That's just how things are, unfortunately. The only way we'll change that is to do a Newcastle (make all the right signings at the right time, which I've no doubt we and every other club are trying to do) or start flexing some financial muscle (muscle we can't sustain) and end up in administration or a thing of the past. Nobody is "ok" with losing our best players year in, year out but we have to live with it. I don't like paying council tax and only have one ****ing bin bag a week to show for it but I have to live with that. Hughes wanted a blank chequebook to wreak havoc upon the transfer market with, and us not giving him that does not lack ambition.
I think you would need to add Arsenal to the list of well run teams - I think they possibly would take the title as models of probity. Liverpool, however you look at it, can no longer be considered a rich club. Let's face it, they couldn't muster £6 million quid to buy the player they had been banging on about all summer. This is what 3 years out of the Champions League without the Champions League money but with the Champions League players does for you. And it's not going to change this year, either.
Couldn't agree more - Arsenal also sell their best players every year. I think Liverpool wish they had Champions League players. Suarez would fit into that category, but they spent big on sub-standard players and are left with a patchwork squad of players bought by lots of different managers. They're a mid-table team in every way but their fanbase.
Agreed DR. Last year we balanced the books (the cost of Ruiz being met by the sale of BZ/Greening/Dikgacoi plus Euro income). In this year's transfer window we are in credit to the tune of £18m. However it's the wages policy that I think that needs reviewing. The ratio of player wages to income last year was 64% (69% the year before). This year we've released/transferred high end earners and I'd estimate the wage bill to be £3.5m less than last year (equivalent to £70k pw). Also gone are the players who had contracts entitling them to automatic increases should we offer another player more than them. The problem is not just being able to offer wages to retain our existing best players but wages that will attract new quality players - as I understand things we failed to sign at least two last Friday because personal terms could not be agreed. Rumours are that Dempsey (I believe it was him not Dembele) had been offered £50k pw and Berbatov is being paid that, so in individual cases we are obviously prepared to raise the previous ceiling. However we're obviously stil keeping a very tight reign on that income to wages rato. I'm not advocating abandoning that general policy because that would be the road to bancruptcy - wages are the thing that will haemorrhage the likes of Rangers (they haven't actually laid out an awful lot in fees for signings). What I'd suggest is that we be more inventive/imaginative in bonus payments. Existing contracts will include payments for wins, cup runs, Euro qualification etc. What I'm saying is make these more generous. As an aside L'pool and Arsenal are good examples of extreme opposites when it comes to spending capital (transfer fees); one having lost £173m and the other having made £202m in the last 3 years.
I'm torn about the whole issue, to be honest. I love Fulham and I understand that's part of football, but I didn't like my favourite player getting sold off or seeing didn't like how it all transpired. Liverpool seemed to jerk everyone around, especially Dempsey, and then Tottenham swooped in to make a smart deal. Worse, I suspect that if Jol and Chairman Mo were willing to offer Tottenham-like money to Dempsey, none of this would have happened. But then, hypothetically, if Dempsey get's 80K / week, all the other players will want that, too. And suddenly there is a financial problem. But you're quite right ... this us just part of life. Even ManU can lose a player to Real Madrid.
I seem to remember something about Dempsey being offered a bumper deal midway though last season? I think C58 probably knows more about that.
It was said to be 3 years plus an option for a further year at double his (then) current wage. (Don't know if it had a release clause !)
Not sure I would consider Suarez as a CL quality player. I may be in the minority here but for me he goes missing in far too many games and needs roughly 6-7 chances to score a goal. I couldn't imagine any world class teams starting him. Did anyone read the story in The Mail today where it said Liverpool offered us Enrique, Downing and Henderson in exchange for Dempsey? They didn't specify if all players were included in the same deal but we really could have done with Henderson playing in the centre of the field.
I don't think he's the best player in the world, or even the PL, but there are plenty of worse players playing in the CL. I did see that, yeah. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing! Seems BR doesn't think much of Kenny's recruits.
Yes, saw the story. They all turned Fulham down apparently. Of course this might be a polite way of saying we said no thanks.
Hey, even better this season - 1 goal in 12 attempts. He's Liverpool's AJ - £1m per goal. Think it may have been a choice of one, Bandit. The story I heard was that a deal including Henderson was close but the player rejected the move. Shame.
DR- I'm looking at that in a positive light- I don't think becoming a feeder club is a bad thing My point is that this repesents a step up from where we were- dregs is a bad way of describing it- what I mean is a club that picks up players who top teams are not interested in or who have a particular attribute stymieing development. We've gone from that to being a club that took a player like Dembele, developed him, and sold him on for a profit. The reality is- if Frei and Kaca follow a similar curve they will leave too, but for a profit. If we are going to do this properly it will be a slow process- we've essentially hit the ceiling. In order for us to step up we need to be operating with about 4 to 5 times our current income. The move from lower league to PL and then to top half/7th is more straightforward than that to top 4 team. The gap between City, United & Chelsea to the others, financially, is big. Other teams carry a fanbase and history of success. To move up we've got to take the 'whippings' and just be grateful other teams are attracted to the quality of talent we bring in or through. When Dembele left I felt much like you do now- the positive is that, technically, he is one of the best players we have had- how many other Fulham players have been linked with Barcelona & Madrid by the manager in the middle of an upward trajectory..
Excellent points, as ever, Cottager. I think transfer fees get the headlines, but it's wages that are more significant. When we were promoted, we did something very similar to what QPR are doing now: we bought big names and bright young things (Van der Saar, Steve Marlet, er, Jon Harley) and paid good wages to get them to a newly promoted club. We had to do that in order to establish ourselves in the Premier League and not go straight back down. After a few years, Al Fayed switched the strategy to getting the wage bill under control and stabilising the club financially. He's happy to splash a big transfer fee when he has to - it's only a year since he paid £10m or more for Ruiz - but he is very careful to not let the wage bill become bigger than we can cope with. Once we've enlarged the Cottage, if that leads to an increase in revenue, we might see an adjustment to the wage structure, but I suspect the principle of living within our means on wages will remain. Quite right too. Like everyone, I was sorry to see Dempsey go and even more sorry to see Dembele leave, but that's the way things work out. We were Fulham fans before those two came along, most of us, and we'll all be Fulham fans long after their replacements have gone. I don't see us as a feeder club, I see us as my club. Players come and players go and that's a fact of life for all teams. Some go sooner than you'd like, some hang around far longer than you'd like. That's football. That's life.
Lets also not forget the new financial UEFA rules. This is going to be a big ask for some clubs. It could be for us too but I think having the right salary strategy is only going to be a good thing in the longer term.
You haven't been here long enough. One and a bit seasons of efficient business doesn't make the cut. Sorry to disappoint you
Fair point. Despite what Bandit says, a well-run club is a well-run club in any division, not just the Premier League. Even before your Liverpool-funded windfall this summer, you seemed to be a club who weren't prepared to gamble the future for the possibility of success. Do you think you're going to push on from last season?
Did it? I haven't dug back to find the post that DGL was quoting from, but 'the league' doesn't necessarily mean the Premier League. Even if it does, Swansea are in the Premier League! How long they've been there doesn't make any difference to how well run they are or how long that's been the case.
Ergh. If I was to say to you, 'who has been the best team in the league this season?' Would you give me Man City/Chelsea/West Brom etc or would you pluck a team from the Blue Square Premier? The League, means the one your team plays in, I could refer to it as PL, or BPL in future if you're having trouble? And of course it matters how long you've been in the BPL. I could say Blackpool were a well run PL club, seen as Adam's career has now taken a nosedive it would seem they got a good deal for him at the right time, but they only managed it for ONE season, on that basis, you could say Swansea are as well run a club as Man Utd/Chelsea/Everton etc. Whereas in reality, they're not because they have not proven themselves over a sustained period of time.
