Scott Parker wants Fulham transfers done ‘early’

[Arthur]

If the management wanted to bring in players it ius a straightforward matter, as long as funds are avaialble.  It really is that easy.

On what do you base your opinion?

As I see it, surely every manager would want his new signings as early as possible. And yet it is almost certain that more transfers will be completed between now and the end of the window than have happened thus far. If there are no other obstacles - as long as funds are available - why are the majority of moves not concluded at the start of the month?

Most transfers are conducted near the end of the window for a whole variety of reasons mostly I would imagine from the owners thinking a bargain might be available or perhaps somebody else might become abvsailable at the last moment OR a player wanting a move might be hoping for a better offer.

Allow me to add a few more reasons: The selling club waits until it has signed a replacement before releasing its player; or the selling club waits to the end of the window in case another player suffers an injury; or the selling club won't let the player move to a rival club any earlier than necessary.

The more reasons, the more likelihood of complications, I'd say.

However the art of good management is getting things done at the right time, because others fail, does not mean we should too.  Knowing we need a forward otr two desparately TK and his team should have identified their tarfgets in October and November, negotuated in December and put pen to paper in the first week of January, even if it meant paying a few bob more... cheaper than relegation.

And we could conceivably have gone through all the steps before the window opened to secure, for instance, Dembele from Lyon, only for Atletico Madrid to declare an interest on December 31st, and, in an instant, a couple of months worth of patient negotiating on our part can be undone.

And then there's your rhetoric: the 'bargain' transfer at the end of the window might not be a bargain at all, but merely a realistic fee and an amount to which our funds can stretch. The 'few bob more' could be many millions of pounds. By way of example again, if Newcastle are prepared to sell Gayle rather than lose him for nothing in the summer, why would they want to let us have him at the start of January - six games sooner than if they hold on to near the deadline? I accept we could offer Newcastle more money - and maybe we have - but unless you and I know how much more The Magpies are asking for an early sale, how can either of us make a judgement as to how easy it should be for T.K. to sign him?

That is what top proffesionals do. we are in desparate need, others can afford to wait, we cannot.

In which case, the logic of your argument suggests few clubs have a 'top professional' DoF - because the majority end up doing what we do and bring in their players late on in the window.

But we are in desperate need, I do agree. And the fact that Parker has spoken publicly implies, to me, he wants the Club to pay a premium to get his player before the games against Brighton and West Brom. If the premium is within our means, so we most definitely should.

Your claim that transfers are easy seems, to me, to rely on interpretation of the unknown. To go back to Dembele: What if Atletico didn't come in for him at the start of the window? What if they only made their move a few days ago? Perhaps we weren't pro-active enough. But we simply don't know. And as there are a number of factors which can make it difficult to complete a quick transfer, the likelihood that one of these became a stumbling block cannot be dismissed (much as you would like to ignore them).

I also agree that just because other clubs fail to sign players early doesn't make it inevitable we must fail. But such a statement is a far cry from determining that transfers must be easy.

To finish, perhaps I can ask you about Josh King. In keeping with the rumours, what if the player wants £120K per week now but will likely accept half of that salary on deadline day, and Bournemouth want a fee: £10M to sell today; probably falling to £5M at the end of the window, what, in your opinion, should Tony Khan do? Buy him now? Hope to buy him later? Or not buy him at all?

[The Rational Fan]

Tony Khan cannot win a) all his early signings are rubbish and b) all his late signings are good.

I prefer "late and great" to "early and rubbish". Tony Khan should stick to what he does well, late signings.

Is it that simple? Pretty Much, as there really aren't many exceptions at all (especially in the summer).

[alfie]

without wishing to offend anyones sensibilities, the issue of the gett8ing a forward, or any other player is about how management conduct their business.

If the management wanted to bring in players it ius a straightforward matter, as long as funds are avaialble.  It really is that easy.

If they gamble that somebody may be available for a few ponds less later in the window then you offset the price against the cost of the likely relegation we wouold face and then the break up of the squad which currently looks brilliant save for a forward. And then the cycle starts again. I happen to think that the current management have a very poor track record of waiting until the last moment that has led to us unbderachieving for so many seasons. And whilst the poast is the past, right now we have a top class basis for pushing on but I do think if TK would have wanted it to be so, it would have been so, namely we would have a forward here, and IMO we should at least try...if it goes wrong or the player (if ppurchased fit) doesn't firt in, well that would beunfortunate. But Try.

SP said ages before the window we knew what we shgort of. He has sadid again we need a forward and preferably sooner, hardly rocket science.

Slav used to scream that he was not properly supported and whilst scott and TK clearly have a better relationship, the team is struggling as a result of the leadership's shor t sighted approach. I do not, and have never accepted, it is difficult as a reasonable excuse because if they wanted to get somebody they would be here especially if they were willing to chance their arm on a player from a lower league as a starter.

I'm sorry I don't wish to be rude but that 2nd paragraph is the most ridiculous statement i have seen in a long time.

Sorry Alfie, but it is not ridiculous at all.
It is a function of top class management.
Anybody in business knows that.
I didn't say you would necessarily guarantee your first choice but we could surely have got somebody half decent if the management wanted it to be so.

Ok it's your opinion, not mine. I just don't get how some think all you have to do is snap your fingers and there will be a queue at the door, yes you can go a get someone from div1/2 and when they are not up to the job, everyone will be on TK's back for wasting money.
So many different factors involved.

[ALG01]

If the management wanted to bring in players it ius a straightforward matter, as long as funds are avaialble.  It really is that easy.

On what do you base your opinion?

As I see it, surely every manager would want his new signings as early as possible. And yet it is almost certain that more transfers will be completed between now and the end of the window than have happened thus far. If there are no other obstacles - as long as funds are available - why are the majority of moves not concluded at the start of the month?

Most transfers are conducted near the end of the window for a whole variety of reasons mostly I would imagine from the owners thinking a bargain might be available or perhaps somebody else might become abvsailable at the last moment OR a player wanting a move might be hoping for a better offer.

Allow me to add a few more reasons: The selling club waits until it has signed a replacement before releasing its player; or the selling club waits to the end of the window in case another player suffers an injury; or the selling club won't let the player move to a rival club any earlier than necessary.

The more reasons, the more likelihood of complications, I'd say.

However the art of good management is getting things done at the right time, because others fail, does not mean we should too.  Knowing we need a forward otr two desparately TK and his team should have identified their tarfgets in October and November, negotuated in December and put pen to paper in the first week of January, even if it meant paying a few bob more... cheaper than relegation.

And we could conceivably have gone through all the steps before the window opened to secure, for instance, Dembele from Lyon, only for Atletico Madrid to declare an interest on December 31st, and, in an instant, a couple of months worth of patient negotiating on our part can be undone.

And then there's your rhetoric: the 'bargain' transfer at the end of the window might not be a bargain at all, but merely a realistic fee and an amount to which our funds can stretch. The 'few bob more' could be many millions of pounds. By way of example again, if Newcastle are prepared to sell Gayle rather than lose him for nothing in the summer, why would they want to let us have him at the start of January - six games sooner than if they hold on to near the deadline? I accept we could offer Newcastle more money - and maybe we have - but unless you and I know how much more The Magpies are asking for an early sale, how can either of us make a judgement as to how easy it should be for T.K. to sign him?

That is what top proffesionals do. we are in desparate need, others can afford to wait, we cannot.

In which case, the logic of your argument suggests few clubs have a 'top professional' DoF - because the majority end up doing what we do and bring in their players late on in the window.

But we are in desperate need, I do agree. And the fact that Parker has spoken publicly implies, to me, he wants the Club to pay a premium to get his player before the games against Brighton and West Brom. If the premium is within our means, so we most definitely should.

Your claim that transfers are easy seems, to me, to rely on interpretation of the unknown. To go back to Dembele: What if Atletico didn't come in for him at the start of the window? What if they only made their move a few days ago? Perhaps we weren't pro-active enough. But we simply don't know. And as there are a number of factors which can make it difficult to complete a quick transfer, the likelihood that one of these became a stumbling block cannot be dismissed (much as you would like to ignore them).

I also agree that just because other clubs fail to sign players early doesn't make it inevitable we must fail. But such a statement is a far cry from determining that transfers must be easy.

To finish, perhaps I can ask you about Josh King. In keeping with the rumours, what if the player wants £120K per week now but will likely accept half of that salary on deadline day, and Bournemouth want a fee: £10M to sell today; probably falling to £5M at the end of the window, what, in your opinion, should Tony Khan do? Buy him now? Hope to buy him later? Or not buy him at all?

All your points are very good and sensible. I cannot comment onjosh king specifically because i read what everyone else does. but i didn't say it was easy and each club has its own dynamic. this is the art of of good management and good preparation. we needed a forward at the begining of the window and the senior management's job is to make sure that was so. It is the main thing the DoF has to do, get the players on right day. he may not get his number one target and stuff may upset the apple cart for number two but by now it should have happened. That is his job, the DOF's job. I stated my opinion, I understand all the points you make but in the end it is about getting the job done.

[ALG01]

without wishing to offend anyones sensibilities, the issue of the gett8ing a forward, or any other player is about how management conduct their business.

If the management wanted to bring in players it ius a straightforward matter, as long as funds are avaialble.  It really is that easy.

If they gamble that somebody may be available for a few ponds less later in the window then you offset the price against the cost of the likely relegation we wouold face and then the break up of the squad which currently looks brilliant save for a forward. And then the cycle starts again. I happen to think that the current management have a very poor track record of waiting until the last moment that has led to us unbderachieving for so many seasons. And whilst the poast is the past, right now we have a top class basis for pushing on but I do think if TK would have wanted it to be so, it would have been so, namely we would have a forward here, and IMO we should at least try...if it goes wrong or the player (if ppurchased fit) doesn't firt in, well that would beunfortunate. But Try.

SP said ages before the window we knew what we shgort of. He has sadid again we need a forward and preferably sooner, hardly rocket science.

Slav used to scream that he was not properly supported and whilst scott and TK clearly have a better relationship, the team is struggling as a result of the leadership's shor t sighted approach. I do not, and have never accepted, it is difficult as a reasonable excuse because if they wanted to get somebody they would be here especially if they were willing to chance their arm on a player from a lower league as a starter.

I'm sorry I don't wish to be rude but that 2nd paragraph is the most ridiculous statement i have seen in a long time.

Sorry Alfie, but it is not ridiculous at all.
It is a function of top class management.
Anybody in business knows that.
I didn't say you would necessarily guarantee your first choice but we could surely have got somebody half decent if the management wanted it to be so.

Ok it's your opinion, not mine. I just don't get how some think all you have to do is snap your fingers and there will be a queue at the door, yes you can go a get someone from div1/2 and when they are not up to the job, everyone will be on TK's back for wasting money.
So many different factors involved.

I sometimes think you argue just because you see my name. You have so missed the point. it is the art of good management to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. We could and should have had this arranged well in advance.  That is the DoF's principal job.  and we could have at least somebody from a lower league that might be up to the job like vardy perhaps who I have no doubt our leader what not have agreed to. or finan, or hayles or horsefield or saha or boa...all players we gambled and took a punt on. it doesn't always work out but sometimes it does and we are in desparate need so a gamble is a potential way forward with alower league goalscorer.

[steed the legend]

I sent a post at the beginning of the Season stating there would only be one fall guy if we get relegated, and it would not be Tony Khan.
Scot has made a plea to the DOF to buy a quality striker to give us a fighting chance for survival.
Guess what, you are all being taken in, this quality striker will not be coming in.
I feel that TK is only concerned about financial control, and the balance sheet to impress his Dad. He is not that bothered about keeping our Prem status and building a long term project as a Prem club.
Look at the evidence.
TK has described us as a yo yo club. Five of our current Team are on one year contracts, on the assumption that we will get relegated and as a consequence our layout will be minimal for the return to the Championship.
Good luck Scot.

[alfie]

without wishing to offend anyones sensibilities, the issue of the gett8ing a forward, or any other player is about how management conduct their business.

If the management wanted to bring in players it ius a straightforward matter, as long as funds are avaialble.  It really is that easy.

If they gamble that somebody may be available for a few ponds less later in the window then you offset the price against the cost of the likely relegation we wouold face and then the break up of the squad which currently looks brilliant save for a forward. And then the cycle starts again. I happen to think that the current management have a very poor track record of waiting until the last moment that has led to us unbderachieving for so many seasons. And whilst the poast is the past, right now we have a top class basis for pushing on but I do think if TK would have wanted it to be so, it would have been so, namely we would have a forward here, and IMO we should at least try...if it goes wrong or the player (if ppurchased fit) doesn't firt in, well that would beunfortunate. But Try.

SP said ages before the window we knew what we shgort of. He has sadid again we need a forward and preferably sooner, hardly rocket science.

Slav used to scream that he was not properly supported and whilst scott and TK clearly have a better relationship, the team is struggling as a result of the leadership's shor t sighted approach. I do not, and have never accepted, it is difficult as a reasonable excuse because if they wanted to get somebody they would be here especially if they were willing to chance their arm on a player from a lower league as a starter.

I'm sorry I don't wish to be rude but that 2nd paragraph is the most ridiculous statement i have seen in a long time.

Sorry Alfie, but it is not ridiculous at all.
It is a function of top class management.
Anybody in business knows that.
I didn't say you would necessarily guarantee your first choice but we could surely have got somebody half decent if the management wanted it to be so.

Ok it's your opinion, not mine. I just don't get how some think all you have to do is snap your fingers and there will be a queue at the door, yes you can go a get someone from div1/2 and when they are not up to the job, everyone will be on TK's back for wasting money.
So many different factors involved.

I sometimes think you argue just because you see my name. You have so missed the point. it is the art of good management to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. We could and should have had this arranged well in advance.  That is the DoF's principal job.  and we could have at least somebody from a lower league that might be up to the job like vardy perhaps who I have no doubt our leader what not have agreed to. or finan, or hayles or horsefield or saha or boa...all players we gambled and took a punt on. it doesn't always work out but sometimes it does and we are in desparate need so a gamble is a potential way forward with alower league goalscorer.

I'm not arguing, and it has nothing to do with your name,  this is a discussion with differing opinions, your opinion seems to be that you can go and get what you want if you really wanted to, my opinion is it's not that easy. As we clearly have this different opinions there is no point to continue, so  I will refrain from making further comments on the subject.

[jayffc]

If the management wanted to bring in players it ius a straightforward matter, as long as funds are avaialble.  It really is that easy.

On what do you base your opinion?

As I see it, surely every manager would want his new signings as early as possible. And yet it is almost certain that more transfers will be completed between now and the end of the window than have happened thus far. If there are no other obstacles - as long as funds are available - why are the majority of moves not concluded at the start of the month?

Most transfers are conducted near the end of the window for a whole variety of reasons mostly I would imagine from the owners thinking a bargain might be available or perhaps somebody else might become abvsailable at the last moment OR a player wanting a move might be hoping for a better offer.

Allow me to add a few more reasons: The selling club waits until it has signed a replacement before releasing its player; or the selling club waits to the end of the window in case another player suffers an injury; or the selling club won't let the player move to a rival club any earlier than necessary.

The more reasons, the more likelihood of complications, I'd say.

However the art of good management is getting things done at the right time, because others fail, does not mean we should too.  Knowing we need a forward otr two desparately TK and his team should have identified their tarfgets in October and November, negotuated in December and put pen to paper in the first week of January, even if it meant paying a few bob more... cheaper than relegation.

And we could conceivably have gone through all the steps before the window opened to secure, for instance, Dembele from Lyon, only for Atletico Madrid to declare an interest on December 31st, and, in an instant, a couple of months worth of patient negotiating on our part can be undone.

And then there's your rhetoric: the 'bargain' transfer at the end of the window might not be a bargain at all, but merely a realistic fee and an amount to which our funds can stretch. The 'few bob more' could be many millions of pounds. By way of example again, if Newcastle are prepared to sell Gayle rather than lose him for nothing in the summer, why would they want to let us have him at the start of January - six games sooner than if they hold on to near the deadline? I accept we could offer Newcastle more money - and maybe we have - but unless you and I know how much more The Magpies are asking for an early sale, how can either of us make a judgement as to how easy it should be for T.K. to sign him?

That is what top proffesionals do. we are in desparate need, others can afford to wait, we cannot.

In which case, the logic of your argument suggests few clubs have a 'top professional' DoF - because the majority end up doing what we do and bring in their players late on in the window.

But we are in desperate need, I do agree. And the fact that Parker has spoken publicly implies, to me, he wants the Club to pay a premium to get his player before the games against Brighton and West Brom. If the premium is within our means, so we most definitely should.

Your claim that transfers are easy seems, to me, to rely on interpretation of the unknown. To go back to Dembele: What if Atletico didn't come in for him at the start of the window? What if they only made their move a few days ago? Perhaps we weren't pro-active enough. But we simply don't know. And as there are a number of factors which can make it difficult to complete a quick transfer, the likelihood that one of these became a stumbling block cannot be dismissed (much as you would like to ignore them).

I also agree that just because other clubs fail to sign players early doesn't make it inevitable we must fail. But such a statement is a far cry from determining that transfers must be easy.

To finish, perhaps I can ask you about Josh King. In keeping with the rumours, what if the player wants £120K per week now but will likely accept half of that salary on deadline day, and Bournemouth want a fee: £10M to sell today; probably falling to £5M at the end of the window, what, in your opinion, should Tony Khan do? Buy him now? Hope to buy him later? Or not buy him at all?

+1

And glad to see a willingness above to at least accept some of these points. Though the idea that not attaining someone early is a sign if bad management doesn't ring true for me.

In regards to earlier points about prices dropping etc. Given that we clearly did some good negotiating in the summer, had we not waited till a little later and overpaid elsewhere, its highly possible we wouldnt have been able to sign the amount of starting players we did. The fact we got good deals on it meant we were able to bring in the number of signings we did, assuming we had the tighter budget we had, and still leave room for sanctioning perhaps a bigger money commitment on a striker in this window.

Remember last time out we spent huge and our following relegation meant FFP has become a tricky thing to navigate. This season we could throw money again and if the same were to happen it would be reckless and even trickier and could cause real problems. You could equally frame it as good management maximising your budget for the largest amount of significant change. Say for instance wed spent big early on another CB, that didnt allow us to bring in the level of other defenders we now have around them, it's quite conceivable that we wouldnt be the hard to beat team we are now.

So I'm glad we held out and didnt jump the gun and spend more on players that may not have done half the job the team  we have in place have done.

I'm glad we managed to reduce the cost- as bar perhaps RLC (who still has time to come good) I wouldnt want to swap any of them out and I wouldnt want to be in a situation where we weren't able to replace that many members of our starting 11 because we'd spent over for different individuals early in the window.

As I say, it could well be that saving that extra money in the summer, allows us to potentially sign the likes of a Dembele this January/ someone on high wages, as opposed to settling for a Charlie Austin type early as weve run out of budget wiggle room.

IF we stay up, this strategy will have been really worth it, as we'll have replaced the vast majority of our team, and established a quality base in our first season, added a hopefully decent striker in jan and with any luck  following a better second half of the season, have the basis for a team capable of much more next year having played together for a year.  Then our focus can simply be on signing the loanees we want, clearing out the deadwood, and securing a little more premoer league level depth.

In that scenario, suddenly it's all looking a very good bit of management.

IF we go down of course, there'll be alot of change again of course and questions will need to be asked whilst also factoring that statistically that is extremely common for a playoff winning team....but I think we have reason to be hopeful so I'm not ready to call anything bad management just yet

Fingers firmly crossed

[Logicalman]

Good discussion, plenty of reasoning, though I got the impression his use of 'early' is/was subjective. In other words, ANY day before deadline day is early for us it seems, and, as he rightly points out, the sooner we get fresh blood in then the sooner they start gelling in the squad and become starters. He was not so much having a dig at TK, but perhaps more a reminder and gentle nudge.

There's a lot of cynicism via interpretation regarding the actual words SP (or anyone) uses, and it's sometimes easier to be over-critical of poor choice of words as opposed to what the meaning being conveyed is.

[Statto]

Statto can you please just answer the following question before deciding how much extra it cost to buy early. "Have we paid DOUBLE (or Triple) the price for buying players early in the window, compared to our later window purchases?". Yes or No.

No. Absolutely 100% no. I repeat, there has been little or no correlation between the timing and success of our signings IMO.

For every list you can produce of good late signings and poor early signings, I can do the opposite.

Great players we've signed early in the window have included Ayite, Odoi, McDonald, Kalas...

Poor players we've signed in the last few days of the window have included Sigurdsson, Cyriac, Fosu-Mensah...

The ultimate deadline day signing was of course our record signing, Anguissa. Someone that I'm sure you'd treat as a good signing because he looks good now, two years later. But in reality he couldn't adjust quickly to the PL, made only 16 starts in his first two years with us, was of less value than Ollie Norwood would have delivered for about ONE SIXTH of the price, and our reliance on him and others led to us getting relegated, costing >£100m.

[abfg]

I think rather than it being impossible to do deals early, is how much extra is one willing to pay in order to get them done early. A saving of a couple of mill to us is not worth it for 3-5 games missed, but to a team of number crunchers....

Thank you for asking an excellent question.
"How much extra is one willing to pay in order to get them [transfers] done early?".

Tony Khan has told us the answer in an interview after the 2018 season's last Wolves game, where TK implied we often have to pay DOUBLE in order to bring in players early in the window. Hence, buying players early in the window means we can bring in half as many players, which is not a good trade.

Of course, fans may dispute Tony Khan's statement that "it often cost double to bring players in early in the window" as "words are cheap", but his record with purchases backs this up. The last good early window purchase was Denis Odoi, but nearly always we have paid at least double the price we should have paid if we waited. 

Since Denis Odoi was bought, every player we have bought in between the 24th May and 7th August has cost us around double (or triple) the value they were worth. The complete list of early signings is Djaló, Cisse, MLM, Seri, Cavaleiro (loan to buy deal), Fabri, Knockaert (loan to buy deal), Kamara, Fonte, and Mawson. It has definitely has cost us double to buy early, so maybe Tony Khan is right that it costs double to buy early.

Since Denis Odoi was bought, every player we have bought in between the 7th August and 7th October has cost us around the value they were worth. The complete list of late signings Onomah, Reid (loan to buy deal), Reed (loan), Bryan, Anguissa, Robinson, Johansen, Kebano, Tete, and Adarabioyo. Kebano is probably Fulham's worst value late signing, but he is still much better value than most of our early signings.

Conclusion: when we have signed players late in the summer transfer window, we typically pay half the price. Is that discount worth waiting for? YES - We should wait for half price, as we can buy twice as much. And, if we need to buy players for the summer pre-season, then winter deadline day is the latest we should buy them.

That's quite interesting thank you.

I do think there are a couple of issues that muddy the water somewhat though from what's been said. First is the fact that objective valuations are somewhat hard to come by! Secondly is the fact that we have only the word of TK on this. Thirdly is that at least 4 of the players (Cav, Knock, Seri and Mawson - and MLM on Seri's coat tails if such things are to be believed) had their prices hyped by reputation, something none of the later players had in the same way. And Knock and Cav needn't have been signed when they were, they were already there, so they are somewhat arbitrary. It's too small a sample to say for sure that the timing of the deals was the key factor.

The final, and probably most important, thing is this: Tosin at £2M or so, if we could have had him at £4M for those extra games - time will tell if those points lost were crucial. Ratios of prices ultimately aren't that important, it's absolute values that count. An extra £40M to spend £80M on a player like, for example Ings, probably not worth it. An extra £2M that could make the difference between survival and relegation? Somewhere is the line, it *feels* like we're setting it a bit low. Ultimately we will see.

[jayffc]

Statto can you please just answer the following question before deciding how much extra it cost to buy early. "Have we paid DOUBLE (or Triple) the price for buying players early in the window, compared to our later window purchases?". Yes or No.

No. Absolutely 100% no. I repeat, there has been little or no correlation between the timing and success of our signings IMO.

For every list you can produce of good late signings and poor early signings, I can do the opposite.

Great players we've signed early in the window have included Ayite, Odoi, McDonald, Kalas...

Poor players we've signed in the last few days of the window have included Sigurdsson, Cyriac, Fosu-Mensah...

The ultimate deadline day signing was of course our record signing, Anguissa. Someone that I'm sure you'd treat as a good signing because he looks good now, two years later. But in reality he couldn't adjust quickly to the PL, made only 16 starts in his first two years with us, was of less value than Ollie Norwood would have delivered for about ONE SIXTH of the price, and our reliance on him and others led to us getting relegated, costing >£100m.

The ability to turn Anguissa signing into a negative is truly mastery.
Dont disagree it took him time to adjust but I'm comfortable the fact we signed Anguissa over him long term. Higher sell on value, higher level player, forms the ethos and spine of our team atm... meanwhile Norwoods Sheffield now languishing bottom of the table.

Not unreasonable points in the rest of the post just would steer clear of that one. He also actually started to look good for us later in his first season and a number on here were hoping hed play in the championship.... instead we loaned him out,where he had such a good season he was courted at one point by the top teams in Spain. In regards to value to us hes about as valuable a player as we have on the books now and were we to sell youd be pretty within your right to assume wed make a healthy profit. So whilst I understand your sentiment I'm just not sure its the right angle to take on this one.

[sunburywhite]

I have it on good authority from the postmans dog, we will sign a player too late to be registered for the United game, sadly he is also cuptied so cant play against Burnley.

He will then rupture a testicle putting his socks on and not play for the rest of the season

I hope that quells the panic

[jayffc]

I have it on good authority from the postmans dog, we will sign a player too late to be registered for the United game, sadly he is also cuptied so cant play against Burnley.

He will then rupture a testicle putting his socks on and not play for the rest of the season

I hope that quells the panic

The post we all needed

[ScalleysDad]

As ever there is a fair bit of angst in the transfer window due in part to our ability to be in need much of the time. However I am sure most of us can agree that of late purchases, incomings and loans have been getting better. Robinson was a quick swoop and not on any bodies radar, even Minces, and I doubt anybody had a back four and captain anything like we currently have when we last had this level of tetchiness a few months ago.
Personally if money is the issue I would rather have a bit of a cull and entice the current crop of loanees, especially  Anderson, to sign up for the medium term no matter what our position is at the end of the season. After all is this not the best group of newbies we have had in a while ............... I believe recruitment may have turned a corner so let's see if they do pull something, actually someone, out of the hat.

[Statto]

The ability to turn Anguissa signing into a negative is truly mastery.
Dont disagree it took him time to adjust but I'm comfortable the fact we signed Anguissa over him long term. Higher sell on value, higher level player, forms the ethos and spine of our team atm... meanwhile Norwoods Sheffield now languishing bottom of the table.

Not unreasonable points in the rest of the post just would steer clear of that one. He also actually started to look good for us later in his first season and a number on here were hoping hed play in the championship.... instead we loaned him out,where he had such a good season he was courted at one point by the top teams in Spain. In regards to value to us hes about as valuable a player as we have on the books now and were we to sell youd be pretty within your right to assume wed make a healthy profit. So whilst I understand your sentiment I'm just not sure its the right angle to take on this one.

Anguissa was widely regarded as the most disastrous signing in our history (mainly due to being the most expensive) until he started looking good for Villareal about 18 months after we signed him.

Anyway, let's just apply the same to our present position. Which would you rather:

(A) We sign some seasoned English pro, say Dwight Gayle, tomorrow, for £5m. In the coming weeks he scores winning goals against Brighton and Burnley, and keeps us up. In the years that follow, he becomes a bench warmer and leaves on a free, but it's ok because we replace him with a £30m Brazilian.

(B) We sign a £25m striker from the French leagues on 31 January. In the coming weeks, he makes just a few sub appearances and looks woeful, as he adjusts to English football. He adds nothing to the team and we're relegated. In the coming years he looks better, but only on loan to other clubs, never in a Fulham shirt, because we're in the Championship.

I'm not saying our overall transfer policy should be (A). We should strive for the (B)-type players IMO. But where we need someone urgently (eg a CB last window, and now a CF) then if a (B) type player isn't available early on the window, we should go for (A) as a short-term fix.

In 2018, Anguissa was (B) when we needed an (A) and therfore, all things considered, a bad signing.

[sunburywhite]

What about Paul Onuachu from Genk

Good finisher, strong header, scored 19 in 20 in the Belgian League, Nigerian international and should only cost aroun 10m

[S.F.Sorrow]

Statto can you please just answer the following question before deciding how much extra it cost to buy early. "Have we paid DOUBLE (or Triple) the price for buying players early in the window, compared to our later window purchases?". Yes or No.

No. Absolutely 100% no. I repeat, there has been little or no correlation between the timing and success of our signings IMO.

For every list you can produce of good late signings and poor early signings, I can do the opposite.

Great players we've signed early in the window have included Ayite, Odoi, McDonald, Kalas...

Poor players we've signed in the last few days of the window have included Sigurdsson, Cyriac, Fosu-Mensah...

The ultimate deadline day signing was of course our record signing, Anguissa. Someone that I'm sure you'd treat as a good signing because he looks good now, two years later. But in reality he couldn't adjust quickly to the PL, made only 16 starts in his first two years with us, was of less value than Ollie Norwood would have delivered for about ONE SIXTH of the price, and our reliance on him and others led to us getting relegated, costing >£100m.

The ability to turn Anguissa signing into a negative is truly mastery.
Dont disagree it took him time to adjust but I'm comfortable the fact we signed Anguissa over him long term. Higher sell on value, higher level player, forms the ethos and spine of our team atm... meanwhile Norwoods Sheffield now languishing bottom of the table.

Not unreasonable points in the rest of the post just would steer clear of that one. He also actually started to look good for us later in his first season and a number on here were hoping hed play in the championship.... instead we loaned him out,where he had such a good season he was courted at one point by the top teams in Spain. In regards to value to us hes about as valuable a player as we have on the books now and were we to sell youd be pretty within your right to assume wed make a healthy profit. So whilst I understand your sentiment I'm just not sure its the right angle to take on this one.

It's not difficult to see the Anguissa signing as a disaster when considering the circumstances. At the time we needed an upgrade on KMac. That's the role we signed Anguissa for. He was (and probably still is) a disaster in that role/formation. We basicially signed a player with great stats to play in a role he had never played before, making the stats questionable at best.

Of course Anguissa has now turned into one of our best players but he's playing in a completely different position than the one we signed him for. We've seen too much of that over the last couple of seasons: Square pegs in round holes, wrong type of players for the position or the style of football we play. We've signed CBs that are really fullbacks or DMs. Fullbacks that are really wingbacks/wingers.

Of course there has been a couple of good signings too but I feel like we're lacking any long term plan. We've signed lots of wingers when we needed CBs and defenders when we needed a striker. Also FAR too many short term solutions that stinks of last day panic deals.

[jayffc]

The ability to turn Anguissa signing into a negative is truly mastery.
Dont disagree it took him time to adjust but I'm comfortable the fact we signed Anguissa over him long term. Higher sell on value, higher level player, forms the ethos and spine of our team atm... meanwhile Norwoods Sheffield now languishing bottom of the table.

Not unreasonable points in the rest of the post just would steer clear of that one. He also actually started to look good for us later in his first season and a number on here were hoping hed play in the championship.... instead we loaned him out,where he had such a good season he was courted at one point by the top teams in Spain. In regards to value to us hes about as valuable a player as we have on the books now and were we to sell youd be pretty within your right to assume wed make a healthy profit. So whilst I understand your sentiment I'm just not sure its the right angle to take on this one.

Anguissa was widely regarded as the most disastrous signing in our history (mainly due to being the most expensive) until he started looking good for Villareal about 18 months after we signed him.

Anyway, let's just apply the same to our present position. Which would you rather:

(A) We sign some seasoned English pro, say Dwight Gayle, tomorrow, for £5m. In the coming weeks he scores winning goals against Brighton and Burnley, and keeps us up. In the years that follow, he becomes a bench warmer and leaves on a free, but it's ok because we replace him with a £30m Brazilian.

(B) We sign a £25m striker from the French leagues on 31 January. In the coming weeks, he makes just a few sub appearances and looks woeful, as he adjusts to English football. He adds nothing to the team and we're relegated. In the coming years he looks better, but only on loan to other clubs, never in a Fulham shirt, because we're in the Championship.

I'm not saying our overall transfer policy should be (A). We should strive for the (B)-type players IMO. But where we need someone urgently (eg a CB last window, and now a CF) then if a (B) type player isn't available early on the window, we should go for (A) as a short-term fix.

In 2018, Anguissa was (B) when we needed an (A) and therfore, all things considered, a bad signing.

I hear your reasoning

But asking leading questions like this implies it's a choice between these 2 outcomes, which it isn't. Or is based on an assumption that option A) someone like Dwight Gayle who has been proven to struggle to score regularly, is that much more likely to join us and score against Brighton and WBA immediately (I presume you mean that rather than Burnley in the cup) than someone of potential higher ability who is in scoring form or has proof of regular scoring form in a top league, and might actually, given their ability/record, be more likely to score more over the course of 18 games. '\


How about option
C) We sign Dwight Gayle, he continues his current form and fails to score in either game, scoring 3 more goals in the next 18 games, as is true to his top-flight form to date. And we get relegated anyway when we could have gone for option:

D) We sign a top-quality player from a foreign club who hasn't played in this league, who hits the ground running like any of the other late summer signings mentioned this season (Areola, Anderson, Tete)
He goes on to show his quality over the rest of the season and with us likely being between 1-5 points off safety with a game in hand by the end of the window and 18 games to play- Scores more than a Gayle tpenough to keep us up, and next season we then have a quality team to build depth around.

Now, of course,  they could easily go the other way as you say, but neither way is nailed on and I'm less sure in the assertion that someone like Gayle is more likely to find something he's failed to do yet in his career, which is be a regular enough scorer at the top level, to be the answer to what we need right now.

So much of this, as conjecture and assumption so for now I'd much rather stop going round in circles, just wait and see what the board brings in and when at this point than keep going over this every day again.

This team without a striker has already shown itself capable of getting 4 points from Brighton and West Brom once this season. IF we repeated those results again, We'd likely be 1-2 points off Brighton come the end of the window (they play us then Tottenham before the end of the window- while we play Man Utd Brighton and WBA). Pull out a surprise draw or more against Utd again and it could look even better. Thing is, Who knows so I think it best to not continue getting drawn into all this right now.

Fingers crossed all round for some movement soon. All the above said, of course, we would all love a world when it happens imminently.

[jayffc]

Statto can you please just answer the following question before deciding how much extra it cost to buy early. "Have we paid DOUBLE (or Triple) the price for buying players early in the window, compared to our later window purchases?". Yes or No.

No. Absolutely 100% no. I repeat, there has been little or no correlation between the timing and success of our signings IMO.

For every list you can produce of good late signings and poor early signings, I can do the opposite.

Great players we've signed early in the window have included Ayite, Odoi, McDonald, Kalas...

Poor players we've signed in the last few days of the window have included Sigurdsson, Cyriac, Fosu-Mensah...

The ultimate deadline day signing was of course our record signing, Anguissa. Someone that I'm sure you'd treat as a good signing because he looks good now, two years later. But in reality he couldn't adjust quickly to the PL, made only 16 starts in his first two years with us, was of less value than Ollie Norwood would have delivered for about ONE SIXTH of the price, and our reliance on him and others led to us getting relegated, costing >£100m.

The ability to turn Anguissa signing into a negative is truly mastery.
Dont disagree it took him time to adjust but I'm comfortable the fact we signed Anguissa over him long term. Higher sell on value, higher level player, forms the ethos and spine of our team atm... meanwhile Norwoods Sheffield now languishing bottom of the table.

Not unreasonable points in the rest of the post just would steer clear of that one. He also actually started to look good for us later in his first season and a number on here were hoping hed play in the championship.... instead we loaned him out,where he had such a good season he was courted at one point by the top teams in Spain. In regards to value to us hes about as valuable a player as we have on the books now and were we to sell youd be pretty within your right to assume wed make a healthy profit. So whilst I understand your sentiment I'm just not sure its the right angle to take on this one.

It's not difficult to see the Anguissa signing as a disaster when considering the circumstances. At the time we needed an upgrade on KMac. That's the role we signed Anguissa for. He was (and probably still is) a disaster in that role/formation. We basicially signed a player with great stats to play in a role he had never played before, making the stats questionable at best.

Of course Anguissa has now turned into one of our best players but he's playing in a completely different position than the one we signed him for. We've seen too much of that over the last couple of seasons: Square pegs in round holes, wrong type of players for the position or the style of football we play. We've signed CBs that are really fullbacks or DMs. Fullbacks that are really wingbacks/wingers.

Of course there has been a couple of good signings too but I feel like we're lacking any long term plan. We've signed lots of wingers when we needed CBs and defenders when we needed a striker. Also FAR too many short term solutions that stinks of last day panic deals.

Sure there have been mistakes
But not this year we haven't done what you're saying.
Every single signing we made this summer bar RLC has been played and successful in the position they were set out to play. That's 9 players all in 1 window. Why completely ignore our most recent window and current circumstance. The majority of our loans appear to have options to buy, that's not short term solutions at all.

As for Anguissa, he was an upgrade on Kmac who had lost his legs and was exposed horrendously in the same position when played. Frank started poorly but was still better than Kmac by that point, and made clear improvements towards the end of the season, as pointed out by many on here at the time. It could have been a 'disaster', had we not got back to the premier league, and not still had him on our roster, and were he not now one of the best players here in years. Sure, we can say during that season you could perceive it as a disaster. But why bother focus in on that right now considering all we have now from him.

His position isn't that much different, he still plays as a creative DM and is playing that role very well enforcing from the middle, he just does better in that role with another grifter and tackler working alongside him. That's fine and it happens all the time at every club. Countless instances of players being signed for one position but finding themselves thriving elsewhere on the pitch eventually depending on what works best for team chemistry in practice and not on paper.

Anyway, happy for anyone to continue feeling Anguissa was a disaster of a signing during the season of 2018-2019, I can see their point, I can somewhat see why theyre making it,  I just don't see the value in focusing on it considering how integral he is now and given we got the job done and made it back to the premier league, in large part due to the acquisitions we made in our championshop season. Yep, things could go the same way with a new player, or they could go very differently. Not worth going in circles on anymore.

Have a good un must get on with something else ha!