Summer Transfer Gossip.

[FFC1987]

Judging people on buying decisions with hindsight, is literally how the world works.....I can't believe this is even a topic of debate in an industry where one is judged by player recruitment.

I think the point (although not super clear from previous posts) is that judging only on result without further context is pointless. Therefore, it is not hindsight as such, but the pretending that the actual result was the only reasonable result that is the problem. Thus, the debate.

What's the point in the debate when you have the outcome? We know he *could* of been a good signing, but in a results driven industry, it fails on both accounts. The transfers didn't help us stay up, AND a significant portion of the investment has been shipped out on loan and won't play so however you want to look at it, its not favourable.

[Sting of the North]

Judging people on buying decisions with hindsight, is literally how the world works.....I can't believe this is even a topic of debate in an industry where one is judged by player recruitment.

I think the point (although not super clear from previous posts) is that judging only on result without further context is pointless. Therefore, it is not hindsight as such, but the pretending that the actual result was the only reasonable result that is the problem. Thus, the debate.

What's the point in the debate when you have the outcome? We know he *could* of been a good signing, but in a results driven industry, it fails on both accounts. The transfers didn't help us stay up, AND a significant portion of the investment has been shipped out on loan and won't play so however you want to look at it, its not favourable.

I assume we are discussing the Mawson signing here (forgive me if that is not the case). If so, the point (which should actually be obvious) is to debate whether it was a reasonable signing or not. No one (I would assume) believes it has turned out particularly well so far. But to make a silly example (in case the point is still unclear), if we would have signed Messi for 500K and he then got run over by an old Volvo the next day with a fatal outcome, would you still claim that it was a bad signing (not result, which was obviously bad)?

[FFC1987]

It's not just Mawson but he's still an example of a unsuccessful signing. In your scenario of 500k for Messi who doesn't kick a ball and gets run over, yes, hindsight and results would suggest an unsuccessful recruitment outcome as he wouldn't of done anything at the club. For me, there's not much difference if a player fails to have an impact on pitch due to insufficient quality or injury as the bottom line is the same, it didn't work out for whatever reason.

As for making it sound obvious, I'm surprised the idea that post analysis of a players success is driven by hindsight isn't obvious. It's the only measure you can have. You can say 'in the past it was an decent signing at the time' but in the present and likely of knee injuries persist or force early retirement (heaven forbid) it's been a failure both in us getting relegated and now, short of quality on the same position we found ourselves urgently needing in a far more competitive league last time out. Now, with a further season on, it would seem little has been added and prior heavy investment squandered. It's hard not to see that even for the biggest optimist surely.

[jayffc]

It's not just Mawson but he's still an example of a unsuccessful signing. In your scenario of 500k for Messi who doesn't kick a ball and gets run over, yes, hindsight and results would suggest an unsuccessful recruitment outcome as he wouldn't of done anything at the club. For me, there's not much difference if a player fails to have an impact on pitch due to insufficient quality or injury as the bottom line is the same, it didn't work out for whatever reason.

As for making it sound obvious, I'm surprised the idea that post analysis of a players success is driven by hindsight isn't obvious. It's the only measure you can have. You can say 'in the past it was an decent signing at the time' but in the present and likely of knee injuries persist or force early retirement (heaven forbid) it's been a failure both in us getting relegated and now, short of quality on the same position we found ourselves urgently needing in a far more competitive league last time out. Now, with a further season on, it would seem little has been added and prior heavy investment squandered. It's hard not to see that even for the biggest optimist surely.

What are you arguing here?

Yes, Obviously, judging if a transfer went well or not long term, will be based on the result of how well that player performs once bought, or what they're able to give to the team. But that doesn't mean case closed, bad management. The world isn't that simple and that's not the point being made?

The point being discussed is: If everyone generally agrees when a transfer is made that it's the right thing to do, and on paper it is a good signing....if it doesn't work out that way, is it then to ignore that original context of the signing completely, and ignore the fact that perhaps even you yourself were wrong on it too? Is it then a thoughtful stance to blame the person in charge for the bad outcome, or poor form and suggest that they, the one who made the signing that you also though was good too at the time, are incompetent.

The window isn't over yet and we will should see what comes in before making a full judgment of whats happened post relegation.

It might be the 'way things work' in results-based business...but doesn't mean in every instance it's a fair or good way of thinking that shouldn't be challenged with good reason. The world has worked in many dysfunctional ways in its history. It also continues to change.

Anyway can't go down this pothole again...no one every changes their mind on these messageboards.

[Statto]

Judging people on buying decisions with hindsight, is literally how the world works.....I can't believe this is even a topic of debate in an industry where one is judged by player recruitment.

I think the point (although not super clear from previous posts) is that judging only on result without further context is pointless. Therefore, it is not hindsight as such, but the pretending that the actual result was the only reasonable result that is the problem. Thus, the debate.

What's the point in the debate when you have the outcome? We know he *could* of been a good signing, but in a results driven industry, it fails on both accounts. The transfers didn't help us stay up, AND a significant portion of the investment has been shipped out on loan and won't play so however you want to look at it, its not favourable.

I assume we are discussing the Mawson signing here (forgive me if that is not the case). If so, the point (which should actually be obvious) is to debate whether it was a reasonable signing or not. No one (I would assume) believes it has turned out particularly well so far. But to make a silly example (in case the point is still unclear), if we would have signed Messi for 500K and he then got run over by an old Volvo the next day with a fatal outcome, would you still claim that it was a bad signing (not result, which was obviously bad)?

But unless I've misinterpreted you, you seemed to acknowledge in a post above that Mawson's injury/op increased, albeit perhaps only slightly, the risk of him suffering a further injury.

I can't speak for others, but personally I'm not suggesting a serious problem had already crystallised when we signed Mawson, nor do I disagree with anything HillingdonFFC has said above.

However, I suspect that because of the op, both our medical team and TK were aware the transfer was at least slightly riskier than signing a fully fit player with no recent issues. In that case, TK would have weighed that risk against the potential rewards of bringing Mawson in, and decided to proceed.

I don't think there's anything wrong with questionning that decision now, with the benefit of hindsight. Clearly it was wrong and legitimate questions might be, eg, did TK factor into his risk assessment the particular importance of a CB in a team that would likely spend most of its time defending, the importance of Mawson given we had no other CBs anywhere near his ability level, the need for consistency in defence more than other areas, and so on.

Also, TK, as the person responsible for signing Mawson, would (one hopes) have given the decision far more consideration than the average fan or poster on here. He'd also have had access to far, far more information on which he could make a decision. Therefore I don't consider it a significant mitigant that some on here said at the time, in throwaway comments without much information, that it seemed a good signing.

[Sting of the North]

It's not just Mawson but he's still an example of a unsuccessful signing. In your scenario of 500k for Messi who doesn't kick a ball and gets run over, yes, hindsight and results would suggest an unsuccessful recruitment outcome as he wouldn't of done anything at the club. For me, there's not much difference if a player fails to have an impact on pitch due to insufficient quality or injury as the bottom line is the same, it didn't work out for whatever reason.

As for making it sound obvious, I'm surprised the idea that post analysis of a players success is driven by hindsight isn't obvious. It's the only measure you can have. You can say 'in the past it was an decent signing at the time' but in the present and likely of knee injuries persist or force early retirement (heaven forbid) it's been a failure both in us getting relegated and now, short of quality on the same position we found ourselves urgently needing in a far more competitive league last time out. Now, with a further season on, it would seem little has been added and prior heavy investment squandered. It's hard not to see that even for the biggest optimist surely.

It is not an analysis of a players success, but an analysis of the quality of the signing. Here it would also be reasonable to differentiate between a bad signing and an unsuccessful signing, since they are not necessarily the same (although they can be). That concept should not be too surprising I would think.

To be perfectly clear, I do not think that it is a success that Mawson is currently seemingly injured, nor do I believe that the signing so far has turned out to be a success. I also doubt anyone would suggest Mawson being injured is good, and as such that would be a pointless debate that you are seemingly having by your own.

[jayffc]

Judging people on buying decisions with hindsight, is literally how the world works.....I can't believe this is even a topic of debate in an industry where one is judged by player recruitment.

I think the point (although not super clear from previous posts) is that judging only on result without further context is pointless. Therefore, it is not hindsight as such, but the pretending that the actual result was the only reasonable result that is the problem. Thus, the debate.

What's the point in the debate when you have the outcome? We know he *could* of been a good signing, but in a results driven industry, it fails on both accounts. The transfers didn't help us stay up, AND a significant portion of the investment has been shipped out on loan and won't play so however you want to look at it, its not favourable.

I assume we are discussing the Mawson signing here (forgive me if that is not the case). If so, the point (which should actually be obvious) is to debate whether it was a reasonable signing or not. No one (I would assume) believes it has turned out particularly well so far. But to make a silly example (in case the point is still unclear), if we would have signed Messi for 500K and he then got run over by an old Volvo the next day with a fatal outcome, would you still claim that it was a bad signing (not result, which was obviously bad)?

But unless I've misinterpreted you, you seemed to acknowledge in a post above that Mason's injury/op increased, albeit perhaps only slightly, the risk of him suffering a further injury.

I can't speak for others, but personally I'm not suggesting a serious problem had already crystallised when we signed Mawson, nor do I disagree with anything HillingdonFFC has said above.

However, I suspect both our medical team and TK were aware the transfer was at least slightly riskier than signing a fully fit player with no recent issues. In that case, TK would have weighed that risk against the potential rewards of bringing Mawson in, and decided to proceed.

I don't think there's anything wrong with questionning that decision now, with the benefit of hindsight. Clearly it was wrong and legitimate questions might be, eg, did TK factor into his risk assessment the particular importance of a CB in a team that would likely spend most of its time defending, the importance of Mawson given we had no other CBs anywhere near his level, the need for consistency in defence more than other areas, and so on.

I actually agree with you on this one, I think it's fair to ask the question, how much of a risk did it seem to Tony at the time. What information did we have from the people employed to assess his fitness? How risky a signing was it in light of his medical results. All fair things to raise in a calm manner without the need for finger-pointing and axe sharpening.

I would understand more if the signing being discussed was one that looked crap on paper, and turned out to be crap....like the Markovic signing...what the hell was all that about - I gather one of Mitro's suggestions but what a waste of time, we really were desperate by that point!

Anyway, enough for one night!

[Sting of the North]

But unless I've misinterpreted you, you seemed to acknowledge in a post above that Mawson's injury/op increased, albeit perhaps only slightly, the risk of him suffering a further injury.

I can't speak for others, but personally I'm not suggesting a serious problem had already crystallised when we signed Mawson, nor do I disagree with anything HillingdonFFC has said above.

However, I suspect that because of the op, both our medical team and TK were aware the transfer was at least slightly riskier than signing a fully fit player with no recent issues. In that case, TK would have weighed that risk against the potential rewards of bringing Mawson in, and decided to proceed.

I don't think there's anything wrong with questionning that decision now, with the benefit of hindsight. Clearly it was wrong and legitimate questions might be, eg, did TK factor into his risk assessment the particular importance of a CB in a team that would likely spend most of its time defending, the importance of Mawson given we had no other CBs anywhere near his level, the need for consistency in defence more than other areas, and so on.

Also, TK, as the person responsible for signing Mawson, would (one hopes) of given the decision far more consideration than the average fan or poster on here. He'd also have had access to far, far more information on which he could make a decision. Therefore I don't consider it a significant mitigant that some on here said at the time, in throwaway comments without much information, that it seemed a good signing.

I acknowledged that it is possible that he carried a higher risk of further injuries, since I do not know. That additional risk could have been huge, or close to zero (or even zero). I disagree though that we can say with any certainty that the decision was wrong at the time, and as such I don't believe it was clearly the wrong decision.

I agree that we are allowed to question the decision with the benefit of hindsight, and I think most agree that the signing has so far turned out unsuccessfully. That doesn't need to translate into thinking it was a bad signing at the time. I actually don't think that my stance is neither contradictory in the slightest, nor complicated.

[FFC1987]

But unless I've misinterpreted you, you seemed to acknowledge in a post above that Mawson's injury/op increased, albeit perhaps only slightly, the risk of him suffering a further injury.

I can't speak for others, but personally I'm not suggesting a serious problem had already crystallised when we signed Mawson, nor do I disagree with anything HillingdonFFC has said above.

However, I suspect that because of the op, both our medical team and TK were aware the transfer was at least slightly riskier than signing a fully fit player with no recent issues. In that case, TK would have weighed that risk against the potential rewards of bringing Mawson in, and decided to proceed.

I don't think there's anything wrong with questionning that decision now, with the benefit of hindsight. Clearly it was wrong and legitimate questions might be, eg, did TK factor into his risk assessment the particular importance of a CB in a team that would likely spend most of its time defending, the importance of Mawson given we had no other CBs anywhere near his level, the need for consistency in defence more than other areas, and so on.

Also, TK, as the person responsible for signing Mawson, would (one hopes) of given the decision far more consideration than the average fan or poster on here. He'd also have had access to far, far more information on which he could make a decision. Therefore I don't consider it a significant mitigant that some on here said at the time, in throwaway comments without much information, that it seemed a good signing.

I acknowledged that it is possible that he carried a higher risk of further injuries, since I do not know. That additional risk could have been huge, or close to zero (or even zero). I disagree though that we can say with any certainty that the decision was wrong at the time, and as such I don't believe it was clearly the wrong decision.

I agree that we are allowed to question the decision with the benefit of hindsight, and I think most agree that the signing has so far turned out unsuccessfully. That doesn't need to translate into thinking it was a bad signing at the time. I actually don't think that my stance is neither contradictory in the slightest, nor complicated.

And replying  to the above, I'm merely arguing that at the time, I thought Mawson was a good signing but it's turned out, thus far that he is not and I was mainly answering the comment about using hindsight as a way of knowing previously that a deal was bad. I'm nlt suggesting that but TK has a rather....inconsistent track record let's say and Mawson getting injured now makes TK position much much worse because almost all the investment of 100m isn't being shown as wise for both last seasons outcome, and the majority of those players aren't featuring in this seasons yet to be determined outcome so unless we get automatic, we're going backwards.

In a results and value for money on players industry, you have to see that we're failing and that's simply broadening the Mawson transfer to the entire two windows last year.

Just to add, in a transfer like Mawson, I couldnt care if it looked good on paper at the time, the result is what matters and it hasn't worked out, like lots of them last year carrying over to this year. The bottom line is what's important and it's not been pretty.

[Statto]

But unless I've misinterpreted you, you seemed to acknowledge in a post above that Mawson's injury/op increased, albeit perhaps only slightly, the risk of him suffering a further injury.

I can't speak for others, but personally I'm not suggesting a serious problem had already crystallised when we signed Mawson, nor do I disagree with anything HillingdonFFC has said above.

However, I suspect that because of the op, both our medical team and TK were aware the transfer was at least slightly riskier than signing a fully fit player with no recent issues. In that case, TK would have weighed that risk against the potential rewards of bringing Mawson in, and decided to proceed.

I don't think there's anything wrong with questionning that decision now, with the benefit of hindsight. Clearly it was wrong and legitimate questions might be, eg, did TK factor into his risk assessment the particular importance of a CB in a team that would likely spend most of its time defending, the importance of Mawson given we had no other CBs anywhere near his level, the need for consistency in defence more than other areas, and so on.

Also, TK, as the person responsible for signing Mawson, would (one hopes) of given the decision far more consideration than the average fan or poster on here. He'd also have had access to far, far more information on which he could make a decision. Therefore I don't consider it a significant mitigant that some on here said at the time, in throwaway comments without much information, that it seemed a good signing.

I acknowledged that it is possible that he carried a higher risk of further injuries, since I do not know. That additional risk could have been huge, or close to zero (or even zero). I disagree though that we can say with any certainty that the decision was wrong at the time, and as such I don't believe it was clearly the wrong decision.

I agree that we are allowed to question the decision with the benefit of hindsight, and I think most agree that the signing has so far turned out unsuccessfully. That doesn't need to translate into thinking it was a bad signing at the time. I actually don't think that my stance is neither contradictory in the slightest, nor complicated.

To clarify a couple of points, when I said "clearly the decision was wrong" I meant, as you've put it, it has "turned out unsuccessful". I fully understand the difference between a decision that turns out to be wrong with the passage of time, versus a decision that was bad at the time it was made. However, my point is I think the decision to sign Mawson was both the former and the latter, and not simply because we can see with hindsight he got repeatedly injured, but because TK may not have correctly weighed the risk of that at the time we purchased Mawson. Had Mawson been a winger, the risk would have perhaps been worth taking, because a player being unavailable in that part of the team would likely have been far less impactful than an injury to our best CB, for the reasons I gave. Did TK, with his limited football knowledge, comsider that sort of thing when he quantified the risk?

[The Rational Fan]

But unless I've misinterpreted you, you seemed to acknowledge in a post above that Mawson's injury/op increased, albeit perhaps only slightly, the risk of him suffering a further injury.

I can't speak for others, but personally I'm not suggesting a serious problem had already crystallised when we signed Mawson, nor do I disagree with anything HillingdonFFC has said above.

However, I suspect that because of the op, both our medical team and TK were aware the transfer was at least slightly riskier than signing a fully fit player with no recent issues. In that case, TK would have weighed that risk against the potential rewards of bringing Mawson in, and decided to proceed.

I don't think there's anything wrong with questionning that decision now, with the benefit of hindsight. Clearly it was wrong and legitimate questions might be, eg, did TK factor into his risk assessment the particular importance of a CB in a team that would likely spend most of its time defending, the importance of Mawson given we had no other CBs anywhere near his level, the need for consistency in defence more than other areas, and so on.

Also, TK, as the person responsible for signing Mawson, would (one hopes) of given the decision far more consideration than the average fan or poster on here. He'd also have had access to far, far more information on which he could make a decision. Therefore I don't consider it a significant mitigant that some on here said at the time, in throwaway comments without much information, that it seemed a good signing.

I acknowledged that it is possible that he carried a higher risk of further injuries, since I do not know. That additional risk could have been huge, or close to zero (or even zero). I disagree though that we can say with any certainty that the decision was wrong at the time, and as such I don't believe it was clearly the wrong decision.

I agree that we are allowed to question the decision with the benefit of hindsight, and I think most agree that the signing has so far turned out unsuccessfully. That doesn't need to translate into thinking it was a bad signing at the time. I actually don't think that my stance is neither contradictory in the slightest, nor complicated.

To clarify a couple of points, when I said "clearly the decision was wrong" I meant, as you've put it, it has "turned out unsuccessful". I fully understand the difference between a decision that turns out to be wrong with the passage of time, versus a decision that was bad at the time it was made. However, my point is I think the decision to sign Mawson was both the former and the latter, and not simply because we can see with hindsight he got repeatedly injured, but because TK may not have correctly weighed the risk of that at the time we purchased Mawson. Had Mawson been a winger, the risk would have perhaps been worth taking, because a player being unavailable in that part of the team would likely have been far less impactful than an injury to our best CB, for the reasons I gave. Did TK, with his limited football knowledge, comsider that sort of thing when he quantified the risk?

Analysing why Fulham failed, Big Sam points out £30m is the cost of a quality premier league player. He thinks we should have spent £100m for three players. Mawson was £30m defender at half price due to his injury. Basically, Big Sam thinks we didn't buy enough quality in the lineup.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/i-question-quality-sam-allardyce-16636739

[Woolly Mammoth]

If we are to prepare and organise ourselves properly so we can start off on the right foot in the first match v Barnsley, I hope Fulham have a cunning plan for the coming week.

[Mince n Tatties]

Once again Transfer Gossip being taken over by the same individuals who hijack every topic with their continuous war of trying to oudo each other with their continuous I know better than you,and I'll prove it by putting up more quotes than anyone else....
Get a f+++ing room.
Yes I'm in a bad mood Police have just woken me up chasing a fox through the back garden,haven't they got anything better to do?🙅

[Woolly Mammoth]

Once again Transfer Gossip being taken over by the same individuals who hijack every topic with their continuous war of trying to oudo each other with their continuous I know better than you,and I'll prove it by putting up more quotes than anyone else....
Get a f+++ing room.
Yes I'm in a bad mood Police have just woken me up chasing a fox through the back garden,haven't they got anything better to do?🙅

Yes your right, these dam foxes haven't got anything better to do. Only the other night one mentioned to me that he was fed up being chased by the Old Bill with their truncheons in their hand. I hope the Constabulary did not have a peep into your Garden Shed, otherwise you may have ended up down the Station to explain what all those swingers were doing.

[Mince n Tatties]

I was more worried they'd find the illicit hooch which is brewing away in there.😎

[Woolly Mammoth]

I was more worried they'd find the illicit hooch which is brewing away in there.😎

Who The Fox or the Peelers ?

[the nutflush]

What a farce this thread has become. Anyone actually know of any transfer news? Is it too much to ask for a rumor about a defender who may be available? I would be happy to read some made up nonsense from a wannabe journo over the pathetic arguments on this thread.

[Mince n Tatties]

Ryan Porteous on trial from Hibs,centre back whose been out injured for over a year,and only just back in training..... So we'll most prob sign him as we like to give a home to cripples.😵

[St. Andrews White]

Ryan Porteous on trial from Hibs,centre back whose been out injured for over a year,and only just back in training..... So we'll most prob sign him as we like to give a home to cripples.[emoji43]

He made 23 appearances last season for Hibs, not sure he's been out for a year?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Fulham76]

Gary Cahill, I've heard mentioned again a couple of times this weekend.

Mainly suggesting he's on his way to Galatasary & even Arsenal & Man Utd linked with him but we're still being mentioned in the reports as apparently wants to remain in London & we're 'desperate for defensive reinforcements'.