I'm Angry

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

The club needs to invest in good players but that need not involve large amounts of money.

Rather, if you look back over recent history, the players who have disappointed most and have not made their mark have been the expensive signings (Marlet, Johnson, Ruiz, Mitroglou) or are supposedly on high wages (Parker) whereas more modest signings have formed to core of our team (Schwarzer, Hangeland, Murphy).

We may have paid a lot for McCormack but by the end of this window we will probably be in profit in terms of transfer dealings and will have reduced the wage bill significantly (unless we spash a significant sum on a CM).

[jags24]

Sorry to have bailed on the thread - I didn't mean to - I had a business trip.  Anyways, I guess I made a controversial post here, but to summarize I would say that I am within my rights to criticize how Fulham does its business.

I understand that we sign a lot of 17 year-olds on the cheap, but it takes time to develop those players, and I think we'd be better off spending our transfer money on players in the 21-22 age range as opposed to 27 year-olds because they represent better value on the pitch.

Yes, I am American, for the person who asked.  It doesn't mean anything - there's lots of clubs who have chosen to do business in a different manner than Fulham - not just Liverpool.  What about Swansea, for instance?  Maybe a better analogy...

As for those saying that McCormick won't take playing time from the youngsters... no way... of course he will, no doubt he will.  Playing time is an asset and you've got to use it wisely.  Giving time to the youngters adds value to the club.  They will have a lot of competition from Hugo, Mitro and McCormick.