The Official Silly Season January Transfer Thread 2017/18

[Lighthouse]

I actually would like to commend the club on how well they run the shop. There's literally no fat, it's all good contracts and they actually care about getting rid of players for some sort of fee if they're not going to play. That's just smart business, regardless of the "net spend" position.
I know as someone who runs a business that I'd be in deep doodoo if I ran the shop the way some fans want us to run Fulham. Believe it or not, the management of our team is topnotch.

However one has to wonder what would happen if you had spent huge amounts of money on failed items. Then decided that instead of growing your business you had best stop making huge gambles and just were lent items from other business that all cost money but were never used. It really isn't very smart to be given an opportunity to pay 2 million pounds for a loan item. Or have somebody decide what it is best on the shop floor when the shop floor manager doesn't use them.  :dft012:

[Woolly Mammoth]

Cold here in the bushes at Motspur Park.
You'd think Hilda would bring us out a cuppa and a slice of Cake.🍰🍰🍰

I was baking a cake last night as a surprise for my family, but the Fire Brigade spoilt it.

[mkras99]

http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/sport/15907141.Hornets_trying_to_force_through_Okaka_move_for_bumper_loan_fee/

[gerrys]

I actually would like to commend the club on how well they run the shop. There's literally no fat, it's all good contracts and they actually care about getting rid of players for some sort of fee if they're not going to play. That's just smart business, regardless of the "net spend" position.
I know as someone who runs a business that I'd be in deep doodoo if I ran the shop the way some fans want us to run Fulham. Believe it or not, the management of our team is topnotch.

:plus one:

[Porthogs FC]

I actually would like to commend the club on how well they run the shop. There's literally no fat, it's all good contracts and they actually care about getting rid of players for some sort of fee if they're not going to play. That's just smart business, regardless of the "net spend" position.
I know as someone who runs a business that I'd be in deep doodoo if I ran the shop the way some fans want us to run Fulham. Believe it or not, the management of our team is topnotch.

However one has to wonder what would happen if you had spent huge amounts of money on failed items. Then decided that instead of growing your business you had best stop making huge gambles and just were lent items from other business that all cost money but were never used. It really isn't very smart to be given an opportunity to pay 2 million pounds for a loan item. Or have somebody decide what it is best on the shop floor when the shop floor manager doesn't use them.  :dft012:

The new ownership has done this once (bad failed items), and it can be argued that they recouped a lot of, if not all, of the fee for Mitroglou. And that was very early days. They've learned a lot about running professional sports franchises, and if Jacksonville are any indication I'm happy as ever to be a Fulham Fan. If our goal is really to be in the premier league, loans make a lot of sense because many of those loan players are much better (and cheaper) than what you could buy. As long as we have 15 ish first team players that are always owned by Fulham, that's enough to keep us rolling with 5 - 8 additional loans.

[Woolly Mammoth]

http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/sport/15907141.Hornets_trying_to_force_through_Okaka_move_for_bumper_loan_fee/

Fulham should walk away, and stop wasting time negotiating on these terms for deadwood loans, and try for a change to buy a decent quality player straight out with money, assuming they know you can still purchase with currency. Otherwise we will end up with the usual scenario of recruiting panic signings that never cement a regular place in the first team like last summer because they are not good enough. You get what you pay for, with the exception of Fonte. The current owner and his son never learn.

[Baszab]

Not interested in success - sustainability is the name of the game

I'm sure all those supporters who think the club is well run must be getting such enjoyment out of balancing the books

Far better than investing in the team for a promotion push isn't it ? That warm glow of a queue of loanees and intermittent sales of our best players

[Mince n Tatties]

Okaka isn't even fit,he is the size of a house.2 million to get him ready,how many does he score.
I'd rather sign big Akinfenwa from Wycome,15 goals.

[MJG]

And his net spend is?????

net spend is not the be all and end all of what determines the right or wrong way to do things. Just spending because you can does not always give right results.

qpr being the prime example of that. That said, a little cash injection now and then never hurts

+1

ah the old QPR argument

i've said before, somewhere in the world there will be a big fat bloke who can run the 100m in 10.4 seconds. doesn't change the fact that fat people are generally slow runners

more money spent net = more chance of success (generally)

Club A had a bad summer selling players and only raised £2m but spent 10m on players coming in.
Club B sold 5m worth of players and spent £12m on players.

Which team would you say is the one you would support?

[Riversider]

Some of our supporters are extremely naive,  the loan fee for Charly Musonda to go to Celtic from Chelsea for 18 months is an eye watering £6 million !!
I was reading a thread on one of the QPHa forums the other night and apparently they can't even afford to compete with other clubs over loan players because of the size of the fee,
Fulham may well have spent in the region of £10 million this season on loan fees, not a figure to be sniffed at, as MUG rightly says, we are spending money but it's in a less obvious way.

[F(f)CUK]

 
Club A had a bad summer selling players and only raised £2m but spent 10m on players coming in.
Club B sold 5m worth of players and spent £12m on players.

Which team would you say is the one you would support?

[/quote]

How about Club C - spent £30million, got promotion, did not comply with financial fair play, got relegated again and then in dispute over a £60 million bill with a risk of demotion to bottom tier.

[snarks]

And his net spend is?????

net spend is not the be all and end all of what determines the right or wrong way to do things. Just spending because you can does not always give right results.

qpr being the prime example of that. That said, a little cash injection now and then never hurts

+1

ah the old QPR argument

i've said before, somewhere in the world there will be a big fat bloke who can run the 100m in 10.4 seconds. doesn't change the fact that fat people are generally slow runners

more money spent net = more chance of success (generally)

Club A had a bad summer selling players and only raised £2m but spent 10m on players coming in.
Club B sold 5m worth of players and spent £12m on players.

Which team would you say is the one you would support?

Oh.....oh.... club F as that's Fulham (I'm presuming A is arsenal and B is Burnley)

Is there a prize? What do I win?

[Twig]

So after all the discussion and the debate about whether our owner has any intention of spending any cash (on players not infrastructure), we have moved out 3 (or was it 4) players and brought in 1 on loan.  No problem with those decisions to date but I would absolutely love a proper signing.  You remember; someone who will stay, a permanent addition, someone whose future lies with our club? Ah well dream on.

[Porthogs FC]

And his net spend is?????

net spend is not the be all and end all of what determines the right or wrong way to do things. Just spending because you can does not always give right results.

qpr being the prime example of that. That said, a little cash injection now and then never hurts

+1

ah the old QPR argument

i've said before, somewhere in the world there will be a big fat bloke who can run the 100m in 10.4 seconds. doesn't change the fact that fat people are generally slow runners

more money spent net = more chance of success (generally)

Club A had a bad summer selling players and only raised £2m but spent 10m on players coming in.
Club B sold 5m worth of players and spent £12m on players.

Which team would you say is the one you would support?

with only those facts available i would of course say A on the basis that their net spend is higher (albeit only slightly) ergo so are their chances of success (slightly)

Is this serious? Spending money is now being equated with success? Man I think if it was that easy every team would just spend more money.

[filham]

£2m to loan a player for less than half a season, that just cannot be true, Slam the door on that one quickly before the window closes.

[Twig]

And his net spend is?????

net spend is not the be all and end all of what determines the right or wrong way to do things. Just spending because you can does not always give right results.

qpr being the prime example of that. That said, a little cash injection now and then never hurts

+1

ah the old QPR argument

i've said before, somewhere in the world there will be a big fat bloke who can run the 100m in 10.4 seconds. doesn't change the fact that fat people are generally slow runners

more money spent net = more chance of success (generally)

Club A had a bad summer selling players and only raised £2m but spent 10m on players coming in.
Club B sold 5m worth of players and spent £12m on players.

Which team would you say is the one you would support?

with only those facts available i would of course say A on the basis that their net spend is higher (albeit only slightly) ergo so are their chances of success (slightly)

Is this serious? Spending money is now being equated with success? Man I think if it was that easy every team would just spend more money.

I doubt any of us want to see spending just for the sake of it. That would obviously be irresponsible. However it would be good to see evidence of a willingness to spend when the right player is available.  To date our spending has been generally netted off against our fee income.  Sustainability and balancing books is fine up to a point but it is hard to see how we will get out of this division (in the right direction) without some degree of net investment in the squad.
That is a perfectly reasonable argument and I have a lot of sympathy for those whonexpress some frustration with the lack of action.

[Tabby]

The money is there to spend, if the summer bid for Gayle is anything to go by. I guess we'll see if it gets spent.

[supersimmo123]

I am all for a loan deal, it gives us time to assess players and their attitude and adaptability to fit in. However you also have to consider from a business side players are assets, we need to ensure we have enough permanent assets on the books also. I remember Blackpool 2/3 years ago, they constructed a decent side on loan deals challenged and then they all left went back to their parent clubs and they could not field a full team in pre-season. Balance is required and I do think the Khans are doing a good job currently. January is an awful time to buy players on permanent contracts, inflated prices and wage demands due to competition in the market. As such stick to low risk loans and stock up on permanent contracts in the summer, in an ideal world these would be players we have had on loan and make an impact and fit the system / have the correct attitude.

[keithh]

I'm embarrassed to admit that until something actually happens I cannot really be bothered.

[MJG]

Is this serious? Spending money is now being equated with success? Man I think if it was that easy every team would just spend more money.

in all honesty there's not really any need to discuss this, it's not a matter of opinion, the data is there for anyone who wants to look across the leagues, whether it's championship, premier league, la liga, look at the relationship between clubs' spending and league position, there will be a correlation and it will not be subtle... simple irrefutable fact really

(for a start the club that's currently in every one of those leagues i've just mentioned is also the club that's spent the most)

Gross or Net?  :-)