Piazon

[bobby01]

On the bench for them up the road tonight. Good luck lad if you get on.

[The Rational Fan]

Fredricks, Kalas, Targett, Norwood and Piazon should be on our bench.

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

How many times do we have to say that Fredericks wanted to leave well before the end of the season, Southampton would not sell Targett, and Chelsea wanted ridiculous fees for Kalas and Piazon.
Norwood is a hard working Championship player.
Yes we did pay funny money for our signings but we cannot keep looking back.

[YoungsBitter]

How many times do we have to say that Fredericks wanted to leave well before the end of the season, Southampton would not sell Targett, and Chelsea wanted ridiculous fees for Kalas and Piazon.
Norwood is a hard working Championship player.
Yes we did pay funny money for our signings but we cannot keep looking back.

I agree the sentiment but when you look at what we paid for Anguissa maybe Targett's fee from Saints does not look so bad, we do not know actually how much they wanted or the fees from Chelsea so its all speculation.

[Bassey the warrior]

How many times do we have to say that Fredericks wanted to leave well before the end of the season, Southampton would not sell Targett, and Chelsea wanted ridiculous fees for Kalas and Piazon.
Norwood is a hard working Championship player.
Yes we did pay funny money for our signings but we cannot keep looking back.

I agree with this. Targett is never a £20m player. Would like Kalas but he's not worth £10m. Not fussed about the others. Would've liked Fredericks but he went for the paypacket and you can't blame him for wanting to work for such a renowned manager.

[Statto]

How many times do we have to say that Fredericks wanted to leave well before the end of the season, Southampton would not sell Targett, and Chelsea wanted ridiculous fees for Kalas and Piazon.
Norwood is a hard working Championship player.
Yes we did pay funny money for our signings but we cannot keep looking back.

I agree the sentiment but when you look at what we paid for Anguissa maybe Targett's fee from Saints does not look so bad, we do not know actually how much they wanted or the fees from Chelsea so its all speculation.

Yep
With Fredericks I accept he just wanted to go but I suspect we could have kept all of Targett, Piazon, Kalas and Norwood for the money we paid for Anguissa
Coupled with keeping Button instead a Fabri
We would have an awful lot more unity and organisation than we do at the moment

[Robbie]

The lesson is next time we need to ensure we have a fully owned home grown squad.

[The Rational Fan]

How many times do we have to say that Fredericks wanted to leave well before the end of the season, Southampton would not sell Targett, and Chelsea wanted ridiculous fees for Kalas and Piazon.
Norwood is a hard working Championship player.
Yes we did pay funny money for our signings but we cannot keep looking back.

I agree the sentiment but when you look at what we paid for Anguissa maybe Targett's fee from Saints does not look so bad, we do not know actually how much they wanted or the fees from Chelsea so its all speculation.

Anguissa ($25m over 5 yrs) and Targett ($20m over 4 yrs) both cost $5 million per year. They cost the same because last year both players had equally good statistics with the main difference being the League played in (Ligue 1 vs Championship). While last year Anguissa's statistics indicated he would be equally good to Luka Milivojevic. This year Anguissa's statistics indicate he'd need to drop down to "League One" to be as good as Luka Milivojevic or Matt Targett, that is a massive fall in his statisical performance.

Fulham had a hard choice for $7 million per year, we could have got "Targett and Norwood" or "Bryan and Anguissa". Interesting, Southampton are rumoured to have stopped at $4 million per year for Anguissa, but if we bought Targett then Southampton may have used the money to buy "Anguissa and Bryan". It seems Fulham's only options were ridicolously expensive ($10m for Kalas wow), i guess because EPL quality players prefer other EPL teams.

I still think the Khan's gave us a team that should have beaten Cardiff and Huddersfield at home (i.e. we should have started January with 20 points), in which case the Accountants would have been able to release transfer funds before Burnley and maybe getting a draw (Fulham 21 points and Burnley 20 points), which would be followed by more and more spending.

"The Khans" have the right idea i) building a bigger stadium with a deluxe stand for corporate sponsors, ii) keeping the rest of the grounds OLD CHARM for the TV cameras; iii) building a better youth academy, iv) buiding a better training faclitates to attract and improve players; v) investing in players at FFP maximium allowed, vi) selecting the right staff and advisors and vii) lastly getting decent at choosing the right players. At the moment, the Khans are brillant at the first five and rubbish at the last two (i'd give them five out of seven).

[Baszab]

I am beginning to smell PR here in a very cleverly disguised blog
I am aware that the Club has beefed up its marketing dept recently

[Statto]

Anguissa ($25m over 5 yrs) and Targett ($20m over 4 yrs) both cost $5 million per year.

1. What makes you think we'd have signed Targett on a shorter contract than Anguissa?
2. I suspect we could have got him for less than £20m in the end, although I admit that's uncertain.
3. I'm also sure his wages would have been cheaper.

If we'd have signed Targett for £15m on a 5 yr deal at £40k per week, that's what, £5m per year?
Anguissa at £25m and £65k is about £8.5m per year.
Quite a big difference.

[St Eve]

All very interesting. So how did Piazzon do?

[The Rational Fan]

I am beginning to smell PR here in a very cleverly disguised blog
I am aware that the Club has beefed up its marketing dept recently

I am not PR, I went to school in Fulham and love the Club. I supported the club when Ray Hatford, Ray Lewington and Ian Branfoot were managers, we had no money at all. The best thing fans can do is accept that money is getting thrown into this club, accept that some will be mispent and hope some of it is spent well. We have £35 million more this year cause of the Khans, now while most of that has been thown away (we arent the only team to buy duds this season we did buy Mitorvoic and renew many contracts Cairney and Sessgnon). My agenda is I want "The Khans" to give us another £13 million more next year and the year after that, plus a £100 million Stadium upgrade would be nice too.

Without the Khans, Fulham are in the same financial position as Cardiff. It's true Cardiff spent a little this year wisely and Fulham spent a lot this year poorly, but I still believe longer term having rich investors is better than having smart investors.

[The Rational Fan]

Anguissa ($25m over 5 yrs) and Targett ($20m over 4 yrs) both cost $5 million per year.

1. What makes you think we'd have signed Targett on a shorter contract than Anguissa?
2. I suspect we could have got him for less than £20m in the end, although I admit that's uncertain.
3. I'm also sure his wages would have been cheaper.

If we'd have signed Targett for £15m on a 5 yr deal at £40k per week, that's what, £5m per year?
Anguissa at £25m and £65k is about £8.5m per year.
Quite a big difference.

1. I don't know its 4 years, but Targett current contract is 4 years and if £20m is the cost to take over his contract, then it's four years.

2. If Targett could have been bought for less than £20m over 5 years, then we have made a big mistake but we don't know that. I get the impression Fulham wanted him fairly badly, but Fulham's view obviously was Targett was more overpriced than Anguissa.

3. Why would Targett's wages be cheaper? Besides Anguissa's wages are rumoured to go down if we get relegated, so we need to compare the lower amount to Targett.

If Fulham could have signed Targett for £15m on a 5 yr deal at £40k per week, then they are fools not doing so. Targett is similar age to Mawson, uninjured and he proven works well with the team, he is worth at least that price.

The difference in price between Targett and Anguissa is unknown, but its fair to say Anguissa may have cost the same although probably cost a more. The value of both players based on last years performance is also slightly towards Anguissa. The big difference is in the performance of the two players is between this year and last year. Targetts continued to improve slowly, while Anguissa performance has nosedived. The recruitment isn't the only problem, Anguissa is no where near his best.

While Southampton did well, they arent that smart as they considered selling Targett and buying Anguissa too. Alex Ferguson bought players and got them playing better, we buy players and they fall apart. Anguissa may not have ever been an EPL quality player (his statistics this season indicate he is way off EPL standard), but we know he did well in Ligue 1 and in the Conferations Cup which right now is hard to believe.

Fulham's Number One Problem is "decreased individual performance compared to last season" for most of its player (this applies equally to both promoted and recruited players). Anguissa, Seri, Sessegnon, McDonald and Ream are just a few examples.

[toshes mate]

Value is the utility of your purchase once you have made that purchase and cannot be measured in hindsight other than in indicating what may have yielded better value if you could have your purchase choice all over again.  There are no meaningful algorithms for value either because it is, like climate and weather, simply too complex to be analysed by a super computer let alone a bog standard PC laptop.

[Sting of the North]

Anguissa ($25m over 5 yrs) and Targett ($20m over 4 yrs) both cost $5 million per year.

1. What makes you think we'd have signed Targett on a shorter contract than Anguissa?
2. I suspect we could have got him for less than £20m in the end, although I admit that's uncertain.
3. I'm also sure his wages would have been cheaper.

If we'd have signed Targett for £15m on a 5 yr deal at £40k per week, that's what, £5m per year?
Anguissa at £25m and £65k is about £8.5m per year.
Quite a big difference.

1. I don't know its 4 years, but Targett current contract is 4 years and if £20m is the cost to take over his contract, then it's four years.

2. If Targett could have been bought for less than £20m over 5 years, then we have made a big mistake but we don't know that. I get the impression Fulham wanted him fairly badly, but Fulham's view obviously was Targett was more overpriced than Anguissa.

3. Why would Targett's wages be cheaper? Besides Anguissa's wages are rumoured to go down if we get relegated, so we need to compare the lower amount to Targett.

If Fulham could have signed Targett for £15m on a 5 yr deal at £40k per week, then they are fools not doing so. Targett is similar age to Mawson, uninjured and he proven works well with the team, he is worth at least that price.

The difference in price between Targett and Anguissa is unknown, but its fair to say Anguissa may have cost the same although probably cost a more. The value of both players based on last years performance is also slightly towards Anguissa. The big difference is in the performance of the two players is between this year and last year. Targetts continued to improve slowly, while Anguissa performance has nosedived. The recruitment isn't the only problem, Anguissa is no where near his best.

While Southampton did well, they arent that smart as they considered selling Targett and buying Anguissa too. Alex Ferguson bought players and got them playing better, we buy players and they fall apart. Anguissa may not have ever been an EPL quality player (his statistics this season indicate he is way off EPL standard), but we know he did well in Ligue 1 and in the Conferations Cup which right now is hard to believe.

Fulham's Number One Problem is "decreased individual performance compared to last season" for most of its player (this applies equally to both promoted and recruited players). Anguissa, Seri, Sessegnon, McDonald and Ream are just a few examples.

You do know that you don't take over the contract when buying a player right, as this is not as in american pro sports. You purchase the right to the player, but not the contract. You instead agree a new contract with the player in question. So any length of contract for a transfer that never happened is pure speculation. You will also have the exclusive negotiating rights with that player until he has less than 6 months left on the contract (at least on paper, in reality a lot of stuff goes on behind the scenes I imagine).

If you are going to compare, then the fair assumption would be the same length of contract if you don't know surely? I also don't think that it is as simple as saying that we were choosing between Anguissa and Targett, as that makes little sense.

As for the bolded part towards the end, are you really sure that the problems originate with individual performances, or could it be caused by something else? I believe there is usually many factors combined that produces poor performances and therefore it is usually hard to determine cause and effect with any certainty. If it was that simple I can simplify it even more and say that our biggest problem is that we don't get enough points from games. However, that is probable not the best explanation.

[bobby01]

Blimey, I only wished the lad well, and he didn't even get on.

[LVBPTS]

Blimey, I only wished the lad well, and he didn't even get on.

+1

[Arthur]

Anguissa ($25m over 5 yrs) and Targett ($20m over 4 yrs) both cost $5 million per year.

1. What makes you think we'd have signed Targett on a shorter contract than Anguissa?
2. I suspect we could have got him for less than £20m in the end, although I admit that's uncertain.
3. I'm also sure his wages would have been cheaper.

If we'd have signed Targett for £15m on a 5 yr deal at £40k per week, that's what, £5m per year?
Anguissa at £25m and £65k is about £8.5m per year.
Quite a big difference.

Fair enough, but we can all go back and correct our mistakes with the benefit of hindsight.

At the time, you, I and many others on here were more concerned at the prospect of paying £15M for Targett than we were £25M for Anguissa.

[filham]

Fredricks, Kalas, Targett, Norwood and Piazon should be on our bench.

It was understandable how we failed to sign these five players but what is unforgivable is that we spent big money replacing them with players who were not as good as them.

[Sting of the North]

Fredricks, Kalas, Targett, Norwood and Piazon should be on our bench.

It was understandable how we failed to sign these five players but what is unforgivable is that we spent big money replacing them with players who were not as good as them.

You may be correct on the fullbacks, but for the rest they were replaced by far superior players in my opinion. Maybe not good enough, but neither would Kalas, Norwood or Piazon be. Squad players at the very best in the PL. The jury is still very much out on Fredricks and Targett when it comes to their possible PL quality. However, what all those players had as an advantage was that they knew the team, players and coaches, which is not unimportant.