Author Topic: Recruitment same as last season apparently  (Read 2589 times)

Offline toshes mate

  • cebu
  • *
  • Posts: 4336
  • Vitam Impendere Vero
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #60 on: June 14, 2019, 04:00:30 PM »
Letting Target go was a huge mistake, not only his personal performance but the successful relationship with Sess down the left. Signing Mawson and Chambers was a good idea for defensive pairing but sadly, it all went pear shaped very fast.  Seems like  a combination of errors to me. Recruitment and coaching but mainly recruitment.

Targett wasnt ours to let go?? He was on loan and then southampton didnt want to sell him.
Neither was Mitrovic, but that isn't the point being made is it (rhetorical).

Offline FFC1987

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 496
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #61 on: June 14, 2019, 04:15:47 PM »
Letting Target go was a huge mistake, not only his personal performance but the successful relationship with Sess down the left. Signing Mawson and Chambers was a good idea for defensive pairing but sadly, it all went pear shaped very fast.  Seems like  a combination of errors to me. Recruitment and coaching but mainly recruitment.

Targett wasnt ours to let go?? He was on loan and then southampton didnt want to sell him.

Actually, they were keen on selling for a set price which we didn't meet. Supposedly, not someone ITK on the Saints end, we were quibbling over 1-2m.

Online Ols_S

  • tjl
  • *
  • Posts: 276
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #62 on: June 14, 2019, 04:36:31 PM »
Letting Target go was a huge mistake, not only his personal performance but the successful relationship with Sess down the left. Signing Mawson and Chambers was a good idea for defensive pairing but sadly, it all went pear shaped very fast.  Seems like  a combination of errors to me. Recruitment and coaching but mainly recruitment.

Targett wasnt ours to let go?? He was on loan and then southampton didnt want to sell him.
Neither was Mitrovic, but that isn't the point being made is it (rhetorical).

I see your point, but I think Newcastle were more prepared for him to leave than Southampton were with Matty T!


Online Ols_S

  • tjl
  • *
  • Posts: 276
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #63 on: June 14, 2019, 04:37:05 PM »
Letting Target go was a huge mistake, not only his personal performance but the successful relationship with Sess down the left. Signing Mawson and Chambers was a good idea for defensive pairing but sadly, it all went pear shaped very fast.  Seems like  a combination of errors to me. Recruitment and coaching but mainly recruitment.

Targett wasnt ours to let go?? He was on loan and then southampton didnt want to sell him.

Actually, they were keen on selling for a set price which we didn't meet. Supposedly, not someone ITK on the Saints end, we were quibbling over 1-2m.

Which when you look at what was spent elsewhere in the squad is ridiculous, if true!

Offline Twig

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 6668
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #64 on: June 14, 2019, 11:29:19 PM »
We got the key positions, problem is we didn't get
the right players to fill them key positions.

Which players that were at the club on the 1st Jan 2018 contributed the most this season (Betts, Odoi, Ream, KMac, Cairney or Sess)?

Frankly, the lack of contribution of players that have been at the club since Christmas of 2017 is a major problem.

Most recruitment has about a 40% success rate, FFC recruited 12 players and around 4-5 had a decent season (i.e. normal success rate).

The recruitment isn't the main problem, it is that Fulham has become over-reliant on new players to deliver each season (e.g. Mitro and Target in 17/18).

If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...

Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.

The reason we are 'over-reliant' on new players every season is that TK makes the same mistake over and over again: loans and short term solutions + most of the big money signings fail and must be sold at a loss or shipped out on loan. I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?

Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?

Nordtveit (recently injured, not played since Nov)

Markovic (unfit, not played regularly for YEARS)

Babel (recently injured, not match fit when he arrived, eventually turned out great but by then it was too late)

To make matters even worse all of them arrived near the END of the transfer window.

Same story with the last summer transfer window.

Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.

And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK, that his father won't back any other DoF. A pretty weak argument IMO (but if it's true I would want both father and son out).


Totally support this post in its entirety.

Offline Woolly Mammoth

  • Cliffy Dean
  • ****
  • Posts: 23133
  • Not one step back.
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #65 on: June 14, 2019, 11:40:52 PM »
We got the key positions, problem is we didn't get
the right players to fill them key positions.

Which players that were at the club on the 1st Jan 2018 contributed the most this season (Betts, Odoi, Ream, KMac, Cairney or Sess)?

Frankly, the lack of contribution of players that have been at the club since Christmas of 2017 is a major problem.

Most recruitment has about a 40% success rate, FFC recruited 12 players and around 4-5 had a decent season (i.e. normal success rate).

The recruitment isn't the main problem, it is that Fulham has become over-reliant on new players to deliver each season (e.g. Mitro and Target in 17/18).

If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...

Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.

The reason we are 'over-reliant' on new players every season is that TK makes the same mistake over and over again: loans and short term solutions + most of the big money signings fail and must be sold at a loss or shipped out on loan. I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?

Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?

Nordtveit (recently injured, not played since Nov)

Markovic (unfit, not played regularly for YEARS)

Babel (recently injured, not match fit when he arrived, eventually turned out great but by then it was too late)

To make matters even worse all of them arrived near the END of the transfer window.

Same story with the last summer transfer window.

Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.

And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK, that his father won't back any other DoF. A pretty weak argument IMO (but if it's true I would want both father and son out).


Totally support this post in its entirety.

As do I


Offline toshes mate

  • cebu
  • *
  • Posts: 4336
  • Vitam Impendere Vero
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #66 on: June 15, 2019, 07:53:13 AM »

[Sting Of The North] say......
"There is nothing to say that for example our head coach is not allowed to suggest players"
The problem is any players the HC suggests are binned, he can suggest them but its more likely TK and others will come up with an alternative and we end up with a player the HC doesn't want more often than not.

 "Transfer decisions will chiefly be in the hands of Tony Khan and Scott Parker"
WTF is TK doing having a chief say in recruitment ? Oh yes, his Dad owns the club and that's really important!

"Hopefully he is learning on the job"
Well! Clearly he's not according to whats been said!

Once again it is difficult not to see the two very different sides to a system that is supposed to be clear to everyone and not as ambiguous as any politician would be thrilled to make it.  The Khans' are running a football club and not vying for a majority.   If TK was fit for purpose there wouldn't even be room for one doubting supporter.   

Offline Newry FFC

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 3149
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #67 on: June 15, 2019, 02:48:17 PM »
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...

Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.

The reason we are 'over-reliant' on new players every season is that TK makes the same mistake over and over again: loans and short term solutions + most of the big money signings fail and must be sold at a loss or shipped out on loan. I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?

Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?

Nordtveit (recently injured, not played since Nov)

Markovic (unfit, not played regularly for YEARS)

Babel (recently injured, not match fit when he arrived, eventually turned out great but by then it was too late)

To make matters even worse all of them arrived near the END of the transfer window.

Same story with the last summer transfer window.

Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.

And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK, that his father won't back any other DoF. A pretty weak argument IMO (but if it's true I would want both father and son out).


This post 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Offline Woolly Mammoth

  • Cliffy Dean
  • ****
  • Posts: 23133
  • Not one step back.
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #68 on: June 15, 2019, 04:45:19 PM »
This is Arson, somebody call the Fire Brigade. 💦💧


Offline The Rational Fan

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #69 on: June 16, 2019, 05:47:38 AM »
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...

Yes, I do. A "normal success rate" would mean the three teams that have spend the least will go down.

As you can see that happened last season, of course we all hoped for exceptional performance (like Wolves).

Transfer Spending on Players (since season promoted from Championship)

14   Newcastle United   £151.03m
15   Brighton & Hove Albion   £145.45m
16   Burnley    £126.04m
17   Wolves   £123.18m
18   Fulham   £122.46m
19   Huddersfield Town   £100.72m
20   Cardiff City   £57.48m

Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.

Yes, but we have also made good and bad signings. As I said, we got relegated due to a normal success rate.

A "normal success rate" means the team selling normally get the player value more correct than the buying club.

I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?

What you are saying is we need "10 players available right now that are good enough to deliver promotion at prices Fulham can afford". All we know for certain is Tony Khan sees what is available in his price range for late June and early July says "no thank you" every year, except last season when he bought MLM and Seri a little earlier (which proves he gets better value nearer deadline day).

Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?

Yes, Tony Khan has been signing injured players, because he couldn't buy uninjured players of their quality. Fulham signed a i) injured Mawson (with an uninjured MLM), ii) unfit Babel (with a fit Vietto). Does anyone seriously think FFC had the option to sign an uninjured Mawson and a fit Babel?

Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.

I totally agree that Chambers and Bryan were bought late, but Christie and MLM were the best options FFC could find early for the 18/19 season. If you saying "getting a player of Chambers quality when we bought MLM" and "getting a player of Bryan's quality when we got Christie" would have helped there is no doubt your right. Do actually believe we could have loaned Chambers in early June?

And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK.

I cannot be certain Shahid Khan won't financially back another DoF. If he 100% backs another DoF as much as this one we are fine, but the owner backing his DoF is the first, second and third most important things at the club. The financial backing table indicates that Tony Khan wasn't backed as much as at least 16 other teams in the Premier League, so relegation was partly caused by TK not being backed enough. Most fans believes Shahid Khan would have liked to have backed his DoF more, but FFP simply won't let him do it. Financial backing is essential essential essential.

You say if Shahid Khan won't back a new DoF, I would want both father and son out.

If father and son leave, then whom will buy it and why would they buy the club (for its assets or to be a team).

According to the Fulham Accounts 17/18, the Fulham's freehold land is worth £130 million without rezoning (rezoning the cottage could double that value).

If someone wants to buy a mid-table Championship Club, then the typically price £40-70 million, like Wolves sold for 50 million.

We know that asset strippers (i.e. with property developers) would probably offer to buy Fulham for more than the accounting price of the land £130 million, but would a billionaire wanting to own a football Club be willing to pay £80 million more for Fulham over say Sheffield Wednesday (or pay £30 million more for Fulham than Sunderland).

If the Khan's sell to asset strippers, then it could be very very dark days indeed. Don't wish for it.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 06:11:27 AM by The Rational Fan »

Offline toshes mate

  • cebu
  • *
  • Posts: 4336
  • Vitam Impendere Vero
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #70 on: June 16, 2019, 09:30:42 AM »
If the Khan's sell to asset strippers, then it could be very very dark days indeed. Don't wish for it.
When I was researching the planning documents for the ex-BBC land acquired by Khan, my searches revealed something that, at the time, wasn't helpful to understanding what was going on with Khan's recently acquired asset and so I disregarded it.  That something was potential alternative 'sites' for 'facilities' (unspecified) FFC had been allegedly looking at.  These 'sites' were not helpfully specific (i.e. there was no clear identification as to location which was probably deliberate) and whilst I tried to identify them on maps there was just too much ambiguity to believe there was any or much connection to Motspur Park, although I could see a potential for a 'new development for both stadium and training (or other use)'.  My immediate thoughts at the time turned to this being a search for NFL facilities, rather than football. 

However, a part of me could see Khan, looking at the longer term, and knowing how planning and development proposals change with land value changes, thinking about a new multi-purpose stadium and giving up on Craven Cottage.  The latter point is strengthened when one considers the new Riverside which when finished will already contain residential units and would make planning change of use a snip.   As we can assume Khan is shrewd operator then why on earth would he pass up an opportunity to at least break even on his London dealings if his only interest in FFC is pleasing his son by giving him a business to run?  If he is not here for the duration then we are already in trouble.

Offline The Rational Fan

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #71 on: June 16, 2019, 10:07:11 AM »
If the Khan's sell to asset strippers, then it could be very very dark days indeed. Don't wish for it.
When I was researching the planning documents for the ex-BBC land acquired by Khan, my searches revealed something that, at the time, wasn't helpful to understanding what was going on with Khan's recently acquired asset and so I disregarded it.  That something was potential alternative 'sites' for 'facilities' (unspecified) FFC had been allegedly looking at.  These 'sites' were not helpfully specific (i.e. there was no clear identification as to location which was probably deliberate) and whilst I tried to identify them on maps there was just too much ambiguity to believe there was any or much connection to Motspur Park, although I could see a potential for a 'new development for both stadium and training (or other use)'.  My immediate thoughts at the time turned to this being a search for NFL facilities, rather than football. 

However, a part of me could see Khan, looking at the longer term, and knowing how planning and development proposals change with land value changes, thinking about a new multi-purpose stadium and giving up on Craven Cottage.  The latter point is strengthened when one considers the new Riverside which when finished will already contain residential units and would make planning change of use a snip.   As we can assume Khan is shrewd operator then why on earth would he pass up an opportunity to at least break even on his London dealings if his only interest in FFC is pleasing his son by giving him a business to run?  If he is not here for the duration then we are already in trouble.

Spot on i noticed almost the same thing; it seems they have bought into Fulham at £200m in a way that they can at least break even with the London dealings even if the football fails. The Khan's actions indicate to me that they may "Love the Club", but everyone still has a little doubt and there is no truer statement than "If he is not here for the duration then we are already in trouble". Or at least, unless the Khans are very careful to ensure "the owners love the club more than they love money" then we are in BIG BIG Trouble.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 10:21:36 AM by The Rational Fan »


Offline Lyle from Hangeland

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 583
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #72 on: June 16, 2019, 04:34:18 PM »
If by 'decent season' and 'normal success rate' you mean good enough for relegation then you are correct of course...

Yes, I do. A "normal success rate" would mean the three teams that have spend the least will go down.

As you can see that happened last season, of course we all hoped for exceptional performance (like Wolves).

Transfer Spending on Players (since season promoted from Championship)

14   Newcastle United   £151.03m
15   Brighton & Hove Albion   £145.45m
16   Burnley    £126.04m
17   Wolves   £123.18m
18   Fulham   £122.46m
19   Huddersfield Town   £100.72m
20   Cardiff City   £57.48m

Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.

Yes, but we have also made good and bad signings. As I said, we got relegated due to a normal success rate.

A "normal success rate" means the team selling normally get the player value more correct than the buying club.

I think a lot of people underestimate the number of players we will need to sign to challenge for promotion next season. In my opinion we will need 7-10 players, depending on how many will leave and how many youngsters are ready to step up. Most of them will obviously arrive late so we will start the season uprepared with an unsettled squad AGAIN. This is a consequence of TKs failed/short term transfer business. How can you say this is not a recruitment problem?

What you are saying is we need "10 players available right now that are good enough to deliver promotion at prices Fulham can afford". All we know for certain is Tony Khan sees what is available in his price range for late June and early July says "no thank you" every year, except last season when he bought MLM and Seri a little earlier (which proves he gets better value nearer deadline day).

Then there's the failed strategy of signing injured (or recently injured/unfit) players. Especially in the January window when we needed results FAST. What did TK get us?

Yes, Tony Khan has been signing injured players, because he couldn't buy uninjured players of their quality. Fulham signed a i) injured Mawson (with an uninjured MLM), ii) unfit Babel (with a fit Vietto). Does anyone seriously think FFC had the option to sign an uninjured Mawson and a fit Babel?

Chambers signed Aug 7th. Bryan signed Aug 9th. Both started against Palace Aug 11th. That's insane! I think Chambers got a lot of undeserved critisism considering the circumstances. I'm sure he would have done better at CB if given more time to prepare.

I totally agree that Chambers and Bryan were bought late, but Christie and MLM were the best options FFC could find early for the 18/19 season. If you saying "getting a player of Chambers quality when we bought MLM" and "getting a player of Bryan's quality when we got Christie" would have helped there is no doubt your right. Do actually believe we could have loaned Chambers in early June?

And how can you be so certain that Shahid Khan won't financially back any other DoF than his son? This seems to be your main argument for supporting TK.

I cannot be certain Shahid Khan won't financially back another DoF. If he 100% backs another DoF as much as this one we are fine, but the owner backing his DoF is the first, second and third most important things at the club. The financial backing table indicates that Tony Khan wasn't backed as much as at least 16 other teams in the Premier League, so relegation was partly caused by TK not being backed enough. Most fans believes Shahid Khan would have liked to have backed his DoF more, but FFP simply won't let him do it. Financial backing is essential essential essential.

You say if Shahid Khan won't back a new DoF, I would want both father and son out.

If father and son leave, then whom will buy it and why would they buy the club (for its assets or to be a team).

According to the Fulham Accounts 17/18, the Fulham's freehold land is worth £130 million without rezoning (rezoning the cottage could double that value).

If someone wants to buy a mid-table Championship Club, then the typically price £40-70 million, like Wolves sold for 50 million.

We know that asset strippers (i.e. with property developers) would probably offer to buy Fulham for more than the accounting price of the land £130 million, but would a billionaire wanting to own a football Club be willing to pay £80 million more for Fulham over say Sheffield Wednesday (or pay £30 million more for Fulham than Sunderland).

If the Khan's sell to asset strippers, then it could be very very dark days indeed. Don't wish for it.

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

Offline Statto

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 7141
  • Test
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #73 on: June 16, 2019, 08:35:50 PM »
A "normal success rate" would mean the three teams that have spend the least will go down.

As you can see that happened last season, of course we all hoped for exceptional performance (like Wolves).

Transfer Spending on Players (since season promoted from Championship)

14   Newcastle United   £151.03m
15   Brighton & Hove Albion   £145.45m
16   Burnley    £126.04m
17   Wolves   £123.18m
18   Fulham   £122.46m
19   Huddersfield Town   £100.72m
20   Cardiff City   £57.48m

Sorry but this table compares teams' spending over different lengths of time, which seems to me a very poor analysis.

You posted a much fairer analysis, which was spending over the last 3 yrs, and IIRC that indicated we should have finished 17th, and not been relegated.

And I retain the strong personal opinion that an even better analysis involves not just looking at league position, but points achieved. To say we finished 19th versus a target of 17th doesn't sound like terrible underperformance - it's only two places after all. But in reality we were a long, long way off 17th, 10 points off ultimately.

As I said in another post, comparing our spending over the last 3 yrs to points achieved, we performed worse than almost all our peer clubs. Yes we should have expected to finish below the likes of Watford and Palace, but not 23-24 points below them.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 08:50:32 PM by Statto »

Offline Statto

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 7141
  • Test
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #74 on: June 16, 2019, 08:40:35 PM »
Over the last couple of seasons we've spent far too much money on players that should be better than 'decent' considering what we paid for them: Sigurdsson, Jozabed, Fonte, Seri.

Yes, but we have also made good and bad signings. As I said, we got relegated due to a normal success rate.

A "normal success rate" means the team selling normally get the player value more correct than the buying club.

Have we normally got better value than the selling club? Really?

I'm sure we got good deals for the likes of Aluko and Malone. But does the value we got there exceed the amount we overpaid (versus their current market value) for other players?

For example Fonte, Kamara and Anguissa cost what, £35-40m? I reckon the current market value of those 3 now is about £10-£15m.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 08:51:13 PM by Statto »


Offline Statto

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 7141
  • Test
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #75 on: June 16, 2019, 08:44:27 PM »
last season when he bought MLM and Seri a little earlier (which proves he gets better value nearer deadline day).

Surely the Anguissa signing on deadline day disproves that theory

Offline Statto

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 7141
  • Test
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #76 on: June 16, 2019, 08:45:50 PM »
Do actually believe we could have loaned Chambers in early June?

What evidence do you have that we couldn't?

Offline Statto

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 7141
  • Test
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #77 on: June 16, 2019, 08:49:07 PM »
Does anyone seriously think FFC had the option to sign an uninjured Mawson

Again, what evidence do you have that we couldn't?

We signed Mawson from a Championship club. He was hardly a coup, or out of our league.

I'm sure there were equally good CBs out there who weren't injured, that we could realistically have targeted.

And even if there weren't, we'd have been better off with a good CB playing 38 games than a very good CB playing 15 games.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 08:52:53 PM by Statto »

Offline The Rational Fan

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #78 on: Today at 01:01:38 AM »
A "normal success rate" would mean the three teams that have spend the least will go down.

As you can see that happened last season, of course we all hoped for exceptional performance (like Wolves).

Transfer Spending on Players (since season promoted from Championship)

14   Newcastle United   £151.03m
15   Brighton & Hove Albion   £145.45m
16   Burnley    £126.04m
17   Wolves   £123.18m
18   Fulham   £122.46m
19   Huddersfield Town   £100.72m
20   Cardiff City   £57.48m

Sorry but this table compares teams' spending over different lengths of time, which seems to me a very poor analysis.

You posted a much fairer analysis, which was spending over the last 3 yrs, and IIRC that indicated we should have finished 17th, and not been relegated.

And I retain the strong personal opinion that an even better analysis involves not just looking at league position, but points achieved. To say we finished 19th versus a target of 17th doesn't sound like terrible underperformance - it's only two places after all. But in reality we were a long, long way off 17th, 10 points off ultimately.

As I said in another post, comparing our spending over the last 3 yrs to points achieved, we performed worse than almost all our peer clubs. Yes we should have expected to finish below the likes of Watford and Palace, but not 23-24 points below them.

Well, the analysis is highly coorelated to results and infinitely better than transfer spending spending for a single year, which every pundit seems to quote at constantly, although if that £100m figure was some important Tottenham £0m should have been relegated has year and Chelsea should be relegated this year. My table shows something important, we spent enough to be equal with Brighton and should have been ahead of Cardiff. We can blame Tony Khan, but Chris Houghton and Colin also did a great job at being hard to beat, while we didn’t.

 If you want to say why Brighton were ahead of us, recruitment and tactics both contributed. We got three points against all of the bottom six teams, but Brighton did much better against top 13 teams than us. While 12 points is our shortfall, any analysis that doesn’t blame TK, Scouts, Slavisa, Ranieri, Players and assistant coaches (eg Parker) is incomplete an analysis. As the end of the season proved we don’t need a revolution, we need to keep building and most of all retain good players more.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:18:50 AM by The Rational Fan »

Offline The Rational Fan

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Recruitment same as last season apparently
« Reply #79 on: Today at 01:33:24 AM »
Do actually believe we could have loaned Chambers in early June?

What evidence do you have that we couldn't?

We don’t know if Tony Khan rejected Chambers earlier in the window, but Calum Chambers came with excellent statistics in the EPL for his price. Tony Khan is innocent until proven guilty, I think it’s unfair to accuse Tony Khan of not loaning Chambers earlier especially as it was pretty clearly a surprise to Chambers when Arsenal organised the loan.

What is worse if Tony Khan leaves DoF on false accusations his love of the club and his fathers love if the club will disappear. Then, The Khans will sell the club for £200m and who would want to pay that price except "assets stripping property developers", when you buy either Sheffield team for under 200m.

« Last Edit: Today at 07:15:21 AM by The Rational Fan »