Tight financial constraints?

[jelmo]

For a start Jol is incorrect and we were not 20th in transfers this summer we were 18th.
I asp suspect that the two loans are not exactly cheap. Plus Boateng who was chased for 4 or 5 windows would have had a decent fee.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

Still cant get my head around this transfer. Surely if funds are so tight at the moment then we need to make every penny spent on the squad count. Therefore, Boateng is taking a chunk of wages that could have been spent elsewhere on a player we actually needed. YOu have to wonder why he was targeted in the first place by us as he has hardly played a game for us.

Its things like this that show the club for what it has clearly is and has been for the past couple of seasons. Badly run and content to just exist as a shadow of what it could and should be.

I think Jol even admitted that the Boateng transfer was a mistake as his talents arent need in this squad. We also wasted a huge chunk of wages on Taraabt (im not saying that Taraabt is a bad player) as he must be taking home a large wage but he has hardly had a look in as Kasami and Ruiz play in his position.

Therefore, if the constraints we have are so tight then the board and manager have to ask themselves why we are throwing chunks of our budget away on players we dont need and dont play.

Oh yeah.... Buying Scott Parker for £3.5m-£4m
and giving him a 3 year contract probably wasn't the best use of our limited funds either...
Madness!

[Pluto]

For a start Jol is incorrect and we were not 20th in transfers this summer we were 18th.
I asp suspect that the two loans are not exactly cheap. Plus Boateng who was chased for 4 or 5 windows would have had a decent fee.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

Still cant get my head around this transfer. Surely if funds are so tight at the moment then we need to make every penny spent on the squad count. Therefore, Boateng is taking a chunk of wages that could have been spent elsewhere on a player we actually needed. YOu have to wonder why he was targeted in the first place by us as he has hardly played a game for us.

Its things like this that show the club for what it has clearly is and has been for the past couple of seasons. Badly run and content to just exist as a shadow of what it could and should be.

I think Jol even admitted that the Boateng transfer was a mistake as his talents arent need in this squad. We also wasted a huge chunk of wages on Taraabt (im not saying that Taraabt is a bad player) as he must be taking home a large wage but he has hardly had a look in as Kasami and Ruiz play in his position.

Therefore, if the constraints we have are so tight then the board and manager have to ask themselves why we are throwing chunks of our budget away on players we dont need and dont play.

Oh yeah.... Buying Scott Parker for £3.5m-£4m
and giving him a 3 year contract probably wasn't the best use of our limited funds either...
Madness!

Exactly! It seems we've had next to no money, but wasted what we do have on loan fees for the likes of Taraabt and Bent- investments for which we'll get no return. Those two will also be taking higher wages, as well as Boateng, who Jol has admitted we didn't need, and Parker on a rumoured 50k a week 3 year deal.

Like I said, with regards to transfer fees not being the whole story, wage budgets have increased across the board over the last two seasons for every PL club. To say we're spending the money on wages is no excuse, as other clubs must have seen their wage cost increased to at least as much whilst spending £30-40million to ensure survival.

At leats other clubs are giving the highest wages to lure exciting European talent like Bony, Osvaldo and Medel- our highest wages are being paid to has beens, loanees and old players past their best- the likes of Bent, Taraabt, Parker and Berbatov will all be on 50k a week plus. Are they worth it? Results would suggest no. I wonder how much Hull are paying Huddlestone............

It all just smacks of being very poorly run. With all due respect to Khan- the current plan wasn't working as we saw at the end of last season. We don't have a season to sit around and see where we're at. It should have been a priority for him when he arrived to do some serious research as to where investment was needed- he had plenty of time.

[Pluto]

I missed these comments.  Where were they?

Was this question to me?
If so, I really cannot remember but it may well have been on the video of him and Fayed together - you know - the one where Fayed threatened to cut his mustache off if he removed the Jackson statute! Otherwise it was proabably a writeup on the main site as I don't tend to believe anything I read in the papers.

No mate. I remember the ones you mentioned.  I meant, I missed 'Jol's comments to the media' mentioned in Pluto's original post.

I just did a quick google and found some here: http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/the-devil-was-playing-with-us-but-martin-jol-maintains-he-can-turn-fulham-around-8848706.html

I saw the same story elsewhere too in the printed press.

[elgreenio]

For a start Jol is incorrect and we were not 20th in transfers this summer we were 18th.
I asp suspect that the two loans are not exactly cheap. Plus Boateng who was chased for 4 or 5 windows would have had a decent fee.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

Still cant get my head around this transfer. Surely if funds are so tight at the moment then we need to make every penny spent on the squad count. Therefore, Boateng is taking a chunk of wages that could have been spent elsewhere on a player we actually needed. YOu have to wonder why he was targeted in the first place by us as he has hardly played a game for us.

Its things like this that show the club for what it has clearly is and has been for the past couple of seasons. Badly run and content to just exist as a shadow of what it could and should be.

I think Jol even admitted that the Boateng transfer was a mistake as his talents arent need in this squad. We also wasted a huge chunk of wages on Taraabt (im not saying that Taraabt is a bad player) as he must be taking home a large wage but he has hardly had a look in as Kasami and Ruiz play in his position.

Therefore, if the constraints we have are so tight then the board and manager have to ask themselves why we are throwing chunks of our budget away on players we dont need and dont play.

Oh yeah.... Buying Scott Parker for £3.5m-£4m
and giving him a 3 year contract probably wasn't the best use of our limited funds either...
Madness!

not a problem with the Boateng deal. Like Petric last year it bought in an extra person early that gave the freedom to be bide our time with the marquee player (Berbatov last year, Parker this). The Duff renewal was the one that really surprised me this term.

as for the others, Taraabt you could argue gave us another creative player to deputise when Ruiz had his injury spell. Parker looks a great bit of business until you look at the length of his contract.

Wouldn't say it's been a complete flop considering the lack of money and willing. You just wish there had been a bit more creativity about it and more risk instead of Jol's apparent love of buying players when they're out of favour.

[Denver Fulham]

It's not that we don't have money to spend. It's that Fulham's current wages appear to be right up against the limit under the FFP regulations (which is probably why Jol was looking to offload Riise for nothing, to clear some wage room for another signing).

Khan is permitted to spend beyond that, but if his goal is to run a self-sustaining operation, then he's probably chosen not to at this point. Maybe that will change in January if relegation is looming as a significant danger.

Now, whether Jol has made proper use of the limited funds is a whole separate story. But he's had money to spend. Fulham didn't sell anyone but Frei for a fee this window, and brought in Stek, Parker, a couple of frees and a couple of (assumedly) pricey loans.

[Andy S]

The New man Khan has spent £150m this year purchasing the cub it is doubtful that he would want to spend anymore unless he has to. However I think heads will roll if we were to lose our premier league status and that he will do everything he can to prevent that happening.

[westcliff white]

Personally I think the money spent on Parker was well spent. If we can get berba back scoring and playing like he did last year (with less gesticulating which is what happens when he is laying well) then I think we will start firing.

Over to you MJ

[The Old Count]

I missed these comments.  Where were they?

Was this question to me?
If so, I really cannot remember but it may well have been on the video of him and Fayed together - you know - the one where Fayed threatened to cut his mustache off if he removed the Jackson statute! Otherwise it was proabably a writeup on the main site as I don't tend to believe anything I read in the papers.

No mate. I remember the ones you mentioned.  I meant, I missed 'Jol's comments to the media' mentioned in Pluto's original post.

I just did a quick google and found some here: http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/the-devil-was-playing-with-us-but-martin-jol-maintains-he-can-turn-fulham-around-8848706.html

I saw the same story elsewhere too in the printed press.

Thanks for that. I've caught up now. Doh!

[Guinness Haze]

It's not that we don't have money to spend. It's that Fulham's current wages appear to be right up against the limit under the FFP regulations (which is probably why Jol was looking to offload Riise for nothing, to clear some wage room for another signing).

Khan is permitted to spend beyond that, but if his goal is to run a self-sustaining operation, then he's probably chosen not to at this point. Maybe that will change in January if relegation is looming as a significant danger.

Now, whether Jol has made proper use of the limited funds is a whole separate story. But he's had money to spend. Fulham didn't sell anyone but Frei for a fee this window, and brought in Stek, Parker, a couple of frees and a couple of (assumedly) pricey loans.

Still can't believe he sold Frei.  
We are invested in his future, I think Jol said.
I'm assuming that'll be a Frei return on loan in his 30's and past his best.

[westcliff white]

The rumour I heard was free asked to go and wanted a move to turkey, if that's true then no point keeping a player who doesn't want to be at the club.

[BishopsParkFantastic]

It is all conjecture where the money has gone, which is why it would be great if Fulham  was more open and transparent with how money is being spent, and what the clubs plans and strategic priorities are. Co-opting a member of the supporters Trust (with no voting rights) on to the Board would be good.

[westcliff white]

I understand the secrecy not wanting clubs to know what we have but agree it would make things easier to understand as fans, fans who get very frustrated.

[Guinness Haze]

The rumour I heard was free asked to go and wanted a move to turkey, if that's true then no point keeping a player who doesn't want to be at the club.

Lack of 1st team opportunities i guess.
Could've been homesick i suppose.  He's only 19.
Shame. He had the look of another Steeeed.

[Pluto]

It is all conjecture where the money has gone, which is why it would be great if Fulham  was more open and transparent with how money is being spent, and what the clubs plans and strategic priorities are. Co-opting a member of the supporters Trust (with no voting rights) on to the Board would be good.

I'd love for this to happen! All the club seems to send out is negative messages (which I doubt is helping our dwindling attendances)

[Logicalman]

It is all conjecture where the money has gone, which is why it would be great if Fulham  was more open and transparent with how money is being spent, and what the clubs plans and strategic priorities are. Co-opting a member of the supporters Trust (with no voting rights) on to the Board would be good.

That wouldn't provide much more information, I wouldn't think, because if the club doesn't want to release the figures, then the board members would have to agree not to disclose them either.

[Skatzoffc]

After reading the article the other week, it seems clear that the  financial fair play mechanism is hitting us, (and other medium/mid table clubs) very hard. This is backed up by us trying to offload high wage earners like JAR. The small clubs who've come up have small wage bills, so are not affected. The top teams all voted for it as their huge Saturday takings (due either to exorbitant ticket prices in small stadiums or low ticket prices in large capacity stadiums) mean they are not affected by FFP. FFP protects already established rich clubs and stifles small to medium club growth. That's why all the big clubs voted for it and we were against it tooth and nail.

[Max Headroom]

Come on, we have a good set of players, the best we have ever had.

The issue is that we have a number of players who are too similar and can't play together

The quality of football is well below what our players should be producing.

I think it is Jol's first salvo to save face if he is pushed. He should not be making comments like this.

[The Old Count]

Come on, we have a good set of players, the best we have ever had.

The issue is that we have a number of players who are too similar and can't play together

The quality of football is well below what our players should be producing.

I think it is Jol's first salvo to save face if he is pushed. He should not be making comments like this.

It appears to me that Mr Jol has been on damage limitation for some time.
Can't blame him really.  Poor results for almost an entire season, poor performances, poor judgement regarding new players and a new owner.  How many managers survive this.

[Pluto]

After reading the article the other week, it seems clear that the  financial fair play mechanism is hitting us, (and other medium/mid table clubs) very hard. This is backed up by us trying to offload high wage earners like JAR. The small clubs who've come up have small wage bills, so are not affected. The top teams all voted for it as their huge Saturday takings (due either to exorbitant ticket prices in small stadiums or low ticket prices in large capacity stadiums) mean they are not affected by FFP. FFP protects already established rich clubs and stifles small to medium club growth. That's why all the big clubs voted for it and we were against it tooth and nail.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it only clubs playing in Europe, and therefore affilated with UEFA, that are bound by FFP?

Also there are some big clubs blatently flaunting it.....Chelsea, City etc. And as far as I can tell UEFA have no actual way of enforcing it so why would we be affected.........?

Also it doesn't seem to have stopped clubs like Cardiff from spending £40million.......

[Fulhampete]

Come on, we have a good set of players, the best we have ever had.

The issue is that we have a number of players who are too similar and can't play together

The quality of football is well below what our players should be producing.

I think it is Jol's first salvo to save face if he is pushed. He should not be making comments like this.

Certainly ten years ago some of our players were very good.