking in his contribution to the team.
I hope, when he is fully fit he may manage to be a bit more effective.
FulhamStu
How dare you say it's crap, just because you disagree. Then why be stupid enough to buy a player that cannot speak English from a different culture and has never lived in this country, and cost the Kings Ransom he has cost, how daft is that, on that basis you are the one who is talking crap.
As for you missing them dancing in the streets, were you there to say they werent.
I am being realistic, you are in denial.
You don't have to say sorry, you are entitled to your views but so am I.
The reason why there seems to be a divide on this board at times and has turned some of the threads on here a little toxic, is because of mainly one poor little rich boy.
So my advice is to vent your anger at him not little old me.
If you feel myself or many others have become more critical than yourself over the current issues at Fulham on and off the pitch, it is because we care and are passionate and hate to see Fulham in this state, I get no pleasure from it.
When somebody hangs a rat under my nose, I will smell it, and the Recruitment dudes and their leader have done exactly that.
In other words when they have peed on my back and tell me it's raining, then I know my suspicions are founded.
So relax I am not your enemy, so please do not treat me like I am.
Ibrahima Cissé is only 24 and has looked better than Anguissa in his limited appearances.
Quote from: MikeTheCubed on February 17, 2019, 11:38:18 PM
Ibrahima Cissé is only 24 and has looked better than Anguissa in his limited appearances.
I can agree with you there, and I do not think he cost quite as much either.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 17, 2019, 11:41:47 PM
Quote from: MikeTheCubed on February 17, 2019, 11:38:18 PM
Ibrahima Cissé is only 24 and has looked better than Anguissa in his limited appearances.
I can agree with you there, and I do not think he cost quite as much either.
You can get 12 Ibrahima Cissés for the price of an Anguissa!
Maybe he's just a bad fit to play beside Seri.
Give Anguissa one more season to come good.
Quote from: AnOldBrownie on February 18, 2019, 01:11:17 AM
Maybe he's just a bad fit to play beside Seri.
Give Anguissa one more season to come good.
And by then we will be planning for life in League 1.
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 17, 2019, 10:57:31 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 17, 2019, 10:38:26 PM
A very expensive mistake, and he is 23 not 17, so not a youngster.
Never been match fit from his first kick of a football in England, and he is incompatible with our football.
The fact that Marseilles were dancing in the streets minutes after completing the deal to sell him to Fulham tells the real story.
What a load of crap. 23 is young, of course it is, especially for a player who has never lived in this country, speaks a different language and is from a completely different culture.
Fans dancing in the streets ? Really...were you there ? A few French folk on twitter and you are totally hooked into another negative.
Your posts are becoming increasingly unbalanced and paranoid. I used to enjoy your stuff but think you are now becoming so anti club it's unhealthy. Sorry mate, by all means have a go back which I am sure you will however I really fear to many are all just pulling in the wrong direction.
Really that was uncalled for. If you disagree fine but say so reasonably. As a matter of fact I was going to say that 23 is not all that young. Sess has been questioned by some on here because he has not fully adapted to the Prem and how old is he? By comparison Zambo is mature.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 17, 2019, 11:18:06 PM
FulhamStu
How dare you say it's crap, just because you disagree. Then why be stupid enough to buy a player that cannot speak English from a different culture and has never lived in this country, and cost the Kings Ransom he has cost, how daft is that, on that basis you are the one who is talking crap.
As for you missing them dancing in the streets, were you there to say they werent.
I am being realistic, you are in denial.
You don't have to say sorry, you are entitled to your views but so am I.
The reason why there seems to be a divide on this board at times and has turned some of the threads on here a little toxic, is because of mainly one poor little rich boy.
So my advice is to vent your anger at him not little old me.
If you feel myself or many others have become more critical than yourself over the current issues at Fulham on and off the pitch, it is because we care and are passionate and hate to see Fulham in this state, I get no pleasure from it.
When somebody hangs a rat under my nose, I will smell it, and the Recruitment dudes and their leader have done exactly that.
In other words when they have peed on my back and tell me it's raining, then I know my suspicions are founded.
So relax I am not your enemy, so please do not treat me like I am.
I love your passion and know you are very devoted to our football club as many of us on here are. I just get a bit fed up with so many, so over the top posts these days. My term crap is not that heavy mate, I would tell you your talking crap to your face..I could say things a lot more aggressively I can assure you.
Now as for Mr Anguissa, I totally agree it was a stupid signing, not because Frank is crap, but because our prime needs lay elsewhere, namely the defence. Spending big on 2 centre halves was far more important, especially as the one we did buy was flipping injured. I suspect there is a good player in
Anguissa but we needed players to hit the ground running etc etc, Anguissa could be a good long term investment but that was not what we needed. So 100% understand and agree the criticism, but not the over the top way it's often presented.
As for Tony Khan, I could not care less if he is Daddy's boy or not. I just want him to be better at his job or my preference as I have posted many times, bring in someone who really knows what they are doing to work alongside him. The fact that Daddy owns the club and gives his son a roll he would never have got on his own is just the unfair way of the world. You and I can see people getting preferential treatment because of where they have come from every day, in all walks of life. It's fine to not like this, buts it's the way it is. In my view there is little to be gained by people like us getting too upset about it. That's just me.
23 is regarded in football as a young player,not a prospect but nevertheless young .
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 18, 2019, 08:22:55 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 17, 2019, 11:18:06 PM
FulhamStu
How dare you say it's crap, just because you disagree. Then why be stupid enough to buy a player that cannot speak English from a different culture and has never lived in this country, and cost the Kings Ransom he has cost, how daft is that, on that basis you are the one who is talking crap.
As for you missing them dancing in the streets, were you there to say they werent.
I am being realistic, you are in denial.
You don't have to say sorry, you are entitled to your views but so am I.
The reason why there seems to be a divide on this board at times and has turned some of the threads on here a little toxic, is because of mainly one poor little rich boy.
So my advice is to vent your anger at him not little old me.
If you feel myself or many others have become more critical than yourself over the current issues at Fulham on and off the pitch, it is because we care and are passionate and hate to see Fulham in this state, I get no pleasure from it.
When somebody hangs a rat under my nose, I will smell it, and the Recruitment dudes and their leader have done exactly that.
In other words when they have peed on my back and tell me it's raining, then I know my suspicions are founded.
So relax I am not your enemy, so please do not treat me like I am.
I love your passion and know you are very devoted to our football club as many of us on here are. I just get a bit fed up with so many, so over the top posts these days. My term crap is not that heavy mate, I would tell you your talking crap to your face..I could say things a lot more aggressively I can assure you.
Now as for Mr Anguissa, I totally agree it was a stupid signing, not because Frank is crap, but because our prime needs lay elsewhere, namely the defence. Spending big on 2 centre halves was far more important, especially as the one we did buy was flipping injured. I suspect there is a good player in
Anguissa but we needed players to hit the ground running etc etc, Anguissa could be a good long term investment but that was not what we needed. So 100% understand and agree the criticism, but not the over the top way it's often presented.
As for Tony Khan, I could not care less if he is Daddy's boy or not. I just want him to be better at his job or my preference as I have posted many times, bring in someone who really knows what they are doing to work alongside him. The fact that Daddy owns the club and gives his son a roll he would never have got on his own is just the unfair way of the world. You and I can see people getting preferential treatment because of where they have come from every day, in all walks of life. It's fine to not like this, buts it's the way it is. In my view there is little to be gained by people like us getting too upset about it. That's just me.
And me too - nothing we can do about it so until somebody recognises their mistake we are stuck with it.
Quote from: Barrett487 on February 17, 2019, 12:10:41 PM
Wouldn't it be so Fulhamish if we offload him cut-price, only for him to come good being used differently for another team?
I can see it happening.... sell him for £5 mill to someone like Stoke, only for him to dominate the Championship next year and score his first ever goals against us (i'm not counting the 2 he scored for Cameroon).
Yes, FoF seem to talk like Tony Khan is the dumbiest DOF in the "history of football", but somewhere in SW6 there are Chelsea DOFs that sold Kevin De Bruyne for £19.80m in 2014 and Mohamed Salah for £13.50m in 2016.
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 18, 2019, 08:22:55 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 17, 2019, 11:18:06 PM
FulhamStu
How dare you say it's crap, just because you disagree. Then why be stupid enough to buy a player that cannot speak English from a different culture and has never lived in this country, and cost the Kings Ransom he has cost, how daft is that, on that basis you are the one who is talking crap.
As for you missing them dancing in the streets, were you there to say they werent.
I am being realistic, you are in denial.
You don't have to say sorry, you are entitled to your views but so am I.
The reason why there seems to be a divide on this board at times and has turned some of the threads on here a little toxic, is because of mainly one poor little rich boy.
So my advice is to vent your anger at him not little old me.
If you feel myself or many others have become more critical than yourself over the current issues at Fulham on and off the pitch, it is because we care and are passionate and hate to see Fulham in this state, I get no pleasure from it.
When somebody hangs a rat under my nose, I will smell it, and the Recruitment dudes and their leader have done exactly that.
In other words when they have peed on my back and tell me it's raining, then I know my suspicions are founded.
So relax I am not your enemy, so please do not treat me like I am.
I love your passion and know you are very devoted to our football club as many of us on here are. I just get a bit fed up with so many, so over the top posts these days. My term crap is not that heavy mate, I would tell you your talking crap to your face..I could say things a lot more aggressively I can assure you.
.
If you are so fed up with my so called over the top posts, don't read them if it upsets you, because I would not want anything I say to upset you, and I can assure you, you would not be saying anything aggressively to my face, for a start you would need a step ladder, and the first thing you would want to do if you saw me, is cuddle me and offer to buy me a large 🍺 pint.
I shall continue to voice my opinion, whether you think it's over the top or not.
So my advice is for what it's worth is to leave it at that and remain good Fulham Supporters.
Quote from: colinwhite on February 18, 2019, 09:32:49 AM
23 is regarded in football as a young player,not a prospect but nevertheless young .
Not any more I hasten to add, especially after seeing him play.
He couldn't trap a bag of cement.
Any thread that contains the words "Fulham FC" and "Worst Ever Signing", but does not include the words "Mark Cooper" is not taking the subject seriously enough.
Quote from: Two Ton Ted on February 18, 2019, 05:02:18 PM
Any thread that contains the words "Fulham FC" and "Worst Ever Signing", but does not include the words "Mark Cooper" is not taking the subject seriously enough.
this
Quote from: Skatzoffc on February 17, 2019, 07:58:04 PM
Quote from: F(f)CUK on February 16, 2019, 12:02:33 AM
You could get 2 Marlets for 1 Anguissa
Yes but they'd both be dreadful.
Anguissa has more talent in his big toe than Marlet.
Sorry but that is arrant nonsense. Marlet was a very talented and successful wide man. He was not a central striker but it wasn't his fault that the boss insisted on pursuing that strategy (I suspect because of how succcesful Wenger had been with a similar experiment).
Quote from: Two Ton Ted on February 18, 2019, 05:02:18 PM
Any thread that contains the words "Fulham FC" and "Worst Ever Signing", but does not include the words "Mark Cooper" is not taking the subject seriously enough.
How true
Quote from: Twig on February 18, 2019, 08:11:01 PM
Quote from: Two Ton Ted on February 18, 2019, 05:02:18 PM
Any thread that contains the words "Fulham FC" and "Worst Ever Signing", but does not include the words "Mark Cooper" is not taking the subject seriously enough.
How true
Any thread that contains the phase "TK worst footballing brain in history" needs to remember ex England and ex-Aston Villa manager Gregory saying "Stan Collymore is better than Thierry Henry in virtually every department."
Quote from: ALG01 on February 17, 2019, 11:04:46 PM
I agree. What the Marseilles fans said in very many posts and tweets was how talented the young man is but how lacking in his ability to blend as a team player. Their posts also made much of the over inflated price we paid and how they got the better of the deal. For me, Anguisa is a poor signing, to expensive, to unfit and to lacking in his contribution to the team.
I hope, when he is fully fit he may manage to be a bit more effective.
Good post.
It's been blatantly obvious that at the 55-60 minute mark Andre's ability drops off a cliff. He's also not a CDM. He's worse at it than Chambers. Also, at best he's worth half what was paid for him.
I still feel Anguissa will come good in the Championship.
Quote from: AnOldBrownie on February 18, 2019, 09:33:30 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on February 17, 2019, 11:04:46 PM
I agree. What the Marseilles fans said in very many posts and tweets was how talented the young man is but how lacking in his ability to blend as a team player. Their posts also made much of the over inflated price we paid and how they got the better of the deal. For me, Anguisa is a poor signing, to expensive, to unfit and to lacking in his contribution to the team.
I hope, when he is fully fit he may manage to be a bit more effective.
Good post.
It's been blatantly obvious that at the 55-60 minute mark Andre's ability drops off a cliff. He's also not a CDM. He's worse at it than Chambers. Also, at best he's worth half what was paid for him.
I still feel Anguissa will come good in the Championship.
If rumours are correct that Thomas Kalas and Matt Targett transfer prices were getting near £20 million, who are both a little too good for the Championship, but both have struggled to get game time in the premiership. My impression is to get a DECENT Player is costing at least £20 million.
If rumours are correct, the reason we paid so much for Anguissa is Marseille didn't accept FFC earlier offers and that was partly because other teams like Southampton were bidding for him (obviously we out bid them). No doubt what FFC paid Anguissa was overpriced, but given the current market the Seri/MLM package of £30m seems about today inflated prices and Mitrovoic for £20m was an absolute bargain.
Who should FFC have bought? No use saying Anguissa is the biggest ripoff in history, unless better players were available for less. I think Anguissa is a decent Championship or Ligue 1 player, which is all I can say about Thomas Kalas too.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 18, 2019, 11:40:35 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 18, 2019, 08:22:55 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 17, 2019, 11:18:06 PM
FulhamStu
How dare you say it's crap, just because you disagree. Then why be stupid enough to buy a player that cannot speak English from a different culture and has never lived in this country, and cost the Kings Ransom he has cost, how daft is that, on that basis you are the one who is talking crap.
As for you missing them dancing in the streets, were you there to say they werent.
I am being realistic, you are in denial.
You don't have to say sorry, you are entitled to your views but so am I.
The reason why there seems to be a divide on this board at times and has turned some of the threads on here a little toxic, is because of mainly one poor little rich boy.
So my advice is to vent your anger at him not little old me.
If you feel myself or many others have become more critical than yourself over the current issues at Fulham on and off the pitch, it is because we care and are passionate and hate to see Fulham in this state, I get no pleasure from it.
When somebody hangs a rat under my nose, I will smell it, and the Recruitment dudes and their leader have done exactly that.
In other words when they have peed on my back and tell me it's raining, then I know my suspicions are founded.
So relax I am not your enemy, so please do not treat me like I am.
I love your passion and know you are very devoted to our football club as many of us on here are. I just get a bit fed up with so many, so over the top posts these days. My term crap is not that heavy mate, I would tell you your talking crap to your face..I could say things a lot more aggressively I can assure you.
.
If you are so fed up with my so called over the top posts, don't read them if it upsets you, because I would not want anything I say to upset you, and I can assure you, you would not be saying anything aggressively to my face, for a start you would need a step ladder, and the first thing you would want to do if you saw me, is cuddle me and offer to buy me a large 🍺 pint.
I shall continue to voice my opinion, whether you think it's over the top or not.
So my advice is for what it's worth is to leave it at that and remain good Fulham Supporters.
Hahaha, ...nice one, do I assume you have a beard and long hair as well. By the way, I am quite a large gentleman, 6ft 3 but probably lack your hairy ness. Will happily buy you a beer and may even give you a cuddle but would have needed to have drunk a few myself I suspect.
I will read you good posts as well as your not so good posts and debate with you as this is what I thought these forums were designed to do. If we all agreed with each other all the time there would be very little point in it all.
Back to this thread, I want Anguissa to start at West Ham, I would personally try Chambers back at Central Defence hopefully alongside the new guy. Right back I at some point would give Stephen Sess a go, maybe not This Friday but soon. I would definitely only play Mitro and Babel up top with 4 midfield players TC Seri, Frank and Ryan Sess.
Give Anguissa a few games and see what he can do, then we can start this thread all over again !
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 05:45:54 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 18, 2019, 11:40:35 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 18, 2019, 08:22:55 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on February 17, 2019, 11:18:06 PM
FulhamStu
How dare you say it's crap, just because you disagree. Then why be stupid enough to buy a player that cannot speak English from a different culture and has never lived in this country, and cost the Kings Ransom he has cost, how daft is that, on that basis you are the one who is talking crap.
As for you missing them dancing in the streets, were you there to say they werent.
I am being realistic, you are in denial.
You don't have to say sorry, you are entitled to your views but so am I.
The reason why there seems to be a divide on this board at times and has turned some of the threads on here a little toxic, is because of mainly one poor little rich boy.
So my advice is to vent your anger at him not little old me.
If you feel myself or many others have become more critical than yourself over the current issues at Fulham on and off the pitch, it is because we care and are passionate and hate to see Fulham in this state, I get no pleasure from it.
When somebody hangs a rat under my nose, I will smell it, and the Recruitment dudes and their leader have done exactly that.
In other words when they have peed on my back and tell me it's raining, then I know my suspicions are founded.
So relax I am not your enemy, so please do not treat me like I am.
I love your passion and know you are very devoted to our football club as many of us on here are. I just get a bit fed up with so many, so over the top posts these days. My term crap is not that heavy mate, I would tell you your talking crap to your face..I could say things a lot more aggressively I can assure you.
.
If you are so fed up with my so called over the top posts, don't read them if it upsets you, because I would not want anything I say to upset you, and I can assure you, you would not be saying anything aggressively to my face, for a start you would need a step ladder, and the first thing you would want to do if you saw me, is cuddle me and offer to buy me a large 🍺 pint.
I shall continue to voice my opinion, whether you think it's over the top or not.
So my advice is for what it's worth is to leave it at that and remain good Fulham Supporters.
Hahaha, ...nice one, do I assume you have a beard and long hair as well. By the way, I am quite a large gentleman, 6ft 3 but probably lack your hairy ness. Will happily buy you a beer and may even give you a cuddle but would have needed to have drunk a few myself I suspect.
I will read you good posts as well as your not so good posts and debate with you as this is what I thought these forums were designed to do. If we all agreed with each other all the time there would be very little point in it all.
Back to this thread, I want Anguissa to start at West Ham, I would personally try Chambers back at Central Defence hopefully alongside the new guy. Right back I at some point would give Stephen Sess a go, maybe not This Friday but soon. I would definitely only play Mitro and Babel up top with 4 midfield players TC Seri, Frank and Ryan Sess.
Give Anguissa a few games and see what he can do, then we can start this thread all over again !
Just got home from work.
Believe it or not I am clean shaven, and my hair is fairly short.
Amazingly and quite rightly I am pleased to say I agree with your team selection, of Anguissa, Seri, Cairney and Ryan in midfield, with Mitro and Babel up front.
With Chambers back alongside the new CB.
As you say Steve Sess at some stage worth a chance at RB.
Now that midfield cannot do any worse than what we have endured recently, and possibly a lot better.
I was at a football stats event last night and part of it covered transfer fees and how much clubs pay for pkayers relative to turnover.
It transpires that irrespective of the cost its best to look at the percentage againt turnover.
The finding showed that the biggest signing for a club usually comes in at about 17%-19% of turnover. These are the figures for the star('s) of a team.
Good first team starters are usually 10-13% and squad players clearly less than that.
With our expected turnover this year in the region of £120m then our top players should be about the 24m kind of price, which as it turns out is pretty close to what we paid for at least two of the players.
I'll check back but will be interesting to see how much some of our larger signings were in the past.
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 06:50:17 AM
I was at a football stats event last night and part of it covered transfer fees and how much clubs pay for pkayers relative to turnover.
It transpires that irrespective of the cost its best to look at the percentage againt turnover.
The finding showed that the biggest signing for a club usually comes in at about 17%-19% of turnover. These are the figures for the star('s) of a team.
Good first team starters are usually 10-13% and squad players clearly less than that.
With our expected turnover this year in the region of £120m then our top players should be about the 24m kind of price, which as it turns out is pretty close to what we paid for at least two of the players.
I'll check back but will be interesting to see how much some of our larger signings were in the past.
This is the kind of stuff, i would love to know what percentage subs should be priced at. I suspect we didn't spend enough of subs and squad size.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 19, 2019, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 06:50:17 AM
I was at a football stats event last night and part of it covered transfer fees and how much clubs pay for pkayers relative to turnover.
It transpires that irrespective of the cost its best to look at the percentage againt turnover.
The finding showed that the biggest signing for a club usually comes in at about 17%-19% of turnover. These are the figures for the star('s) of a team.
Good first team starters are usually 10-13% and squad players clearly less than that.
With our expected turnover this year in the region of £120m then our top players should be about the 24m kind of price, which as it turns out is pretty close to what we paid for at least two of the players.
I'll check back but will be interesting to see how much some of our larger signings were in the past.
This is the kind of stuff, i would love to know what percentage subs should be priced at. I suspect we didn't spend enough of subs and squad size.
about 3-4% on those type of players who are 9/10/11 on the team sheet.
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 11:16:02 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 19, 2019, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 06:50:17 AM
I was at a football stats event last night and part of it covered transfer fees and how much clubs pay for pkayers relative to turnover.
It transpires that irrespective of the cost its best to look at the percentage againt turnover.
The finding showed that the biggest signing for a club usually comes in at about 17%-19% of turnover. These are the figures for the star('s) of a team.
Good first team starters are usually 10-13% and squad players clearly less than that.
With our expected turnover this year in the region of £120m then our top players should be about the 24m kind of price, which as it turns out is pretty close to what we paid for at least two of the players.
I'll check back but will be interesting to see how much some of our larger signings were in the past.
This is the kind of stuff, i would love to know what percentage subs should be priced at. I suspect we didn't spend enough of subs and squad size.
about 3-4% on those type of players who are 9/10/11 on the team sheet.
So a Premier League Starting XI should cost about £180 million, well that's interesting cause lasts weeks starting XI against man uts only cost 120 million. It seems we need a more investment in the squad.
If first teamers should be 10% then we only have nine of those (Rico, Mawson, Chambers. Anguiissa, Seri, Cairney, Schullre, Mitrovoic and Sessegnon).
If second teamers should be 3% then we only have nine of those (Fabri, TFM, Norveidt, MLM, Bryan, McDonald, Markovic, Vietto, Babel)
If third teamers should be 1% then we only have ten of those (Betts, Christie, Odoi, Ream, Cisse, Johasen, Kebano, Kamara, Forte and Atyie)
Useful we need a £15m right back, centre back and left back; plus a £5m Stiker and a £2n left back
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 19, 2019, 12:25:30 PM
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 11:16:02 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 19, 2019, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 06:50:17 AM
I was at a football stats event last night and part of it covered transfer fees and how much clubs pay for pkayers relative to turnover.
It transpires that irrespective of the cost its best to look at the percentage againt turnover.
The finding showed that the biggest signing for a club usually comes in at about 17%-19% of turnover. These are the figures for the star('s) of a team.
Good first team starters are usually 10-13% and squad players clearly less than that.
With our expected turnover this year in the region of £120m then our top players should be about the 24m kind of price, which as it turns out is pretty close to what we paid for at least two of the players.
I'll check back but will be interesting to see how much some of our larger signings were in the past.
This is the kind of stuff, i would love to know what percentage subs should be priced at. I suspect we didn't spend enough of subs and squad size.
about 3-4% on those type of players who are 9/10/11 on the team sheet.
So a Premier League Starting XI should cost about £180 million, well that's interesting cause lasts weeks starting XI against man uts only cost 120 million. It seems we need a more investment in the squad.
Well i've not looked into like that, but you can on Transfermarket look at what they value a lineup, so lets take Wolves vs newcastle and you have value wise £147M Vs £81M
Ourselves vs Man Utd comes in at £111M vs £408M
Squad values for these four teams are:
Wolves 200M
Newcastle 171M
Fulham 228M
Man Utd 683M
list of each clubs highest value lineup this season
(https://i.ibb.co/6y5FymT/Value.png)
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 12:41:11 PM
list of each clubs highest value lineup this season
(https://i.ibb.co/6y5FymT/Value.png)
This is very interesting. I would add another important statistic and that is how many times, these players have played together. I think if we had our current squad, with key players like Mawson fit, we would be around 13-15th in the league. Sort of a bit better than Palace. I think we just had too much to do and not enough time in which to do it, which is the biggest lessons learned for me from our promotion. Too many loans plus Fred to replace, plus our regular dependables like KMac and StefJo add Ream and a few others, really not good enough. In other words, we required a completely new team and that just gives you an impossible challenge in one close season.
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 12:49:25 PM
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 12:41:11 PM
list of each clubs highest value lineup this season
(https://i.ibb.co/6y5FymT/Value.png)
This is very interesting. I would add another important statistic and that is how many times, these players have played together. I think if we had our current squad, with key players like Mawson fit, we would be around 13-15th in the league. Sort of a bit better than Palace. I think we just had too much to do and not enough time in which to do it, which is the biggest lessons learned for me from our promotion. Too many loans plus Fred to replace, plus our regular dependables like KMac and StefJo add Ream and a few others, really not good enough. In other words, we required a completely new team and that just gives you an impossible challenge in one close season.
(https://i.ibb.co/x5WZk1N/churn.png)
If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well.
Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from. If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?
here are the best value lineups from 2014 when we went down.....
(https://i.ibb.co/cYq9ZWD/2014.png)
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well.
Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from. If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?
A lot of it is guess work, info from fans where they have read stuff and I think majority of fans could disagree with every value on transfer market...BUT it's the best I believe in giving a benchmark/comparison against everyone. It's a level playing field for all teams on how the data and algorithms work.
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 12:57:54 PM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well.
Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from. If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?
A lot of it is guess work, info from fans where they have read stuff and I think majority of fans could disagree with every value on transfer market...BUT it's the best I believe in giving a benchmark/comparison against everyone. It's a level playing field for all teams on how the data and algorithms work.
The values represent what someone is worth in a transfer not how good they are and definitely not how good they are now. Ryan Sessegnon is about the same standard +/- 50% as Ryan Babel for the rest of the season, but it valued more than 7x more long term mostly due his future potential. The other factor is a players like Schullre is on roughly £2 million per years higher wages than Seri, and that alone boost Seri price by £10 million over Schullre. Watford for example don't have a high player value because they have higher wages than Fulham. People talk about transfer fees because they are more often known as wage differences in a club make players jealous.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 19, 2019, 09:23:56 PM
Quote from: MJG on February 19, 2019, 12:57:54 PM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well.
Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from. If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?
A lot of it is guess work, info from fans where they have read stuff and I think majority of fans could disagree with every value on transfer market...BUT it's the best I believe in giving a benchmark/comparison against everyone. It's a level playing field for all teams on how the data and algorithms work.
The values represent what someone is worth in a transfer not how good they are and definitely not how good they are now. Ryan Sessegnon is about the same standard +/- 50% as Ryan Babel for the rest of the season, but it valued more than 7x more long term mostly due his future potential. The other factor is a players like Schullre is on roughly £2 million per years higher wages than Seri, and that alone boost Seri price by £10 million over Schullre. Watford for example don't have a high player value because they have higher wages than Fulham. People talk about transfer fees because they are more often known as wage differences in a club make players jealous.
Values of anything are just the view of the person or corporation purchasing or selling.
My point was this site is the best around to compare clubs. Just as we have Sess another club will have similar.
Personally think we are a good 3-4 places too high in that list of current squad values and I suspect that's because one of the factors is the most recent transfer fee paid. I'd be interested to know, for example, how much Anguissa's perceived value went up purely because some English club was silly enough to pay £30m for him.
Nonetheless I do agree our players are better that our league position suggests.
Surely it's now generally accepted on here that our biggest problem wasn't the players we signed, but when we signed them (too effing late!).
Quote from: Statto on February 19, 2019, 10:02:05 PM
Personally think we are a good 3-4 places too high in that list of current squad values and I suspect that's because one of the factors is the most recent transfer fee paid. I'd be interested to know, for example, how much Anguissa's perceived value up purely because some English club was silly enough to pay £30m for him.
Nonetheless I do agree are players are better that our league position suggests.
Surely it's now generally accepted on here that our biggest problem wasn't the players we signed, but when we signed them (too effing late!).
On the 4th June 2018, Anguissa was already valued at 18 million, because other clubs such as Southampton were interested in him. After FFC bought him, his value went up to 25 million.
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well.
Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from. If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?
The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.
FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.
Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.
Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes
"FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.
Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 03:06:19 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well.
Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from. If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?
The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.
FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.
Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.
Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.
Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).
which is exactly what I said about arguing against every value in it. But every team and fan could do that, so as a barometer for all the teams it's the best your going to get.
It makes sense what we did, we tried to turn ourselves into a mid table squad by spending money... But didn't work.
Also you need to now go and take all the unfit players out of every other team to say we are third lowest is not quite right is it?
Quote from: MJG on February 20, 2019, 05:53:11 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 03:06:19 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well.
Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from. If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?
The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.
FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.
Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.
Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.
Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).
which is exactly what I said about arguing against every value in it. But every team and fan could do that, so as a barometer for all the teams it's the best your going to get.
It makes sense what we did, we tried to turn ourselves into a mid table squad by spending money... But didn't work.
Also you need to now go and take all the unfit players out of every other team to say we are third lowest is not quite right is it?
Your right to say third lowest is not quite right cause i didn't calculate this for other team, but as for injuries I only included "players that were bought injured that are current injured with the same injury (e.g. knee injury)". While there would be on average 4-5 players injuried per team, there is very unlikely to be a team with three players (two of which centre backs) bought injured that are still injured with the same injury.
My real point is not we are the third worst squad in terms of player value, but our squad is not really worth anywhere near what transfermarkt places it. In reality, our squad is not measurable different to other relegation battle teams (other than Hudderfield and Cardiff). We have to accept that we should have won half of the games of Huddersfield, Cardiff, Burnley and Brighton away, so probably 23-30 points maybe reflective of what a squad of our strength should have achieved by this stage.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 07:58:35 AM
Quote from: MJG on February 20, 2019, 05:53:11 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 03:06:19 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well.
Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from. If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?
The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.
FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.
Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.
Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.
Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).
which is exactly what I said about arguing against every value in it. But every team and fan could do that, so as a barometer for all the teams it's the best your going to get.
It makes sense what we did, we tried to turn ourselves into a mid table squad by spending money... But didn't work.
Also you need to now go and take all the unfit players out of every other team to say we are third lowest is not quite right is it?
Your right to say third lowest is not quite right cause i didn't calculate this for other team, but as for injuries I only included "players that were bought injured that are current injured with the same injury (e.g. knee injury)". While there would be on average 4-5 players injuried per team, there is very unlikely to be a team with three players (two of which centre backs) bought injured that are still injured with the same injury.
My real point is not we are the third worst squad in terms of player value, but our squad is not really worth anywhere near what transfermarkt places it. In reality, our squad is not measurable different to other relegation battle teams (other than Hudderfield and Cardiff). We have to accept that we should have beaten Cardiff, Huddersfield and Burnley away, but probably 23-26 points maybe reflective of what a squad of our strength should have achieved by this stage.
I had us possibly 14th before the season started, so we would currently be in that group on 27 points. Just shows really the fine lines in any league.
Quote from: MJG on February 20, 2019, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 07:58:35 AM
Quote from: MJG on February 20, 2019, 05:53:11 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 03:06:19 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well.
Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from. If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?
The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.
FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.
Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.
Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.
Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).
which is exactly what I said about arguing against every value in it. But every team and fan could do that, so as a barometer for all the teams it's the best your going to get.
It makes sense what we did, we tried to turn ourselves into a mid table squad by spending money... But didn't work.
Also you need to now go and take all the unfit players out of every other team to say we are third lowest is not quite right is it?
Your right to say third lowest is not quite right cause i didn't calculate this for other team, but as for injuries I only included "players that were bought injured that are current injured with the same injury (e.g. knee injury)". While there would be on average 4-5 players injuried per team, there is very unlikely to be a team with three players (two of which centre backs) bought injured that are still injured with the same injury.
My real point is not we are the third worst squad in terms of player value, but our squad is not really worth anywhere near what transfermarkt places it. In reality, our squad is not measurable different to other relegation battle teams (other than Hudderfield and Cardiff). We have to accept that we should have beaten Cardiff, Huddersfield and Burnley away, but probably 23-26 points maybe reflective of what a squad of our strength should have achieved by this stage.
I had us possibly 14th before the season started, so we would currently be in that group on 27 points. Just shows really the fine lines in any league.
Watford, Cardiff and Liverpool are doing 9 points better than i expected, while FFC is doing 9 points worse. I expected to a tough relegation battle between six teams for the final relegation place (with both Cardiff and Huddersfield booking their place very early in the season after losing to us at their home games).
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 07:58:35 AM
Quote from: MJG on February 20, 2019, 05:53:11 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 03:06:19 AM
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 19, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
If you take our Anguissa and Mawson, who have been injured so much, I guess that number reduces as well.
Mike, you know far better than me, I often wonder where these player values come from. If it's the amount they are tranferred for, how do they work that out when Fulham always state undisclosed ?
The figure that the squad is worth €254m is totally nonsense, according to these figures Fulham FC should be 10th in the table. But a more realistic value is €169m, which places FFC as the 18th most expensive squad in the premier league.
FFC squad value is inflated because transfermarkt incorrect believes that i) FFC has underpaid in acquiring players by €61 million (which includes Sessegnon, Cairney, Betts, Anguissa, Seri, Mitrovoic and others) and ii) that the €24 million of injured players acquired (Mawson, Nordtveit, Markovic) should be included in squad value now rather than when they get fit.
Hence, I think that €254m should be adjusted to €169m (€254m -€61m -€24m): i) to assume FFC players are not worth €61m more than FFC paid for them and ii) to assume that €24 million of players that joined injured are not included until fit.
Just these two adjustment place the value of the squad at €169m, which makes "FFC the third smallest value squad in the premier league". Frankly, its not surprising we are where we are with the third smallest squad value in the league.
Which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).
which is exactly what I said about arguing against every value in it. But every team and fan could do that, so as a barometer for all the teams it's the best your going to get.
It makes sense what we did, we tried to turn ourselves into a mid table squad by spending money... But didn't work.
Also you need to now go and take all the unfit players out of every other team to say we are third lowest is not quite right is it?
Your right to say third lowest is not quite right cause i didn't calculate this for other team, but as for injuries I only included "players that were bought injured that are current injured with the same injury (e.g. knee injury)". While there would be on average 4-5 players injuried per team, there is very unlikely to be a team with three players (two of which centre backs) bought injured that are still injured with the same injury.
My real point is not we are the third worst squad in terms of player value, but our squad is not really worth anywhere near what transfermarkt places it. In reality, our squad is not measurable different to other relegation battle teams (other than Hudderfield and Cardiff). We have to accept that we should have won half of the games of Huddersfield, Cardiff, Burnley and Brighton away, so probably 23-30 points maybe reflective of what a squad of our strength should have achieved by this stage.
While Mawson has a knee injury currently, and although I acknowledge that it may (doesn't have to) be indirectly related to the injury he had when he joined, it is in fact not the same injury. Thus, I believe the reasoning in that regard is flawed.
More on point though, I believe that most would agree that we are under performing relative to our perceived squad strength by at least a bit. We should definitely at least be right up in the scramble with those team about 7-10 points above us. However, that is on squad strength measured by summarizing the individual players. It is of course also very relevant to look at other aspects such as familiarity with teammates, a department in which we were lacking hugely to start the season. This is of course nothing new, as many other have pointed out that a big part of our problem comes from starting the season with a half new squad, with the added problem of most players arriving late in the window.
Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.
I guess my point is that I agree that it is normally a fine line between relative success and failure. When under performing like we have done this season, we would definitely have needed lady luck on our side.
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 20, 2019, 09:28:27 AM
Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.
Would be interested to see the original post but personally I don't attach much value to expected goals. Strikes me as a bit of a fad which people like Tony Khan can use to claim they know more about football.
As far as I'm aware, the expected goals metric doesn't factor in player quality which seems a pretty fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, a poor striker will fail to score from opportunities they were (disregarding their quality) expected to score from, a poor GK will let in shots he was expected to save, etc.
I also suspect we look particularly bad on that metric because we often have a decent share of possession (Jokanovic's legacy) so should be controlling games, but we lack the guile up front or the resilience at the back to make any use of that.
Yet another factor is we have good or very good midfield players and forwards. BUT we have crap defenders for this league. To put it another way, we are an unbalanced squad. We could have all the best strikers in the world, and be the most expensive team on paper but with a div 2 midfield and defence still get relegated.
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 20, 2019, 12:11:27 PM
Yet another factor is we have good or very good midfield players and forwards. BUT we have crap defenders for this league. To put it another way, we are an unbalanced squad. We could have all the best strikers in the world, and be the most expensive team on paper but with a div 2 midfield and defence still get relegated.
We started the season with TFM, Chambers, Mawson and Sessegnon all rated as Premier League Defenders, plus Ream and Bryan as two of the best Championship defenders last season both deserving of a more difficult challenge.
Outside the top six defenders were Christie, Odoi and MLM who were meant to fight for a place on the bench or if they massively improved make the first team, but they made it without improving.
Quote from: FulhamStu on February 20, 2019, 12:11:27 PM
Yet another factor is we have good or very good midfield players and forwards. BUT we have crap defenders for this league. To put it another way, we are an unbalanced squad. We could have all the best strikers in the world, and be the most expensive team on paper but with a div 2 midfield and defence still get relegated.
My emphasis to your post, FulhamStu, is, IMO, the key to everything about what recruitment needs to do - find team work potential at every position and every level of quality. Is there a statistic for that other than looking at players who have contributed to team successes such as being ever present winning or unbeaten runs, promotion, trophy winning and cup runs? The starting place was looking at the quality and contributions of all the players in the promotion squad and finding better where better was needed.
Last seasons misfits became good fits and that was down to the players and the coaching regime.
Quote from: Statto on February 20, 2019, 10:36:38 AM
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 20, 2019, 09:28:27 AM
Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.
Would be interested to see the original post but personally I don't attach much value to expected goals. Strikes me as a bit of a fad which people like Tony Khan can use to claim they know more about football.
As far as I'm aware, the expected goals metric doesn't factor in player quality which seems a pretty fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, a poor striker will fail to score from opportunities they were (disregarding their quality) expected to score from, a poor GK will let in shots he was expected to save, etc.
I also suspect we look particularly bad on that metric because we often have a decent share of possession (Jokanovic's legacy) so should be controlling games, but we lack the guile up front or the resilience at the back to make any use of that.
I agree that such stats shouldn't be given too much weight, but nevertheless I believe they can be interesting. And I don't know if it is really a fundamental flaw in my opinion that they don't factor in player quality. I mean, there is a difference in creating a chance and finishing it. I assume we would have to look at the average finisher at the level in question.
To simplify something that of course is not even close to so simple: If a team is creating enough good chances so that average players should score a certain amount of goals then the reasoning can be that the team has bad luck if the data is over a short period of time. The alternative explanation is of course that the players are not good enough, or rather below average. The more data over a longer period where the results don't change would suggest the latter, namely that the players are not good enough.
Now, I am not sure where I am going with this... In any case, the stats (if they are accurate) may at least be one indicator that we are not playing quite as bad as our results suggest (still bad though). However, some may also say that the proof is in the pudding.
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 20, 2019, 12:55:30 PM
Quote from: Statto on February 20, 2019, 10:36:38 AM
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 20, 2019, 09:28:27 AM
Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.
Would be interested to see the original post but personally I don't attach much value to expected goals. Strikes me as a bit of a fad which people like Tony Khan can use to claim they know more about football.
As far as I'm aware, the expected goals metric doesn't factor in player quality which seems a pretty fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, a poor striker will fail to score from opportunities they were (disregarding their quality) expected to score from, a poor GK will let in shots he was expected to save, etc.
I also suspect we look particularly bad on that metric because we often have a decent share of possession (Jokanovic's legacy) so should be controlling games, but we lack the guile up front or the resilience at the back to make any use of that.
I agree that such stats shouldn't be given too much weight, but nevertheless I believe they can be interesting. And I don't know if it is really a fundamental flaw in my opinion that they don't factor in player quality. I mean, there is a difference in creating a chance and finishing it. I assume we would have to look at the average finisher at the level in question.
To simplify something that of course is not even close to so simple: If a team is creating enough good chances so that average players should score a certain amount of goals then the reasoning can be that the team has bad luck if the data is over a short period of time. The alternative explanation is of course that the players are not good enough, or rather below average. The more data over a longer period where the results don't change would suggest the latter, namely that the players are not good enough.
Now, I am not sure where I am going with this... In any case, the stats (if they are accurate) may at least be one indicator that we are not playing quite as bad as our results suggest (still bad though). However, some may also say that the proof is in the pudding.
Its a form indicator in many ways. A shot from a penalty usually has about a 0.78 expected goal. If Mitrovic for example missed two in a row he would be -1.56 and you could say hes off form, or its an indicator hes not skillful enough to take a penalty.
Just as Schurlle likes to shoot from out the box, the actual expeted goal is very low. How many times do you shout "What are you shooting from there for?" then again maybe its because all you hear are fans shouting "Shoooooooot" from stupid distances when the odds on scoring are so bloody low.
Quote from: MJG on February 20, 2019, 01:07:45 PM
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 20, 2019, 12:55:30 PM
Quote from: Statto on February 20, 2019, 10:36:38 AM
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 20, 2019, 09:28:27 AM
Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.
Would be interested to see the original post but personally I don't attach much value to expected goals. Strikes me as a bit of a fad which people like Tony Khan can use to claim they know more about football.
As far as I'm aware, the expected goals metric doesn't factor in player quality which seems a pretty fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, a poor striker will fail to score from opportunities they were (disregarding their quality) expected to score from, a poor GK will let in shots he was expected to save, etc.
I also suspect we look particularly bad on that metric because we often have a decent share of possession (Jokanovic's legacy) so should be controlling games, but we lack the guile up front or the resilience at the back to make any use of that.
I agree that such stats shouldn't be given too much weight, but nevertheless I believe they can be interesting. And I don't know if it is really a fundamental flaw in my opinion that they don't factor in player quality. I mean, there is a difference in creating a chance and finishing it. I assume we would have to look at the average finisher at the level in question.
To simplify something that of course is not even close to so simple: If a team is creating enough good chances so that average players should score a certain amount of goals then the reasoning can be that the team has bad luck if the data is over a short period of time. The alternative explanation is of course that the players are not good enough, or rather below average. The more data over a longer period where the results don't change would suggest the latter, namely that the players are not good enough.
Now, I am not sure where I am going with this... In any case, the stats (if they are accurate) may at least be one indicator that we are not playing quite as bad as our results suggest (still bad though). However, some may also say that the proof is in the pudding.
Its a form indicator in many ways. A shot from a penalty usually has about a 0.78 expected goal. If Mitrovic for example missed two in a row he would be -1.56 and you could say hes off form, or its an indicator hes not skillful enough to take a penalty.
Just as Schurlle likes to shoot from out the box, the actual expeted goal is very low. How many times do you shout "What are you shooting from there for?" then again maybe its because all you hear are fans shouting "Shoooooooot" from stupid distances when the odds on scoring are so bloody low.
A "form indicator" - i agree that use sounds reasonable.
For me it's a useful but limited tool, again like possession. Yes having more possession usually means you deserve to win but we know from several poor spells under Jokanovic over the years that some teams will let you have possession if they know that they can do more damage with 10% possession than you can do with 90% possession, and a lack of success in those circumstances is nothing to do with "bad luck"
Quote from: Statto on February 20, 2019, 02:21:54 PM
Quote from: MJG on February 20, 2019, 01:07:45 PM
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 20, 2019, 12:55:30 PM
Quote from: Statto on February 20, 2019, 10:36:38 AM
Quote from: Sting of the North on February 20, 2019, 09:28:27 AM
Notwithstanding all of the above however, someone in another thread I believe mentioned our expected goals for and against. In both cases we have done worse than the chances created would indicate (i.e. scoring less than we should and conceding more than we should based on respective teams general play on the field). This means that our performances during the season should (based on those statistics one might add) have resulted in more points. Thus, we could be said to have had more than our fair share of bad luck. I believe though that when you have "bad luck" over an extended period of time that you should probably look at other factors as well since luck would presumably even out over time.
Would be interested to see the original post but personally I don't attach much value to expected goals. Strikes me as a bit of a fad which people like Tony Khan can use to claim they know more about football.
As far as I'm aware, the expected goals metric doesn't factor in player quality which seems a pretty fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, a poor striker will fail to score from opportunities they were (disregarding their quality) expected to score from, a poor GK will let in shots he was expected to save, etc.
I also suspect we look particularly bad on that metric because we often have a decent share of possession (Jokanovic's legacy) so should be controlling games, but we lack the guile up front or the resilience at the back to make any use of that.
I agree that such stats shouldn't be given too much weight, but nevertheless I believe they can be interesting. And I don't know if it is really a fundamental flaw in my opinion that they don't factor in player quality. I mean, there is a difference in creating a chance and finishing it. I assume we would have to look at the average finisher at the level in question.
To simplify something that of course is not even close to so simple: If a team is creating enough good chances so that average players should score a certain amount of goals then the reasoning can be that the team has bad luck if the data is over a short period of time. The alternative explanation is of course that the players are not good enough, or rather below average. The more data over a longer period where the results don't change would suggest the latter, namely that the players are not good enough.
Now, I am not sure where I am going with this... In any case, the stats (if they are accurate) may at least be one indicator that we are not playing quite as bad as our results suggest (still bad though). However, some may also say that the proof is in the pudding.
Its a form indicator in many ways. A shot from a penalty usually has about a 0.78 expected goal. If Mitrovic for example missed two in a row he would be -1.56 and you could say hes off form, or its an indicator hes not skillful enough to take a penalty.
Just as Schurlle likes to shoot from out the box, the actual expeted goal is very low. How many times do you shout "What are you shooting from there for?" then again maybe its because all you hear are fans shouting "Shoooooooot" from stupid distances when the odds on scoring are so bloody low.
A "form indicator" - i agree that use sounds reasonable.
For me it's a useful but limited tool, again like possession. Yes having more possession usually means you deserve to win but we know from several poor spells under Jokanovic over the years that some teams will let you have possession if they know that they can do more damage with 10% possession than you can do with 90% possession, and a lack of success in those circumstances is nothing to do with "bad luck"
Possession over the long term works and can been seen time and time again, but i read (but can I find it again...no) a great article that expelined how you can have too much possession, and we fell into that with Joka especally last season early on. I did a run of stats that showed how we dropped a few possesion points and started creating more chances.
I like expected goals, but more the timelines that some stats groups produce, they give a better understanding on how a game and can ebb and flow, and who did have the better chances.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 03:06:19 AM
which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).
Value of the fit loan players 52m, you are having a laugh, please provide a breakdown and I know it isn't your valuation!
Quote from: davew on February 20, 2019, 04:55:18 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 03:06:19 AM
which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).
Value of the fit loan players 52m, you are having a laugh, please provide a breakdown and I know it isn't your valuation!
you might not agree but with a going rate of ten million plus for these type of players, Rico, Chambers, Schurrle would reach in region of 25-30m for starters. You then have 22m signing from Liverpool, Babel has a value, TFM, it all adds up.
Quote from: MJG on February 20, 2019, 05:08:21 PM
Quote from: davew on February 20, 2019, 04:55:18 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on February 20, 2019, 03:06:19 AM
which should be no surprise as we only paid €117m for the fit players we have in the squad (not including unfit Mawson and those on loan) and this also values the fit loan players (Chambers, Schullre, Rico, Vietto & TFM) about €52m (about correct).
Value of the fit loan players 52m, you are having a laugh, please provide a breakdown and I know it isn't your valuation!
you might not agree but with a going rate of ten million plus for these type of players, Rico, Chambers, Schurrle would reach in region of 25-30m for starters. You then have 22m signing from Liverpool, Babel has a value, TFM, it all adds up.
Being an accountant (retired) yes I can agree it adds up 30+22 = 52m, do I think they are worth 52m, obviously not!!
Yes he is be a very large margin.
Eric Dyer is rated at £36m, but FFC would need to pay £52m+ to get him and frankly he is good but not world class. At those prices Chambers must be worth at least £18m and we'd have to pay at least £26m. You talk like we paid the earth for Anguissa and Seri, but they are both half the price of Eric Dyer.
Transfermarkt rated Anguissa as a £16m midfielder a few months before we bought him and it's hard for FFC to get players at their transfermarkt value. Jokavoic said in August we need cover for McDonald and Anguissa should have been good cover this season and a long term solution in following seasons.
In fact transfermarkt says if FFC wanted a English Defensive Midfield under 28 years old at or below Anguissa price range for Fulham, are best affordable options were Nathaniel Chalobah, Isaac Hayden Ryan Woods and Kalvin Phillips. Some of which may have played better than Anguissa this season, but not by much and all of them are extremely limited players.
It's brings another point which many overlook as well.
As a team progresses up the League's the pool of players they realistically can target gets smaller.
Yes a PL team outside the top six can probably buy any player in the world. But the quality required shrinks that group of players. If you want a CDM how many are there you can pick up from the teams available? It's unlikely you would look at championship beyond maybe teams in top six of which three got promoted. Would you look in Scotland beyond Celtic. In Germany/Italy/Spain you could probably look at majority of teams outside the big clubs. But of course every team has a mix of players, some who might not fit the criteria we need.
Looking for a CDM worldwide to join us in the summer.... Maybe 10-20 at a guess?
Quote from: MJG on February 21, 2019, 06:08:01 AM
It's brings another point which many overlook as well.
As a team progresses up the League's the pool of players they realistically can target gets smaller.
Yes a PL team outside the top six can probably buy any player in the world. But the quality required shrinks that group of players. If you want a CDM how many are there you can pick up from the teams available? It's unlikely you would look at championship beyond maybe teams in top six of which three got promoted. Would you look in Scotland beyond Celtic. In Germany/Italy/Spain you could probably look at majority of teams outside the big clubs. But of course every team has a mix of players, some who might not fit the criteria we need.
Looking for a CDM worldwide to join us in the summer.... Maybe 10-20 at a guess?
Madness. I'd assume the average club has more than one CDM, say 1.5 for the sake of argument (although I reckon even that's low) and how many teams globally have a squad that's better than a good Championship team and at the standard required to finish 17th in the PL - say 80? So that would give you 120 CDMs to choose from.
Let's not forget we clearly weren't looking for an exact match for our tactics - it's been acknowledged that Anguissa was used to playing in a system with two DMs, for example.
I believe the notional rule of 'shrinking options as price increases' is present in much of the commercial world, as is seen from the related rule in an auction for a work of art where 'price increases because of rarity of opportunity'. I also believe current information technology, data sharing, media interest, commercial ventures and sponsorship deals, make it much more difficult to 'keep secrets' and/or 'misdirect interest', but also encourages 'exaggeration or embellishment' of potential rather than actual delivery of the goods. Hence risk is increased as clubs watch out for each other as they try to accurately assess the moment when that embellished potential turns to reality and the fastest predatory mover will win the race to dinner.
But what of the players with potential off the radar completely, the late developer, the lazy talent, who suddenly gets lively which must be much harder to find but much easier to keep to yourself if you do find one. Perhaps the most successful finders of talent are the ones who work the hardest and don't just rely on information technology, data sharing, media interest all or most of the time just to make a name for themselves (and a lot of money perhaps) as being the person who found 'x'. Just because everything is big business doesn't necessarily mean there are not jewels to be found playing on a piss poor pitch on a Sunday morning.
Quote from: Statto on February 21, 2019, 07:53:03 AM
Quote from: MJG on February 21, 2019, 06:08:01 AM
It's brings another point which many overlook as well.
As a team progresses up the League's the pool of players they realistically can target gets smaller.
Yes a PL team outside the top six can probably buy any player in the world. But the quality required shrinks that group of players. If you want a CDM how many are there you can pick up from the teams available? It's unlikely you would look at championship beyond maybe teams in top six of which three got promoted. Would you look in Scotland beyond Celtic. In Germany/Italy/Spain you could probably look at majority of teams outside the big clubs. But of course every team has a mix of players, some who might not fit the criteria we need.
Looking for a CDM worldwide to join us in the summer.... Maybe 10-20 at a guess?
Madness. I'd assume the average club has more than one CDM, say 1.5 for the sake of argument (although I reckon even that's low) and how many teams globally have a squad that's better than a good Championship team and at the standard required to finish 17th in the PL - say 80? So that would give you 120 CDMs to choose from.
Let's not forget we clearly weren't looking for an exact match for our tactics - it's been acknowledged that Anguissa was used to playing in a system with two DMs, for example.
But you are not going to pick up a 'good' CDM from Barcelona are you? Maybe on loan?
if you look at current world club ranking (there are a few around to choose from) Sheff utd are rated 99 in the world (we are currently 131) so lets say that stays there.
You are looking for a CDM to be able to play at PL level. How far down the championship would you go? We went for Bryan as a LB who was pretty much rated in top 3 or 5 of most LB's in the Championship. Has he been shown to be good enough?
So as you take out say the top 30 clubs friom around the worldwhat are you left with 70-100 maybe. You want a CDM that in maybe 70 clubs above you are the first choice in their team if hes going to make a difference. lets say half are not sellers. 35-50 clubs you can do buisness with. Age might come into reducing that, fee might, scounting will take that down and yes stats.
A PL team of our standing or outside the top 6 because of money can pick up many good players, maybe not the cream but very good. On the flip side you are not going to go hunting in L1 really are you (waits for someone to throw Vardy at me, a random rare find)? So as I say the number reduce. Now I did that post a bit rushed but i was just trying to make a generic piont that the options reduce.
MJG I agree with most of those points, including the point you make about not realistically targeting players from Barcelona etc, but then I don't understand your fundamental point "As a team progresses up the League's the pool of players they realistically can target gets smaller." A league 2 club is not realistically going to be able to sign players from a "bigger" club like Luton, nor are they going to look at the lower half of the conference, so they have the same sized 'window' of peer clubs and they're going to have all the other issues you mention such as other clubs not wanting to do business. So I don't see why our position is any more difficult than any other club's, at any level in any league.
Quote from: MJG on February 21, 2019, 08:18:01 AM
Quote from: Statto on February 21, 2019, 07:53:03 AM
Quote from: MJG on February 21, 2019, 06:08:01 AM
It's brings another point which many overlook as well.
As a team progresses up the League's the pool of players they realistically can target gets smaller.
Yes a PL team outside the top six can probably buy any player in the world. But the quality required shrinks that group of players. If you want a CDM how many are there you can pick up from the teams available? It's unlikely you would look at championship beyond maybe teams in top six of which three got promoted. Would you look in Scotland beyond Celtic. In Germany/Italy/Spain you could probably look at majority of teams outside the big clubs. But of course every team has a mix of players, some who might not fit the criteria we need.
Looking for a CDM worldwide to join us in the summer.... Maybe 10-20 at a guess?
Madness. I'd assume the average club has more than one CDM, say 1.5 for the sake of argument (although I reckon even that's low) and how many teams globally have a squad that's better than a good Championship team and at the standard required to finish 17th in the PL - say 80? So that would give you 120 CDMs to choose from.
Let's not forget we clearly weren't looking for an exact match for our tactics - it's been acknowledged that Anguissa was used to playing in a system with two DMs, for example.
But you are not going to pick up a 'good' CDM from Barcelona are you? Maybe on loan?
if you look at current world club ranking (there are a few around to choose from) Sheff utd are rated 99 in the world (we are currently 131) so lets say that stays there.
You are looking for a CDM to be able to play at PL level. How far down the championship would you go? We went for Bryan as a LB who was pretty much rated in top 3 or 5 of most LB's in the Championship. Has he been shown to be good enough?
So as you take out say the top 30 clubs friom around the worldwhat are you left with 70-100 maybe. You want a CDM that in maybe 70 clubs above you are the first choice in their team if hes going to make a difference. lets say half are not sellers. 35-50 clubs you can do buisness with. Age might come into reducing that, fee might, scounting will take that down and yes stats.
A PL team of our standing or outside the top 6 because of money can pick up many good players, maybe not the cream but very good. On the flip side you are not going to go hunting in L1 really are you (waits for someone to throw Vardy at me, a random rare find)? So as I say the number reduce. Now I did that post a bit rushed but i was just trying to make a generic piont that the options reduce.
You mentioned Joe Bryan who is not quite upto the standand required for a first XI left back in a team that stays up. FFC could have afforded to spend more, but of the more expensive options theones in the FFC price range were Ashley Young (more money for an older player maybe not wise) and Matt Targett (his club made him expensive). Meaning FFC only real options was someone outside the Premier League and as we had used most of the non-homegrown quota, getting Joe Bryan a homegrown championship left-back may have been FFCs best option. Unfortunately, its just not good enough to stay up.
Quote from: Statto on February 21, 2019, 09:03:29 AM
MJG I agree with most of those points, including the point you make about not realistically targeting players from Barcelona etc, but then I don't understand you're original point "As a team progresses up the League's the pool of players they realistically can target gets smaller." A league 2 club is not realistically going to be able to sign players from a "bigger" club like Luton, and they're going to have all the other issues you mention such as other clubs not wanting to do business. So I don't see why our position is any more difficult than any other club's, at any level in any league.
The pool of quality who willmake a difference shrinks would you agree with that?
A L1 side could loan a PL player who quality wise should be better than they usually sign.
Quote from: MJG on February 21, 2019, 09:06:36 AM
Quote from: Statto on February 21, 2019, 09:03:29 AM
MJG I agree with most of those points, including the point you make about not realistically targeting players from Barcelona etc, but then I don't understand you're original point "As a team progresses up the League's the pool of players they realistically can target gets smaller." A league 2 club is not realistically going to be able to sign players from a "bigger" club like Luton, and they're going to have all the other issues you mention such as other clubs not wanting to do business. So I don't see why our position is any more difficult than any other club's, at any level in any league.
The pool of quality who willmake a difference shrinks would you agree with that?
A L1 side could loan a PL player who quality wise should be better than they usually sign.
Well put, because the real question is "Purchased Player Quality for £100m" vs "Available Player Quality Pool for FFC to buy".
With the massive exception of buying "Bargain" Mitrovoic, we nearly all agree that the "Purchased Player Quality" was very ordinary.
But while I agree the "purchased player quality" was poor, I have no evidence that the "available quality" was much better.
Only Kalas, Targett and Norwood to my knowledge were disappointed not to have joined us, but they were all highly priced too.
There is a simple problem these days, the big six have most of the best 150 premier league players, the next 11 that stayed up normally have around 100 premier league quality between them and we all fight over the rest in the transfer market. This outside the top six, FFC was the most active at bring quality into the premier league, but as the league is so strong existing talent is better.
It seems the only real way to crack the premier league is build a squad in the chamionship that can compete defensively in the premier league once promored. Slavisa didn't do this, probably because he was instructed just get us into premier league before parchate payments run out anyway possible. He did his job, but next year we should aim for promotion with a partially premier league ready squad.
Quote from: MJG on February 21, 2019, 09:06:36 AM
The pool of quality who willmake a difference shrinks would you agree with that?
Yes.
But the level of players within your reach expands proportionately.
Again to use a newly-promoted Luton as an example, let's say for the sake of argument that their quality range is from the top 6 of League 1 upwards, but players above the middle of the Championship are probably out of their reach. I don't see how that's any broader than our current range, which is probably the better part of the championship up through the lesser half of the PL.
Actually I think you can make the case that it's easier for us because we can easily target players abroad. Can Luton afford to scout the French second and third tiers? Is data even compiled and made available in those divisions? Can Luton afford to bring a player over from France or Spain on a chopper for a medical? So actually they may be limited to the English leagues and the bands I just mentioned, which suggests to me that the marketplace is likely to be even tighter and more competitive at a lower level than at our current level.
Quote from: Statto on February 21, 2019, 09:55:32 AM
Quote from: MJG on February 21, 2019, 09:06:36 AM
The pool of quality who willmake a difference shrinks would you agree with that?
Yes.
But the level of players within your reach expands proportionately.
Again to use a newly-promoted Luton as an example, let's say for the sake of argument that their quality range is from the top 6 of League 1 upwards, but players above the middle of the Championship are probably out of their reach. I don't see how that's any broader than our current range, which is probably the better part of the championship up through the lesser half of the PL.
Actually I think you can make the case that it's easier for us because we can easily target players abroad. Can Luton afford to scout the French second and third tiers? Is data even compiled and made available in those divisions? Can Luton afford to bring a player over from France or Spain on a chopper for a medical? So actually they may be limited to the English leagues and the bands I just mentioned, which suggests to me that the marketplace is likely to be even tighter and more competitive at a lower level than at our current level.
I think the talent pool is a valid argument for FFC Top First XI, but there are a few 100 of players worldwide better than our less expensive players such as Kebano, Christie, Odoi, Vietto and Cisse etc. We should have really beefed up the bench and squad there, so if we don't have real quality at least we have real squad depth (FFC squad over 21 year old was only 22 players from Sep-Dec).
Straight away Fotheringham came to mind & surely he must be the worst - from the worst ever Manager.Then there's the legendary Ahmad Elrich, well below the required standard & of course the great Sanchez capture of Shefti Kuqi!!
Quote from: Bracken White on February 21, 2019, 10:36:04 AM
Straight away Fotheringham came to mind & surely he must be the worst - from the worst ever Manager.Then there's the legendary Ahmad Elrich, well below the required standard & of course the great Sanchez capture of Shefti Kuqi!!
I think you may have forgot to add the financial aspects of those deals to your reasoning. While in my opinion not good acquisitions by any stretch of the imagination, surely neither of those signings had any significant impact on the club's economy short or long term?
Following on from the discussion below i took one of the many football team ranking lists and created this to compare where each of the team in the league compare to each other based on results and other stats.
(https://i.ibb.co/p37L6tV/Table-of-teams.png)
Come on Zambo!
Anguissa started with his usual 50% application then grew and Cairney moved into a midfield role he is familiar with, so we improved after a while. Anguissa has ability just lacks work-rate. But he suits Tom Cairney rather than Seri.
And Markovic was worse than Sess.
Quote from: Nick Bateman on February 22, 2019, 09:38:53 PM
Anguissa started with his usual 50% application then grew and Cairney moved into a midfield role he is familiar with, so we improved after a while. Anguissa has ability just lacks work-rate. But he suits Tom Cairney rather than Seri.
And Markovic was worse than Sess.
thought he played well tonight.
He was OK but missed every header. OK is not good enough.
Thought he did quite well connecting play with his passing. Defensively less solid.
Quote from: Milo on February 22, 2019, 09:44:34 PM
Thought he did quite well connecting play with his passing. Defensively less solid.
less solid than Seri?
He better pay for being so poor this season and try and make up for it in the championship next year. If not he truly is a w@nker
I wouldn't even want him in the championship. We have a better player in McDonald
Let's be honest, the main reason he made any difference was because we moved TC into a more central role at that stage. Zambo's own performance was nothing special.
