Seri spotted in london

[Tabby]

IIRC Seri's signing was, by public account, a 'rash' decision by TK whilst negotiating FFC's interest in MLM, which likely led to an unsatisfactory taste in Jean Michael's mouth. 

Everything I've read said the opposite: MLM was the makeweight on a deal for Seri. Not the other way around.

But of course there are separate stories about the fee allocation by Nice, in which Fulham may have been complicit, which could account for the deal leaving an "unsatisfactory taste" with Seri because apparently it determined his bonus.

It is categorically as I put it, which was the reason why Seri was dissatisfied with Nice's pricing.  Even Seri's agent confirmed.  It is all on the old threads.

Here is an article about it if anyone needs a refresher. Remember being surprised about how low the total fee was.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11800/11805509/jean-michael-seri-files-criminal-complaint-for-fraud-against-nice-over-fulham-move

[Baszab]

No wonder Seri had the needle playing for Fulham - if he got screwed on the transfer deal

[Colton F.C.]

"Seri's statement added: "Mr Seri hopes that Ineos, which did not own OGC Nice at the time of the events, will be keen to shed complete light on this matter very quickly.""

This was two years ago.  Are there any updates?  Arrests?

[Tabby]

"Seri's statement added: "Mr Seri hopes that Ineos, which did not own OGC Nice at the time of the events, will be keen to shed complete light on this matter very quickly.""

This was two years ago.  Are there any updates?  Arrests?

It started one year ago, but still slim pickings.

Only thing I could find was a statement from ASEC Mimosas (his former club in the Ivory Coast) saying that they haven't sued Fulham or Nice. Can't find anything else.

[General]

Didn't know about the potential fraud and lack of transparency re Seri. Would potentially explain why his heart didn't seem in it as much as it could've/should've been. If we sort out the DM roles then having Seri back and for a second season could actually be a smart move. I think he'd do a lot better in a more compact defensive team under Parker. He's definitely got ability to play a pass and do well. If he Harrison and Lemina all cover each other and have a good working relationship, it may be the way forward.

[General]

A Reminder of why we got excited about him and felt so dissapointed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o2DwflCy8Q

[Statto]

IIRC Seri's signing was, by public account, a 'rash' decision by TK whilst negotiating FFC's interest in MLM, which likely led to an unsatisfactory taste in Jean Michael's mouth. 

Everything I've read said the opposite: MLM was the makeweight on a deal for Seri. Not the other way around.

But of course there are separate stories about the fee allocation by Nice, in which Fulham may have been complicit, which could account for the deal leaving an "unsatisfactory taste" with Seri because apparently it determined his bonus.

It is categorically as I put it, which was the reason why Seri was dissatisfied with Nice's pricing.  Even Seri's agent confirmed.  It is all on the old threads.

The only thing I can find in old threads suggesting our primary target was MLM is the L'Equipe article (https://www.ogcnissa.com/articles-13710-presse-seri-nice-un-differend-en-prime) in which, I will concede, the Nice general manager is quoted as saying "Fulham was first interested in Le Marchand, from January. Then they looked at Le Marchand and Plea. I whispered the name Seri to them as they were looking for a midfielder."

However, I'm not sure that equates to Seri's signing being "a 'rash' decision by TK whilst negotiating FFC's interest in MLM". It just means that, allegedly, we'd enquired about MLM six months earlier.

It's also worth noting that in the very same article, Seri's lawyers are reported to have said the complete opposite - "Fulham was initially only interested in Seri and it was Nice who insisted on coupling his cession to that of central defender Maxime Le Marchand"

Then of course when we signed Seri, Tony Khan said, "he has been at the very top of our target list for a long time." (https://www.fulhamfc.com/news/2018/july/12/jean-michael-seri-signs)

Certainly not "categorically" as you put, and I remain inclined to believe Tony Khan's and Seri's lawyers' version of events, which is the opposite of what you've said. I'm not inclined to attach much credibility to the Nice general manager's comments, given the context of all this is him being accused of fraud.

[WolverineFFC]

Was Seri really that bad, think people think he was a lot worse then he was.

I think 'underwhelming' is fair. The hype on him was huge and he looked off the pace and cost us some goals through cheaply losing the ball but he wasn't dreadful.

It is fair. He was MOtM a few times at the beginning of the season. Personally, I thought he had the makings of a top player. Then the wheels fell off and by the end he looked disinterested and the term "lightweight" comes to mind. I struggle to see how he fits in the midfield the club have now, with or without Frank.

[General]

IIRC Seri's signing was, by public account, a 'rash' decision by TK whilst negotiating FFC's interest in MLM, which likely led to an unsatisfactory taste in Jean Michael's mouth. 

Everything I've read said the opposite: MLM was the makeweight on a deal for Seri. Not the other way around.

But of course there are separate stories about the fee allocation by Nice, in which Fulham may have been complicit, which could account for the deal leaving an "unsatisfactory taste" with Seri because apparently it determined his bonus.

It is categorically as I put it, which was the reason why Seri was dissatisfied with Nice's pricing.  Even Seri's agent confirmed.  It is all on the old threads.

The only thing I can find in old threads suggesting our primary target was MLM is the L'Equipe article (https://www.ogcnissa.com/articles-13710-presse-seri-nice-un-differend-en-prime) in which, I will concede, the Nice general manager is quoted as saying "Fulham was first interested in Le Marchand, from January. Then they looked at Le Marchand and Plea. I whispered the name Seri to them as they were looking for a midfielder."

However, I'm not sure that equates to Seri's signing being "a 'rash' decision by TK whilst negotiating FFC's interest in MLM". It just means that, allegedly, we'd enquired about MLM six months earlier.

It's also worth noting that in the very same article, Seri's lawyers are reported to have said the complete opposite - "Fulham was initially only interested in Seri and it was Nice who insisted on coupling his cession to that of central defender Maxime Le Marchand"

Then of course when we signed Seri, Tony Khan said, "he has been at the very top of our target list for a long time." (https://www.fulhamfc.com/news/2018/july/12/jean-michael-seri-signs)

Certainly not "categorically" as you put, and I remain inclined to believe Tony Khan's and Seri's lawyers' version of events, which is the opposite of what you've said. I'm not inclined to attach much credibility to the Nice general manager's comments, given the context of all this is him being accused of fraud.

Interesting. I wouldn't take TK and what he says too seriously, he seems to throw words and statements around too freely for me to feel like he has a concrete idea of what he's doing.

One thing dawned on me, although is obviously quite apparent, is that when both Lemina and Reed were signed he was quoted about saying the same thing word for word on how the signings were connected to a holistic approach and agreement between management, coaches and statisticians... he seems so desperate to put that in as a key reason we sign players, but he takes no responsibility for them when they fail - when if the statistics method worked so well, then you'd assume it'd include all factors that contribute to a player doing well and the errors on who we sign would start to become fewer and fewer... and I'm not convinced those lessons have been learned.

I would be very suprised if we simply happened to have looked through a variety of players globally and just happened to find two in the same club that statistically were ideal and great. Especially two players who, rightly or wrongly, are surplus to requirements at a more established premiership club (talking about the last six years).

[The Rock]

Was Seri really that bad, think people think he was a lot worse then he was.

I remember him being quite impressive initially (first 7 games or so). It was only after the Man City game that his form significantly dipped. I'm not sure what prompted the change, but the whole team struggled. Hopefully this season, things will be better both on and off the pitch.

You may want to go back and watch Kmac's video interview from a week or two ago. It's over and hour, but really insightful. Basically Slav wouldn't adapt, then CR lost the plot before he could find it. It understandable they all under performed. The fact that they had been, and were loaned to in some cases teams playing in Europe, but couldn't make it with us in the Championship is telling.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending him. I can understand how he could be good for someone (else).

[absenteeism]

Got a great assist against Brighton when we blew the 2 goal lead.

Scored a cracker against Burnley.

That's about my memory of the good things he did

[Sting of the North]

IIRC Seri's signing was, by public account, a 'rash' decision by TK whilst negotiating FFC's interest in MLM, which likely led to an unsatisfactory taste in Jean Michael's mouth. 

Everything I've read said the opposite: MLM was the makeweight on a deal for Seri. Not the other way around.

But of course there are separate stories about the fee allocation by Nice, in which Fulham may have been complicit, which could account for the deal leaving an "unsatisfactory taste" with Seri because apparently it determined his bonus.

It is categorically as I put it, which was the reason why Seri was dissatisfied with Nice's pricing.  Even Seri's agent confirmed.  It is all on the old threads.

The only thing I can find in old threads suggesting our primary target was MLM is the L'Equipe article (https://www.ogcnissa.com/articles-13710-presse-seri-nice-un-differend-en-prime) in which, I will concede, the Nice general manager is quoted as saying "Fulham was first interested in Le Marchand, from January. Then they looked at Le Marchand and Plea. I whispered the name Seri to them as they were looking for a midfielder."

However, I'm not sure that equates to Seri's signing being "a 'rash' decision by TK whilst negotiating FFC's interest in MLM". It just means that, allegedly, we'd enquired about MLM six months earlier.

It's also worth noting that in the very same article, Seri's lawyers are reported to have said the complete opposite - "Fulham was initially only interested in Seri and it was Nice who insisted on coupling his cession to that of central defender Maxime Le Marchand"

Then of course when we signed Seri, Tony Khan said, "he has been at the very top of our target list for a long time." (https://www.fulhamfc.com/news/2018/july/12/jean-michael-seri-signs)

Certainly not "categorically" as you put, and I remain inclined to believe Tony Khan's and Seri's lawyers' version of events, which is the opposite of what you've said. I'm not inclined to attach much credibility to the Nice general manager's comments, given the context of all this is him being accused of fraud.

Interesting. I wouldn't take TK and what he says too seriously, he seems to throw words and statements around too freely for me to feel like he has a concrete idea of what he's doing.

One thing dawned on me, although is obviously quite apparent, is that when both Lemina and Reed were signed he was quoted about saying the same thing word for word on how the signings were connected to a holistic approach and agreement between management, coaches and statisticians... he seems so desperate to put that in as a key reason we sign players, but he takes no responsibility for them when they fail - when if the statistics method worked so well, then you'd assume it'd include all factors that contribute to a player doing well and the errors on who we sign would start to become fewer and fewer... and I'm not convinced those lessons have been learned.

I would be very suprised if we simply happened to have looked through a variety of players globally and just happened to find two in the same club that statistically were ideal and great. Especially two players who, rightly or wrongly, are surplus to requirements at a more established premiership club (talking about the last six years).

I am not sure what you mean here? He states that scouts, coaches and stats are all involved and to me it seems like he really wants to emphasize that it's a team effort (all boxes ticked), not just his own (maybe because of all the criticism he has received previously). So, there are several key reasons.

I am however sure that there are many clubs in which he would find two players with great stats, but then it all has to come together. I am pretty sure that there can be a huge list of players with good stats seemingly suitable for FFC. However, when filtering for things such as price, PL (or UK) experience, age etc. the list is becoming smaller. Stats from England is of course valued higher (because they are more proven for the task ahead) but the downside is that the players are generally more expensive. Since it seems important to now include the coach as well it would surely make it more likely that we buy two players from the UK and even from the same team. That's not to say that there is no synergy effect between the acquisitions of Reed and Lemina, because obviously we already had a working relationship with Southampton.

[Southcoastffc]

Fulham wanted JM Seri, and during discussions, were offered Le Marchand, in whom they had little or no interest. The deal was structured such that MLM was virtually free, provided we bought Seri. The contractual fees were as  quoted above.

[Statto]

Fulham wanted JM Seri, and during discussions, were offered Le Marchand, in whom they had little or no interest. The deal was structured such that MLM was virtually free, provided we bought Seri. The contractual fees were as  quoted above.

Not disagreeing with anything you've just written but if the fee for MLM was "practically zero" that would confirm most of the total amount that we paid for both players was attributable to Seri. Fine... But haven't you previously claimed we only paid about £12m for Seri? Are you now saying the total we paid Nice for both players was £12m and practically zero for MLM? That would be inconsistent with all reports (which have been pretty consistent in saying that the total amount paid was €25-30m - it's just the split between the two players that seems to be disputed).

[davew]

Personally I think we should sell Seri, MLM and Anguissa, must be a lot better players available for a lot less money!

[Denzil Dexter]

Personally I think we should sell Seri, MLM and Anguissa, must be a lot better players available for a lot less money!

Definitely need to sell Maxime Le Mistakes.  Seems like a nice fella but no way near PL standard.

[Southcoastffc]

Fulham wanted JM Seri, and during discussions, were offered Le Marchand, in whom they had little or no interest. The deal was structured such that MLM was virtually free, provided we bought Seri. The contractual fees were as  quoted above.

Not disagreeing with anything you've just written but if the fee for MLM was "practically zero" that would confirm most of the total amount that we paid for both players was attributable to Seri. Fine... But haven't you previously claimed we only paid about £12m for Seri? Are you now saying the total we paid Nice for both players was £12m and practically zero for MLM? That would be inconsistent with all reports (which have been pretty consistent in saying that the total amount paid was €25-30m - it's just the split between the two players that seems to be disputed).

Perhaps I've explained it poorly. We were prepared to buy Seri for >£20m. We were not after MLM at all. Nice said take MLM as well, for a combined under £25m. The total we paid was allocated (in a way that has caused subsequent problems) over the 2 contracts.

[Statto]

Fulham wanted JM Seri, and during discussions, were offered Le Marchand, in whom they had little or no interest. The deal was structured such that MLM was virtually free, provided we bought Seri. The contractual fees were as  quoted above.

Not disagreeing with anything you've just written but if the fee for MLM was "practically zero" that would confirm most of the total amount that we paid for both players was attributable to Seri. Fine... But haven't you previously claimed we only paid about £12m for Seri? Are you now saying the total we paid Nice for both players was £12m and practically zero for MLM? That would be inconsistent with all reports (which have been pretty consistent in saying that the total amount paid was €25-30m - it's just the split between the two players that seems to be disputed).

Perhaps I've explained it poorly. We were prepared to buy Seri for >£20m. We were not after MLM at all. Nice said take MLM as well, for a combined under £25m. The total we paid was allocated (in a way that has caused subsequent problems) over the 2 contracts.

Ok fair enough, that makes sense and is consistent with what I personally believe based on the various reports and rumours

[grandad]

Seri & Anguissa are both contracted to us. There is no financial need to sell them. Let SP judge whether they are worthy of a start or a place on the bench. Who knows, they may turn out to be better than we already have.

[Mr K.Dilkington]

That southampton away game last time in the prem when anguissa and seri couldn't pass their own heights to each other made my mind up about them. If they find fortune in other leagues good for them,but I don't think their PL quality/the right fit imo.
You need scappers where we're going to be aiming to finish and I think somebody like Reed could be very good for that as he is Parker-esque(probably why SP likes him) in the same position.