Fulham Transfer window - Ins & Outs

What lack of spending? We went from 5M in profits while having a top 10 wage bill, to an 18M loss the next year while maintaining a top 10 wage bill. The loss was largely attributed to a decrease in revenue from selling players. We bought in Ruiz that year. The next season we sell Dempsey, Dembele, etc while having the 11th highest wages (dropped in rank despite a 4M increase) and made a sizable profit in the window. Many have asked where the profit from those sales went. Probably was held to cover the losses of the previous year's transfers.

Whether you want to look at it from a sustainability perspective or from a staying within the Financial Fair Play regulations perspective, it works out the same. 5M profit, 18M loss, 17M (don't have the exact #, just estimating) profit. 2 out of 3 yrs profitable covers FFP. Net gain of 4M (again, estimated) fits the sustainability aims. As best as I can tell, remaining sustainable and staying within FFP guidelines run fairly parallel for Fulham. With FFP, academies and infrastructure growth are exempt. You can spend as much or as little as you like there, regardless of profitability. In fact, we have more wiggle room within FFP b/c of those exemptions and because if Khan wanted to increase the budget for wages, transfers or both out of his pocket, he can. You can go over the limit by up to 105M, as long as the owner covers 90M of that. That would put the club back in debt though. Not a big deal since the debt is owed to the owner, but it goes against our self-sustainability aims.

Getting back to your original point though. Looking at numbers from 2 years ago, we spent 78% of turnover on wages. Swansea spent 54%. That's 62M for Fulham and 35M for Swansea. If they spend 20M net in transfers in the window and we spend a net of 0, we're still outspending them (depending on changes to the wage bill obviously). We haven't failed to bring in players though, we just haven't spent much on transfer fees. Now if we want to question how well we've spent, acquiring say, 32 yo Scott Parker for 3M on relatively high wages (say 50K/wk) vs signing 24 yo Wilfried Bony for 12M on lower wages (say 35K/wk), that's fair. I have no clue on those wages, btw, just estimates based on age for the sake of providing an example. First off, Swansea were spending less than we were, so they had more money to invest in a player. Second, if we're on a budget in the hopes of making a profit each year, and we're close to maxed out due to our high wage bill, then we can't afford a 12M transfer fee. While I think our overall spending has been representative of a top 10 goal the last 5 years, I have concerns about the way we're spending.

This is why I was complaining about the short-sightedness of our approach. If we keep buying in players with no sell on value, we'll only ever have x amount to spend in the window b/c there's no profit coming in from selling players. We can't go over budget by 10M one year b/c there's no one we can sell for 10M down the road. And if the majority of our budget is tied up in wages, then we'll only ever be able to afford to buy a certain type of player each year. We'll either be searching for extreme diamond-in-the-rough types, like Dempsey for 2M, or we'll be getting players with little to no resale value (Parker). Throw in the fear of relegation b/c the side isn't performing or b/c of turnover due to age, and you really can't afford to do too much prospecting. Then throw in a manager who won't play young prospects over veterans and...well you see why I'm concerned.

Now all of this is a recent trend. We were taking losses and making profits in the window just a couple of years ago. But in the last 2 windows, we've gone to this wage heavy/fee light, by-the-book budget approach while harping on self-sustainability at every turn. Maybe it's not a change in philosophy but just a coincidence. I hope so. Because if it's not, if Jol's management doesn't get us relegated, this financial plan probably will.

Having said all of that, I feel the need to add a disclaimer. Financial reporting by US pro sports team and publishing of info by those that cover them is extensive and very available. It's not the same for UK football clubs. They're not as open about their finances and the coverage of the clubs is far more minimal and more prone to speculation. I've tried to stick with figures that I've found that cited Deloitte and Touche as a reference b/c they are reputable and the numbers are most likely accurate. But transfer fee and wage numbers aren't as easy to come by. We still don't know for sure what the fee was for Bryan Ruiz, for example, but I can tell you what it cost the Yankees to get ARod and what he makes annually. So there's definitely a bit of assumption and estimation in what I've put together and I tried to note that when I did it. I've tried to limit the assumptions and estimations to providing examples and not any statements of fact. But, yes, it's entirely possible that I've made errors and that my conclusion (that we're taking a poor approach to spending) is overstated. It could also be understated as well.

 

Interesting view points Matt in how the club is spending. A quick look at what the club did and you would say we've really bolstered the roster (not in all areas of need, but upgraded nonetheless). What is concerning though is have we improved the dressing room? By that I mean is the chemistry right? There was a malaise to the squad the final 2 months of the campaign, and it doesn't appear to have gotten any better to start this season (thank goodness for the flukey opening win).

 

My point was addressing your statement that "Fulham aren't in the money". In terms of overall spending on players, we're pretty much where I'd expect us to be and that's certainly good enough to push for a top 12 or better position. But yes, as we've both said, b/c we spend a high % of the overall on wages and haven't spent much recently in the transfer market there's little investment or long term vision on display.

When it comes to why, I would prefer that you are correct. The alternative is that the new owner perceives we've been successful and we stick with the status quo. It's too early to judge Khan or predict what he'll do, unfortunately. With the crap on the pitch and the threat of potential relegation, that makes patience hard to come by.

 

You are correct and I have not heard anything about what he wants to do beyond May. Haven't heard anything about the clubs intentions towards Martin beyond this season either. So you are saying there's hope?