I think it's finally dawning on me

[HatterDon]

I've been trying to figure out the following since the end of last season:

Despite the fact that we're supposed to be getting the squad younger, we keep signing 30+ players.
Despite the fact that we're going for continuity and consistency, most of the players we signed this summer were either on loan or on one year contracts.

I couldn't figure out how this made sense until it finally dawned on me. MAF is looking for a buyer. Older players with short term contracts aren't going to affect the balance of a new buyer. There is considered to be enough talent in this squad to keep us up without investing any more money in new contracts. For that reason, it's a gamble to buy -- especially when you're presenting a [relatively] low-risk investment opportunity to a potential buyer. This goes a long way to explain why we didn't do much in the summer to beef up the midfield even though plans were obviously afoot from the end of last season to send three midfielders on their way [Dempsey, Murphy, Etuhu].

Players who are still in their prime and who are front-line players should not be given long-term contracts because that would contribute to a long-term expenditure obligation that a new buyer may not wish to inherit. This goes a long way towards explaining why Dempsey and Hangeland weren't offered the long-term contracts they were seeking.

With the one-season 30+ on the books, even a relegation wouldn't be a major problem. Despite the fact that we have very few veterans with long-term contracts, we'd still get the parachute payments as if we did. This would be an infusion of income for the new buyer. And, I'd bet you several houses that Berbatov's contract allows him free agency should we be relegated.

So, it all makes sense to me now. If we can hold on and finish 17th, we'll start next season with a new owner, a new manager, and -- hopefully -- a BUTTLOAD of new players. If we can't, we'll try to do well in the championship with the new owner, new manager and all the young talent we have at the club but that we're giving scant opportunities to now.

Yes, it makes sense to me. I don't like it, but it makes sense to me.

[MisfitKid]

Wow, go get 'em Don.   086.gif

[Berserker]

That thought crossed my mind when he went and got the planning permission to expand the stadium. You don't have to build once you have the planning permission but it makes you property more valuable, especially if you are thinking of selling. Somethings a bit odd of late

[YankeeJim]

If I hit the Lotto I'll be over to take the club off of the chairman's hands. I'll also buy FOF and make it the offical forum for the club. All existing moderators (except one) will get large salaries to continue their good work.

[Fletchino]

Also wasn't MAF the only person who doesn't want new rules in place for football club owners.

[TonyGilroy]

What's wrong with that analysis is the simple notion that the better we are doing the more attractive we are to a buyer.

We got the summer transfer window badly wrong but I don't draw any conclusions from that except that there's a desperate need to put that right next month.

Not giving older players long contracts is simply financial sense. Murphy may have wanted a two year contract but his performances at Blackburn show that he can't handle this season let alone next and let's not forget the many woeful away performances with Murphy, Dempsey et al in the team.

There are genuine concerns about Jol's motivational abilities but his long experience and comparative success shows that he's no fool.

As for MAF the simple truth is that no owner could have been better for the club. I simply don't accept that he's risking our Premier League status to cut costs and find a vbuyer. Illogical and out of character.

Saturday was though the pits and we're entitled to say so and feel badly let down.

[Andy S]

More likely to be wants the transfer money to pay for the new stand.
Louis Saha paid for the redevelopment of the ground before, ie Putney end and Hammy end. The clue will be if the work starts this summer or not

[LRCN]

as i understand it, absolutely not the case.

[RaySmith]

It's difficult to run a Prem team in these times, unless you are owned by a Sheik or a dodgy Russian billionaire.

We have bought older players in on short term loans because that is who is available - and obviously Jol feels we can't just rely on our youth, despite his expressed intention to lower the age of the squad - and he has done more than seceding managers to bring young  players into the team and squad.

I don't think MAF, who is responsible for us being in the  Prem, and staying there, is playing games at all - but he has probably put pressure on management to try to cut costs - but having  said that he has still provided money for new players such as Ruiz and Berba, etc.

[cottage cheese]

im sure its his son that is soon to take over the entire fortune? Isnt he on the board already? From what Ive been told hes a keen supporter. What are the chances of him just stepping into his father's shoes and carrying on?

[west kowloon white]

From the land of conspiracy theories-only a few months to discover if this contrived theory is true or not-total closure-crap or amazing foresight from flimsy evidence-we will soon know.

[LRCN]

im sure its his son that is soon to take over the entire fortune? Isnt he on the board already? From what Ive been told hes a keen supporter. What are the chances of him just stepping into his father's shoes and carrying on?

this is exactly what's happening. fulham will stay with the fayeds - and with the investment in the academy and the stand, and the transfer budget we have (and did not spend) they are securing the long term future of the club. fact.

[bill taylors apprentice]

Your theory sounds plausible except its been the way the club has been operated for some time.
In addition the many experienced players brought in by Sanchez and then Hodgson to steady the ship and establish ourselves in the PL has run its course and left us with an unhealthy average age.  

[west kowloon white]

Jol out,Berbatov leaving  , planning permission conivance,now Fayed(s)out too-brilliant-will have forgotten Sat in no time-team to lose at Anfield will be boring thread

[Horse]

That's just stupid - they guy is in his 80's - why would he sell the club now? It's a huge part of the legacy he will leave behind.

However when he passes on I'm not sure what will happen to the club, MAF is Fulham's Madiba.

[FFC1987]

All we are seeing is clever long term stability. Spot on guys. If we push too much it could harm our long term objectives as its a gamble. Running the club as we do will show us future prosperity but maybe slower than what we would like.

[hn4fulham]

This thought is definitely a possibility but if it is what the owner is thinking, he's got it kind of wrong. Stability and a future is what helps with valuation. You get better value if the club in on the rise rather than on the slide.  If that was the thought, getting Jol was the right move only if they were going to sell after that first season. Jol's personality doesn't help with stabilizing a squad of older more senior players but the opposite.

If we are looking to sell, a 2 year contract extension for Murphy wouldn't have been a bad idea.  Murphy was looking for more playing time and what did Jol do...give his playing time to equally elderly players who are less reliable than Murphy.  Jol will tear this club to shreds by the time he's done with whatever we think he's building.

Apart from being lucky at getting Berbatov, I think the team looks miserable at the moment. The senior players unhappy and under performing, there's no real confidence in the play in the back, Berbatov is the one shining light on the pitch but it's a question of which berba shows up in which game.  There's also tactics of shutting Berba out of a game by opponents, then what do we do? 

[WayneKerrins]

Last 2 paras spot on IMO hn4fulham

[God The Mechanic]

If we are looking to sell, a 2 year contract extension for Murphy wouldn't have been a bad idea.  Murphy was looking for more playing time and what did Jol do...give his playing time to equally elderly players who are less reliable than Murphy.  Jol will tear this club to shreds by the time he's done with whatever we think he's building.

So... you offer Murphy a 2 year extension (like Blackburn) and still say he's gonna be a bit part player (unlike Blackburn)?  He wanted games more than the contract length from the sounds of it so still wouldn't have signed it.  At that point Dembele was still a Fulham player, so Murphy really wouldn't have been assured of game time.

[hn4fulham]

If we are looking to sell, a 2 year contract extension for Murphy wouldn't have been a bad idea.  Murphy was looking for more playing time and what did Jol do...give his playing time to equally elderly players who are less reliable than Murphy.  Jol will tear this club to shreds by the time he's done with whatever we think he's building.

So... you offer Murphy a 2 year extension (like Blackburn) and still say he's gonna be a bit part player (unlike Blackburn)?  He wanted games more than the contract length from the sounds of it so still wouldn't have signed it.  At that point Dembele was still a Fulham player, so Murphy really wouldn't have been assured of game time.

Sorry I wasn't clear on that point. Give him the 2 year extension and then let him play.  It's not like we've replaced him with anyone who is not as old or more reliable...he's the heart of our team in many ways.  The team is gutted inside out with him gone and we've replaced him with retirees who can't make it elsewhere and have had problems staying injury free...